Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
First of all, I would again like to thank the Cape Charles Mirror for being egalitarian (relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities) and for presenting diverse opinions on this question of what is being called “gun control” in America right now.
A serious part of that debate has to do with denying access to guns to those deemed by somebody, obviously someone in a position of power, to be mentally ill and dangerous.
I am one of those who knows that in corrupt New York State, falsely accusing people of being mentally ill and dangerous is a political weapon, so I am asking those who are for that, and they are many, how that will not be abused by a government that does not want its citizens to have access to guns for political reasons, largely because the government does not trust its citizens, and to date, there has been no answer, which I find unacceptable, especially in the light of McKay v. New York.
We were introduced to McKay v. New York in here by our dear friend tkenny @ April 4, 2018 at 11:21 pm, as follows:
On February 26, 2018, the Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. of the Western District Court of New York released his Decision and Order in the federal civil rights case of Donna McKay vs. the State of New York.
The victory for those like Donna, who are falsely accused of having been “involuntarily committed,” is in the dismissal of her case.
Victims of this systematic, false reporting by New York State to the FBI now have a clear course of legal action in county and federal courts to restore their Second Amendment and property rights.
And let’s stop right there, people, and scroll back to the words “(V)ictims of this systematic, false reporting by New York State to the FBI,” where “systematic” means “done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.”
Now, that is our dear friend tkenny saying that, not myself, and in doing so, he does in fact validate what I have been saying about New York, which is that it abuses the process of declaring who is mentally ill and dangerous for political reasons, and so, cannot be trusted with that determination in connection with our 2d Amendment rights.
Where is the fail-safe against abuse, I want to know from tkenny and Cameron Kasky and David Hogg, and to date, no answers are forthcoming, only the sounds of silence.
Getting back to tkenny @ April 4, 2018 at 11:21 pm, he continued as follows, which in its turn led to this essay: “You see, the system can correct itself.”
“Some laws need a little tweaking because of unseen circumstances.”
And no, tkenny, it is not a little tweaking – it is a whole lot of tweaking as we shall soon see.
So let us go without further ado to “Matter of License To Carry a Pistol Issued to Donna L. McKay,” 2016 NY Slip Op 26180 Decided on June 7, 2016 County Court, Yates County Falvey, J. published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431, decided on June 7, 2016, County Court, Yates County, State of New York, as follows:
The respondent, age 38 (DOB: xx/xx/1977) was issued a license (CW 08-03) to carry a pistol on March 12, 2008.
This Court, by Order to Show Cause dated April 14, 2015 ordered the respondent to appear on May 19, 2015, to show cause why an order should not be made revoking her pistol permit and prohibiting her from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun as a result of the court’s receipt of a notice purportedly pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) § 9.46 from the New York State Police that the respondent had been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution which prohibited her from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4), Penal Law §§400.00(1)(i)(j),(m), (11)(a-c).
Now, this is not some made-up story from some TV show.
This is something that happened in real life to one of our fellow American citizens (out of many, we are one), it is horrible to contemplate, and I want an answer from tkenny, Cameron Kasky and David Hogg as to how they intend to prevent a recurrence of this.
Getting back to that court decision, we have as follows:
The respondent’s pistol permit was suspended and her firearms, to include all handguns, rifles and/or shotguns, were placed in the custody of the Yates County Sheriff subject to further order of the Court.
In another thread, tkenny mocks us for thinking the government will come and confiscate people’s weapons, and yet, here is a case of it right here that cannot be denied.
Getting back to McKay, we have:
The Yates County Clerk’s Office received notice by letter from the New York State Police dated April 13, 2015, stating that respondent “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution,” citing 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4) (Exhibit 5).
The Court was in turn advised by the clerk of same and the Court then issued the subject order to show cause.
There is what tkenny would have us believe is sufficient due process of law to protect our rights, to which I reply hogwash.
That is no protection whatsoever.
Getting back to the Court’s version of the fact, we have:
The focus of the hearing was thus to determine whether or not the respondent had been adjudicated as a mental defective or had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution and whether or not she should be prohibited from possessing firearms, rifles, shotguns or handguns.
