A NY firefighter, injured during the 9/11 response, has $100,000 worth of guns taken, and his permit revoked after an argument with his son.

From the article:

“it is the policy of the ... Nassau County Police Department to confiscate all firearms with regard to any domestic disturbance call, whether such call is valid or not ... and once confiscated to prevent the return of such firearms on any pretense that can be imagined, and either destroying said firearms or converting them to the Department’s use without compensation to the owner”

I guess it wasn't enough for them to take away a retired NYPD cop's gun and permit after seeking treatment for insomnia......

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/shouting_match_leads_to_gun_confiscation_forfeiture.html#ixzz3PxjDkKpg
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

There are also numerous jurisdictions where a TRO is sufficient grounds for confiscation. Said TRO is normally issued without any due process (or input of any kind) for/from the accused, and issued solely upon a statement from the allegedly aggrieved. The way things are going, before too long a facial expression ("the look") will be sufficient grounds for confiscation. For the children. Or something.

There's probably a bill in the new batch before the Hawaii legislature right now to accomplish just that, but my brain is going to have to recover from reading the 15 that I just read before I can read more... maybe tomorrow.

While I agree that a TRO is often baseless and the consequences to firearms owners devastating and leaves little recourse, at least there is SOME procedure, some legal recourse.

This sounds like it's the Police's policy (not law, policy) and that the policy is enforced whether the call out was valid or not. So, by their standard, they go to a call, turns out to be bogus, they take your guns anyways and then prevent you from getting them back so they can pick out the choice ones for their own use and then destroy the rest. And they admit that! WTF!!

How can that possibly stand up to legal scrutiny?

How can that possibly stand up to legal scrutiny?

The same way the unconstitutional rights-infringing laws of Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, etc. stand up? I won't outline my hypothesis because it involves too many swear words. 

Here they could confiscate guns if the officer reasonably believed they were used or would be used in a domestic violence type incident but not merely an argument. That is pretty crazy.

NRA needs to be all over this. They should be filing a court case.

Here they could confiscate guns if the officer reasonably believed they were used or would be used in a domestic violence type incident but not merely an argument. That is pretty crazy.

No, they could not.

  [§134-7.5]  Seizure of firearms in domestic abuse situations; requirements; return of.  (a)  Any police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has recently assaulted or threatened to assault a family or household member may seize all firearms and ammunition that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offense. 

An officer cannot "predict" that someone might use a firearm and therefore seize it. It must have been used, or threatened to have been used, in order to be seized.

No, they could not.

  [§134-7.5]  Seizure of firearms in domestic abuse situations; requirements; return of.  (a)  Any police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has recently assaulted or threatened to assault a family or household member may seize all firearms and ammunition that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offense. 

An officer cannot "predict" that someone might use a firearm and therefore seize it. It must have been used, or threatened to have been used, in order to be seized.

Sorry I was trying to get at the threatened to be used. I guess I failed to make that clear, thanks for clarifying.