A2938, Please Immediately Tell Assembly Members to Vote No 3/23/17

4 posts in this topic

On Thursday, March 23, the full Assembly is scheduled for a floor vote on an amended version of A2938. The bill is a reappearance of legislation defeated by ANJRPC and NRA in 2013, which in its original form would have allowed marriage counselors, social workers, nurses, and other unaccountable health professionals to report protected patient information to the Attorney General, resulting in seizure of their patients' firearms without due process, if they "believed" the patient was a danger to themselves or others. 


At an unusually lengthy committee hearing last September at which ANJRPC, NRA, and NSSF testified, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the legislation was seriously flawed and Democrats said they would attempt to address the issues raised. 
Recent floor amendments to A2938 added due process in the form of a court order before firearms could be taken, and limited when reporting could be made (either when a patient makes threats of imminent physical violence, or when a reasonable practitioner would conclude that an act of serious physical violence is imminent). The amendments also changed the reporting authority from the Attorney General to local law enforcement.
However, the amendments created an entirely new issue -- allowing firearms seized under the amended provisions to subsequently be disposed of as a complete forfeiture without any compensation to the owner. Only in the case of the worst criminal misconduct is forfeiture of property authorized and indeed, even in the domestic violence setting, seized firearms are not forfeited and there is a defined process for them to be sold by the legal owner. Applying forfeiture provisions to persons who have sought counseling is as absurd as it is outrageous and unfair.
Even as amended the legislation still allows unaccountable health professionals to violate patient confidences and threaten property rights. The net effect of A2938 will be to discourage those who need help the most from seeking it.
Please immediately tell every Assembly Member to Vote NO on A2938. Tell them that the January floor amendments outrageously and unfairly allow the forfeiture of seized firearms without compensation, and that unaccountable health professionals should not be empowered to violate patient confidences and threaten property rights. Tell them that the unintended consequence of A2938 even as amended will be to discourage those who need help the most from seeking it in the first place. 
Legislator contact information is available by clicking here.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By Cereza
      A2938: Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others.  Last Session Bill Number: A674      Jones, Patricia Egan   as Primary Sponsor Mosquera, Gabriela M.   as Primary Sponsor   2/16/2016 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee 9/22/2016 Reported out of Assembly Committee, 2nd Reading   Full Bill PDF: Statement PDF:   Committee Voting: ALP  9/22/2016  -  r/favorably  -  Yes {5}  No {3}  Not Voting {1}  Abstains {0}    Benson, Daniel R. © - Yes  Danielsen, Joe (V) - Yes  Barclay, Arthur - Yes  Carroll, Michael Patrick - No  Chaparro, Annette - Yes  Peterson, Erik - No  Pinkin, Nancy J. - Yes  Rible, David P. - No  Sumter, Shavonda E. - Not Voting  
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Besides the obviously qualified psychologist or psychiatrist (that part I agree with), who else should get carte blanche (guaranteed immunity from civil liability) to send off names and addresses to the Ministry of Love Attorney General for firearm confiscation?  
  • Posts

    • I like them too. But then I shot an M&P.
    • I am a "Glock Guy" through and through but they are not the only ones I own. I have 4 Glocks: 23, 27, 30 and 35. I carry one everyday for work, when I'm not at work I shoot my 35 for competition and that has been my go to gun for over 10 years now. I carry the 27 90% of the time away from and I just bought the 30. However there are so many great company's out there and most gun guys I know that are "Glock Guys" all have a 1911 and a few others in their collections. If i'm not wearing the 27 you will find a Springfield XDs .45acp tucked in my waist band.
    • Just signed up and just found out about this site. I am an avid shooter and try to shoot 3-4 times a month at a minimum. I use to shoot competition and am looking to get back into it. Looking forward using this forum to its fullest!
    • My poor choice of words.  The substantially identical features don't really apply to the M1 Carbine which is banned by name and type.  There are only a few guns on the list banned by type.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.