In addition, if not prohibited to possess same under the federal statute, whether the Court in its discretion had good cause to revoke her license to possess a handgun. [P. L. §400.00(11)(a)].
So, people, is this trivial, as tkenny would have us believe?
Or is this serious business?
Getting back to McKay:
New York State Police Investigator Chad A. Hunt testified that the State Police had received notification about Ms. Mc Kay from the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) (Ex 5).
The notice dated April 11, 2015, via the “EjusiceNY portal” contains McKay’s indentifying information and under “Prohibitory Category Code (PCA) states “D – Adjudicated mental defective/Committed to Mental Institution”.
McKay’s pistol permit number is stated under “Saved Case Notes” (Ex. 5).
There, people is the process that tkenny wants us to adopt as a national model in this country, and if the young people in this country succeed in loading the Congress with anti-2d Amendment Progressive Democrats this mid-term election, and Young Andy Cuomo of New York in 2020 as president, whose law this is, it will be the national model, with all of its quite serious flaws.
Getting back to McKay:
Hunt did not know the basis of the notification that was received by the State Police.
OMH provided no supporting documents, affidavits or any records to support the alleged determination by OMH that Ms McKay was a mental defective or that she had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.
Having been victimized by this same system, to me, this is something out of Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, and yet, this happened right here in America.
Getting back to the horror story here that tkenny would wish to have replicated all across America to appease David Hogg and Cameron Kasky, the school shooting survivors from Parkland, Florida, we have:
As a result, James E. Sherman, technical Lieutenant, Pistol Permit Bureau, NY State Police wrote a letter dated April 13, 2015 to Yates County Clerk Julie D. Bettes, that “The Division of State Police has become aware that a person identified as Donna L. McKay… has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.”
The Court notes that Sherman’s notice did not state the basis on which this conclusion was drawn.
The only basis was that somebody said so – nothing more was needed.
So what does McKay have to say for herself?
Let’s take a look and see:
On April 7, 2015 McKay voluntarily went to the emergency room (ER) at Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital in Penn Yan, NY, seeking admission to the psychiatric floor of the hospital.
She went there because she had been feeling anxious after starting on some cold medicine with codeine she had been prescribed a few days earlier for bronchitis.
When she started taking the cough medicine, she felt very hot, was sweating, her blood pressure dropped.
She called an ambulance and was administered fluids.
She believes that these events triggered a panic attack which caused her to go the ER on April 7, 2015.
For that, she was going to be adjudicated by the State Police as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, which is dangerous bull**** to this American citizen.
Getting back to McKay:
She has been having panic attacks for about twenty years.
She usually would talk to her family physician about these attacks.
At one point he had suggested to her that during an anxiety attack, she might consider going to the mental health floor of the hospital for a couple of days as a respite.
She had this advice in mind when she went to the ER on April 7, 2015, seeking to be admitted to the mental health unit at the hospital, which is a restricted, “secured” area.
Some time before April 7, 2015, McKay had started seeing Karen Brennan, LCSW-R to help her plan for her twenty year old autistic son who was transitioning from living with her and her husband and siblings at home, to living in a group home.
This transition was triggering her anxiety, and so she thought this counseling would be helpful to her.
Ms. Brennan had helped her in planning for this transition.
After McKay saw Ms. Brennan shortly before April 7, 2015, Ms. Brennan apparently spoke with the hospital ER staff and told them of concerns she had that McKay was having suicidal thoughts.
However, McKay had not had such thoughts, and denied telling Ms Brennan that she had such thoughts.
McKay recalls speaking to ER personnel and questioning them whether she could be admitted even though she was not having suicidal thoughts.
What a swamp this woman then got herself mired in, as we see from the following:
Dr. Marino was McKay’s treating physician while she was at the hospital.
She met with him the morning of April 8, 2015.
In his written evaluation, he concluded that she was anxious, but not suicidal, that her thinking was without psychotic symptoms, past or present, and there was no evidence of any formal thought disorder.
He found her insight to be good (Ex 1).
The “Violence Risk Assessment” completed at the hospital showed that she had a very low risk of violence (Ex 3).
