PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Removed from table
Last Action Date: May 1, 2024
Shouting match leads to gun confiscation, forfeiture :: 01/26/2015
Andrew Cuomo’s New York appears to be a Constitution-free gulag, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Earlier this month, American Thinker reported on the lawsuit Montgomery v. Cuomo, which alleges that a retired police detective had his handguns confiscated by armed sheriff’s deputies, and his handgun permit permanently revoked, after seeking treatment for insomnia.
Now, another suit, filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, claims that a disabled FDNY firefighter injured on 9/11 had $100,000 worth of guns confiscated by police for shouting in his own home – and that the cops conspired to convert his guns into police department property without compensation.
The suit, Weinstein v. Krumpter, et. al., alleges that on Feb. 25, 2014, the plaintiff, Marc Weinstein, in his home, engaged in a dispute with his adult son “regarding the use of a washing machine. There was shouting between them but no violence, no threats of violence, and no brandishing of weapons” (emphasis mine). The elder Weinstein’s wife called the Nassau County, Long Island Police Department.
That turned out to be a big mistake.
The complaint contends that by the time police arrived, the dispute had been “peaceably resolved” and that “no arrests were made and no charges were filed.” However, a Nassau County police officer asked to see Weinstein’s handgun permit and requested that he turn over his registered handguns. Weinstein refused. Three hours later, five armed officers arrived at his residence without a warrant and demanded that unless Weinstein surrender $100,000 worth of handguns, long guns, and ammunition, he would be arrested. Weinstein alleged that he complied “under duress.”
The suit contends that no charges were ever filed against Weinstein and that both his wife and son gave sworn testimony to the effect that the dispute involved no violence, no threats, and no brandishing of weapons; nonetheless, Nassau County Police refused to give back Weinstein’s handgun permit, his handguns, or his long guns.
Even worse, the suit alleges that “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” (emphasis mine).
The suit names the acting commissioner, chief, several police officers, and the County of Nassau as defendants. It alleges violations of Weinstein’s First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeks the return of $100,000 worth of firearms, punitive damages of $1 million, and an additional $1 million for emotional distress damages.
You can read the full text of the case here.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/shouting_match_leads_to_gun_confiscation_forfeiture.html