Sometime before McKay’s discharge, Dr. Marino made an on line report in compliance with the NY Safe Act [MHL §9.46(b)] that she had entered the mental health unit.
It was this report that triggered the Safe Act report that the State Police eventually sent to the Court and to the Yates County Clerk.
The SAFE Act is Young Andy Cuomo’s gun control law in NYS, that among other things, bans the AR-15 rifle for sale in NYS.
Let’s take a further look at it:
Dr. Marino testified that “every person that comes into the Mental Health Unit is registered, and I sign that they’ve come into the Hospital” (T 32).
He testified that the document that he checks off does not indicate whether or not the patient has been determined to have been involuntarily admitted or that she has a mental defect (T 32-33).
Dr. Marino did not recall the exact wording of the form, but he said there was not an option on the form that he could check “whether they were involuntarily or voluntarily, or committed, or deficient, or anything else, it’s just a generated – computer generated form that the patient was in, the day and time that I saw them.”
“But it does not give me — it does not allow for anything other than that they were admitted” (T 36).
Dr, Marino testified further, ” I am signing it every day, every patient that comes into the Hospital, and it’s a generic form that does not call for their diagnosis, does not call for any differentiation, whether they’re in Hospital voluntarily, or involuntary, just that they came into the Hospital, the date, and I signed that” (T 37).
There it is, people, tkenny’s safeguard of our 2d Amendment rights, which is no safeguard at all.
And that is considered the model gun control law for the nation to adopt.
If you want that to happen to your neighbor, or maybe someone in your own family, then you know what you have to do to make that happen.
Make Young Andy’s SAFE ACT the law of the land, and my goodness, I bet all kinds of gun owners will find themselves in the same position as Donna McKay.
If you are not for that, your work has now gotten a whole lot harder.
So, America, what side are you on?
The candid world would like to know.
Paul the next time you want to use my name in an opinion piece, ask. The Bill of Rights has 27 amendments, apparently it needed some adjustments too.
Again, the error has been addressed, so this is much ado about nothing. If you’re interested here is a link that explains the case, concisely – https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/ny-court-decision-legal-action-restore-2a-rights/#axzz5C5SVkQyO
Todd Holden says
You are a whiny, little person. We would have bullied you to tears in school, all the way to graduation. In fact, I would bully you at work or in your community today.
Now there is a very adult response. Isn’t it around nap time for you?
Todd Holden says
I do not use your judgment as my barometer reading of adult or child-like behavior. Yes, I enjoyed a nap, this afternoon, after I enjoyed a lovely woman. Thanks for your concern…and we would have enjoyed bullying you.
Paul Plante says
Ask what, tkenny?
Don’t use my name in your opinion piece, understand? You were told about that from someone else before.
Paul Plante says
“Don’t use my name in your opinion piece, understand?”
WTF is up with that, tkenny, all the hostility, I mean?
Isn’t there already enough hostility in the world, tknny, without you adding more to it in here?
And frankly, tkenny, it sounds like some kind of crazy talk.
And what about this: “You were told about that from someone else before.”
When was that?
And why would somebody else be telling me to not use your name in my op-ed, when the position you have taken in this gun control debate is the central topic of the op-ed?
Was I getting warned off for some reason?
“P’sssst, hey, buddy, you know what’s good for you, don’t ever use the name tkenny in any of your op-eds, or you’ll be sorry!”
Is that the warning you were referring to?
If it is, I blew it off.
Sorry, but that is just me, you know.
And tkenny, to clarify matters here for our readers who are positively shocked by your vehemence above here and your threatening tone and think it out of character for you, but now are uncertain, under what obscure rules you operate here in the public domain totally eludes me.
Truthfully, it does.
As for me, the rules I operate under here in the public domain when debating Constitutional issues as we are doing in here, where I treat you with the greatest of courtesy as befits your station as a Southern gentleman, in emulation of the conduct towards each other of those who participated in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, are those used by such luminaries of those times such as John Jay, or Noah Webster, or Alexander Hamilton and Jemmy Madison in the Federalist Papers, which were written and published responses to the political writings of others on the subject of government, just as we are doing in here.
So of course I am going to mention your name when I say what it is that you said about amending or gutting the Constitution that I am responding to in here, because but for you, tkenny, I would have had nothing to write about, and it is important for people just entering this debate to know the important background, which starts with and includes you as the star witness.
You see what I am saying?
david cowan says
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments. None of those amendments has been repealed or modified.
The Bill of Rights does NOT have 27 Amendments. It has ZERO amendments.
Paul Plante says
Thank you for making that point, David Cowan, which used to be taught in grade school in this country as I recall it.
I try to remember a time when I did not know that, but I can’t.
And I just checked on a children’s American government website, and nothing has changed:
The Bill of Rights itself cannot be changed.
The term refers to the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution.
That is why it is called the BILL of RIGHTS!
I thought all Americans were supposed to know that.
But I guess not.
David Cowan says
It’s not just New York, and it’s not just guns.
I hope this young man ends up wealthy, and that cop is looking for a new job.
Trooper Joseph Drew had pulled a car over for tailgating and said he smelled marijuana. When a search of the car turned up nothing, he handcuffed the driver and told him to step out of the vehicle.
The trooper is then seen pulling on blue latex gloves, reaching into the driver’s underwear, and groping his genitals and buttocks while the two stand on Route 206 in Southampton, Burlington County. All the while, trucks and cars pass by on the busy highway.
In the video, the driver can be heard protesting that he is being sexually assaulted as the trooper repeatedly touches his genitals during a four-minute search of the man’s underwear.
Paul Plante says
It is indeed interesting and quite revealing that our dear friend and debating opponent tkenny is “Johnny-on-the-spot” in here to tell us that nothing happened here, there is nothing to see here, people, so everybody get back down in your basements and let the authorities do what they know best, which is keeping us all safe, which is bull****.
Something did happen here, and our dear friend tkenny wants to sweep it under the rug.
Cui bono (who benefits), as the Romans would ask?
And that answer is not civilized society here in the United States of America.
What happened here happened because of New York State governor and Progressive Democrat Young Andy Cuomo’s SAFE Act, which is a poorly written piece of crap Young Andy rammed through in New York state after another school shooting in America gave him the crisis he was then able to exploit by getting this piece of crap made law.
And why is this relevant in Virginia, then, or anywhere else in America for that matter?
Let’s take a look and see.
Let’s start with an article from the New York Daily News entitled “Cuomo touts SAFE act as model for U.S. after Florida shooting” by Kenneth Lovett, on Thursday, February 15, 2018, as follows:
ALBANY — A tough 2014 gun control law enacted in New York has resulted in 75,000 mentally ill people being dubbed by the state as too dangerous to own a firearm, Gov. Cuomo announced Thursday.
75,000 people in New York State under Progressive Democrat and 2020 Democrat party presidential contender and prospective front-runner Young Andy Cuomo as governor have been “dubbed” by the state as being “mentally ill” and too dangerous to own a firearm, and this Donna McKay just happened to be one of them, which should be a chilling thought to every American citizen, whether they are for guns or not, because what happened to Donna McKay, despite tkenny sloughing it off as nothing to be concerned about, was monstrous and a gross injustice, for which the State of New York suffered exactly no consequences, at all.
The flawed and poorly written SAFE Act remains just as poorly written and flawed as it ever was.
Getting back to the Daily News article:
Cuomo pushed through the SAFE Act in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six school staffers.
Among the provisions was the banning of assault weapons like the AR-15 used in the Florida school shooting this week and a requirement that mental health providers report to the state if they deem a patient a serious threat to the public or themselves.
As of December, 75,000 mentally ill people were placed in a state database designed to keep guns out of the hands of unstable and dangerous people, Cuomo said.
One of those people the opportunist Young Andy Cuomo was calling “unstable and dangerous” just happened to be Donna McKay, who was not unstable and dangerous, at all, but because the SAFE Act pushed through by Young Andy in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was such a poorly-written piece of crap, Donna McKay’s name ended up on that list where it never should have been, but for Young Andy Cuomo, who has been absolved of all responsibility here by the courts.
Yes, tkenny, the State of New York got to skate, which thrills you greatly, does it not?
Getting back to the Daily News:
“The horrific shooting at a school in Florida once again has this nation asking how Congress can in good conscience continue to turn a blind eye to the dangers of gun violence,” Cuomo said.
“It’s time this nation followed New York’s lead and passed smart gun safety legislation that keeps guns away from those who will use them for evil.”
“Too many children have died because of Washington’s failure to act.”
Except as this case clearly demonstrates, at least to those with eyes to see and a functioning brain, New York state did not pass smart gun safety legislation – it passed an unjust law that was poorly written so as to allow injustice to occur.
Should that be the national model, people?
The choice is yours.
What will it be?
Again Paul, what’s the point? The law was amended. It was amended on the Federal side, the side Andy has no power over. What should the national model be, Paul? What’s the answer? Always, asking the question but never offering up an answer/ possible solution. Funny, you said you were for gun control but yet all we see you do if scoff at any attempts. You are just here to show off that superior intellect ( that was sarcasm, if you didn’t read it that way)
Paul Plante says
Are we talking the same case here, tkenny?
It appears not.
And that link you sent us to is a crap spew by the attorney who got her case dismissed, and who was made a fool of in footnote #2 at p. 2 of the decision, as follows:
Unless otherwise noted, all facts are drawn from the Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1)
The Court notes, that throughout the thirty-three page Complaint, Plaintiff’s factual narrative is presented out of sequence and interwoven with arguments, statistics, and broad based statements like “(t)he Second Amendment is the modern civil rights movement.”
See ECF at No. 1, at 12.
With that in mind, the Court feels it appropriate to remind Plaintiff of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which instructs that a pleading “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim.”
That, tkenny is hardly flattering to the attorney, who did not win anything here, despite the misleading puff piece you are trying to distract us with.
Look at the Court’s conclusion, tkenny:
For the reasons stated, the State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this case.
Donna McKay got the boot, tkenny – tossed out of court.
She did not win anything, and in fact, was humiliated by the Court.
As to her supposed “victory,” as it was reported by that attorney seeking additional clients with that misleading puff piece you referred us to, this is what the Court stated at p.7, to wit:
Plaintiff seeks correction of the erroneous “involuntary” classification reported by the State to the NCIS. ECF No. 1, at 31.
However, the State explains that the requested correction has already been made: “The hospital changed their records from involuntary admission to voluntary admission.”
“That information has been transmitted to New York State who has corrected their records and transmitted the change to the Federal government.” ECF No. 7-2, at 4-5; see also ECF No. 7-1, at 1-2; ECF No. 13-1.
As a result, Plaintiff has already received the entirety of her requested relief – the state has corrected her classification and communicated that change to the federal government.
The Court’s conclusion again was, “Plaintiff’s claims fail to present a live case or controversy for the Court to resolve.”
She won nothing, tkenny, and no laws were changed at any level, nor was the State of New York restrained in any way by the Court from engaging in this same conduct with others.
Yes, ultimately after some expense in terms of having to buy her rights back from a lawyer in her first county court hearing, and then more legal expenses in the federal proceeding, where she got her *** tossed out of court, she got her guns back, and her name cleared.
As to the legal expenses she incurred, the Court said this in footnote #5 at p.7, to wit:
Plaintiff also requests attorney’s fees under 18 USC § 925A. ECF No. 1, at 31.
An interest in attorney’s fees cannot confer jurisdiction where the underlying claim is moot.
The point is that anybody without the money to buy the attorney with has no rights, tkenny, that is the point, although from your ideological perspective, you will never see it as such.
In your scenario, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people having to buy back their rights from a lawyer, while to me, that is obscene and monstrous.
And the point is that it never should have happened.
The point is that Young Andy Cuomo’s SAFE Act is not safe as far as our Constitutional rights go, nor is Young Andy Cuomo to be trusted with our rights, because he is not trustworthy.
So you are wrong, tkenny, no law was amended.
As to what the national model should be, tkenny, beats the hell out of me.
I know what it shouldn’t be, and why, which is what this thread is about.
So, what’s the answer?
Keep Young Andy Cuomo out of the White House, and the anti-2d Amendment Progressive Democrats out of power in America.
And I am for gun control, tkenny.
People like you should not have access to guns, but you know what, tkenny, I have not yet found a way to keep them from you that does not violate your Constitutional rights.
When I do find a way to restrict your access to firearms of any sort, I will be the first to let you know.
Hmm, I dunno Paul should I believe the interpretation of the case from a Associate Public Health Engineer or should I lean towards that “crap attorney”
You know the one who is “… an Attorney and Policy Analyst with a focus on Second Amendment litigation, representing individuals, activist organizations, and FFLs. Who’s work spans individual handgun permit cases to federal civil rights litigation. A common theme among her cases is putting an end to government secrecy, whether the NICS-to-TSDB program by the FBI, the ISARS database of the NYS Police, or any number of Freedom of Information requests. Admitted to practice in New York in 1992, has more than 20 years of litigation experience at the trial and appellate levels ”
Hmm, a very tough decision.
Paul Plante says
tkenny, check out my own litigation record, which includes beating the venerable New York State Attorney at the appellate level here in New York State, based on the strength of my legal briefs compared to the crap put out by those fancy hack lawyers.
And then beating the corrupt Rensselaer County District Attorney in criminal court after being accused of a range of crimes after I was the victim of a politically-motivated hit-and-run assault, where I was accused of hitting the assailant’s vehicle with my body.
And I read cases, tkenny, not bull**** propaganda intended to suck in even more suckers like Donna McKay.
Have you bothered to read the actual Court decision that I am quoting from above here?
Or just the lawyerette’s hype?
Just curious is all.
Paul Plante says
You’re in the legal trade.
You know that word, don’t you?
It is a word used by judges and it means using or containing too many words; tediously lengthy.
The judge was chiding (scold or rebuke) the lawyerette, you know, the one who is “… an Attorney and Policy Analyst with a focus on Second Amendment litigation, representing individuals, activist organizations, and FFLs who’s work spans individual handgun permit cases to federal civil rights litigation with a common theme among her cases being putting an end to government secrecy, whether the NICS-to-TSDB program by the FBI, the ISARS database of the NYS Police, or any number of Freedom of Information requests, admitted to practice in New York in 1992, and has more than 20 years of litigation experience at the trial and appellate levels, for being prolix in that footnote.
Aren’t first-year law students warned about being prolix, tkenny?
You know that old law school saw that brings on titters and guffaws from first-year law students when some cool and worldly member of the faculty reminds them to always be brief because the judge is a lawyer with an IQ of 48 who can’t read big words?
In this case, tkenny, your lawyerette was prolix, and so she p****d off the judge, to the detriment of her client.
She got her client’s civil rights lawsuit dismissed, and beyond that, she gave the corrupt State of New York a golden opportunity to further harden its position against citizen lawsuits by giving it the opportunity to plead Eleventh Amendment Immunity, to wit:
Beyond the issues of standing and mootness, the State also asserts its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See ECF No. 7.
The Eleventh Amendment bars federal claims against states, absent their consent to such suits or an express statutory waiver of immunity.
Plaintiff argues that the State cannot assert its Eleventh Amendment immunity – she claims that the State’s Eleventh Amendment argument “cannot be made in a motion to dismiss” on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, and she cites Rule 12(h) to contend that “Defendant waived any defense concerning jurisdiction.” ECF No. 10-3, at 31.
Plaintiff is incorrect.
That is your fancy lawyerette being schooled there, tkenny.
Very amateurish, don’t you think, tkenny?
For those wondering what claims were made, and then dismissed, the Introduction states as follows:
Plaintiff Donna McKay brings this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant State of New York (“the State”) for erroneous reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) and alleged Constitutional violations. See ECF No. 1.
Specifically, Plaintiff invokes the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to assert a right to counsel for indigent litigants in license hearings related to mental health, and she invokes the Fourteenth Amendment to assert a right to notification of NICS reporting by the State.
As was stated above, both of those claims were tossed in the judicial ******* by the Obama judge in western New York.
New York State, which has a long, well-documented history of using supposed “mental illness” as a potent political weapon against its citizens, including myself, as tkenny well knows, emerged completely unscathed, free to commit that same abuse over and over and over again.
None of that abuse was ended by this bogus lawsuit.
And that is what this thread is about – those who want people labeled as “mentally ill” so they can’t have access to guns had better come up with a foolproof system to prevent abuses such as happened here if they want support.
But they won’t, because they can’t, and really, don’t care to.
They don’t like guns.
They don’t want people to have guns.
So they are very tolerant if these people end up getting abused by an abusive system.
I’m not, especially as a victim of that abuse, myself.
Hence, the ideological differences in here between tkenny and myself.
Paul Plante says
So, to recap here, for anyone just stopping by, what happened here to this woman Donna McKay, an American citizen with rights, or so she thought, like you and me, or so we too think, is told by the federal district court as follows:
On or about April 7, 2015, Plaintiff (Donna McKay) sought voluntary admission to the mental health unit of Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital.
Her stay lasted less than twelve hours – she sought treatment for an adverse reaction to cough medicine, and she left the next day, when she felt better.
That 12-hour stay at her own request began for her a legal nightmare, so that she could get her lawfully owned property back from the State of New York.
The nightmare for her began right here:
At the time of her admission, Plaintiff confirmed that she had firearms in her house.
Upon learning that information, the treating physician reported Plaintiff’s stay to the State, pursuant to his understanding of New York’s Secure Ammuniti0n and Firearm’s Enforcement (“SAFE”) Act, N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 9.46(b).
So why should anybody outside of New York State give a damn?
Good question, and for an answer, let’s take a look at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle article “Offer ‘real solution’ on gun control, Cuomo tells Democrats” by Joseph Spector, Albany Bureau Chief, published Feb. 23, 2018, for some guidance, as follows:
Gov. Andrew Cuomo called out his own party over the gun-control debate, saying national Democrats should lay out their own plan.
Cuomo, speaking with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday night, said Democrats in Washington should propose their own package of bills in the wake of the Florida school shootings Feb. 14, saying it would be a way to move toward a compromise with Republicans who control Congress.
“I would like to see the national Democrats, frankly, put forth a real bill that defines the problem in actuality and defines a legislative solution in actuality, rather than starting to talk about, well, the best we can get,” Cuomo, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, said.
“Tell the American people what the real problem is.”
“Tell them what the real solution is.”
“Put it out there.”
Cuomo has cited New York’s SAFE Act passed in 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting as a model.
Stop the press for a second here!
As this story clearly shows, that SAFE Act of Young Andy Cuomo’s is seriously flawed when it comes to people being falsely accused of being mentally ill and dangerous, which then strips them of their Second Amendment rights, just like that.
And Young Andy isn’t waiting until he is in the White House to get his seriously-flawed SAFE Act made into the national model.
According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island have formed their own coalition Thursday to fight gun violence, saying they will better share law-enforcement data.
“If the federal government won’t act and you can’t get a 50-state solution, well then get what you can and start with state coalitions — and that’s exactly what we’re doing now,” Cuomo said.
Getting back to the SAFE Act, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle article continues as follows:
It bans assault-style weapons and has a database of mentally ill people who cannot buy guns.
A database of mentally ill people who can’t buy guns.
HOLY COW – Andy Cuomo is the man, he alone has the courage to safe us from mentally ill people with a gun.
Let’s make him president.
But wait a minute, what am I talking there – Young Andy had Donna McKay on his list, of people who can’t buy guns, and she was not mentally ill and dangerous.
So she was harmed by the SAFE Act, as are some 500,000 other people in New York State according to her lawsuit.
Said the Court in response: The fact that others may face similar situations does not negate the mootness of Plaintiff’s individual claim (to get her name removed from the list of those whom cannot own guns).
In the Court’s decision, the Court noted that as follows in the Background:
Following the treating physician’s report, on April 13, 2015, the New York State Police issued a letter stating that Plaintiff had been involuntarily committed and was therefore barred from possessing firearms under federal law.
And the nightmare thus began.
So, is that what we really want for our national model?
The choice is yours, afterall.