I do videos every day sometimes, multiple times a day, so check back, often physically check back because YouTube’s not going to tell you when I put out all this stuff because they don’t like the truth. Today, we’re diving into a major story out of New York. Yes, the state where gun owners already face some of the toughest laws in the nation, and now the worst governor ever in the history of the United States of America. I know a lot of people are like, wait, my govern is worse, but Kathy Hochul and the New York state legislature have just passed a law and she signed it that mandates firearm confiscation when police respond to domestic violence calls.

This is serious. Let me say that again. This is serious. If you don’t understand the gravity of this, literally, this makes a red flag extremely accessible. Follow me. It’s a change that can impact gun rights, due process, and every law abiding gun owner out there. We’re going to break it down here. We’re going to look at what the law actually says and what it means for gun owners, the constitutional questions, and there are many, and most importantly, what you should do right now. Let’s get into it. So here’s the deal. New York just passed new legislation that requires law enforcement, requires cops to temporarily seize firearms from an individual when they respond to a domestic violence or a family violence call.

It’s not just optional. There is no discretion. It’s mandated seizure under these calls for service. I will say this now. Having responded to thousands of domestic violence calls in my career, not all of them are legit, and it’s extremely easy to find yourself being called the aggressor in a domestic violence incident. That’s right. Sometimes they are used as weapons. Most of them are completely legitimate, and the victims are actually calling for help because they have no one else to turn to, but not all of them are legit. I’ll just leave it at that. Now, this new law requires cops to take your guns, period.

Specifically, if a victim expresses fear or the officers believe a weapon must be removed to prevent harm, then guns must be taken into custody. Do you understand how bad that is? Like, if you’re not somebody who follows civics and really doesn’t know what the Constitution says, you need to take five, ten minutes out of your life, stop doom-scrolling, and read the Constitution. It doesn’t take that long. This is really bad. Now, the timeframe for return of those firearms has been extended. Under New York’s previous version of their red flag laws, the cops had maybe two days.

Now, the minimum is five days before returning, if there are no legal hurdles to this. But that’s a minimum. That doesn’t say anything about a maximum. That’s a danger. And the law covers a broad range of weapons. Any firearm, rifle, shotgun, electric dart, stun gun, disguise gun, imitation gun, and antique firearms under certain rules. Now, in short, New York is shifting from you may seize in certain circumstances, you know, discretion, to you must seize when conditions are met. And that is a big leap. One of the key factors in law enforcement is discretion, right? It’s when a cop pulls you over and you get a warning, right? That’s discretion, meaning it’s not like Nazi Germany where the cops have to do what the bosses say.

There are only a few circumstances in which you shall arrest, right? So let’s put that aside. Think about that. Keep that in your mind. And let’s talk about the context here. Why is New York doing this? And why are they doing it now? Well, the stated goal is to reduce firearm involved domestic homicides. But between 2018 and 2022 in New York specifically, most cases of domestic violence in homicides involved knives or cutting instruments while firearms were used in about 34% of cases. So take the guns, don’t worry about cutting instruments. Now proponents argue that immediate removal of weapons when there is a credible threat is a common sense measure, a common sense safety measure to be specific.

It’s actually a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and the warrant requirement. So let me be clear here. For gun owners, activists, and Second Amendment advocates, this should raise huge red flags, no pun intended. Why? Because this kind of mandatory seizure also touches on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, and the slippery slope of what constitutes a threat or fear. Now remember, you do not have a right to be free from fear. Let me say that again for the people in the back.

You do not have a constitutional right to be free from fear. You do not have a constitutional right to be safe, and the government can’t keep you safe. But you do have the right to ensure your own safety. You have the right to keep yourself safe. So why are we trying to throw that right away? Why are we trying to let government take that from us? Also remember, in 2022, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruin decision by the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry arms outside the home.

So we’re operating in a legal environment where carry rights are being affirmed. They always say that gun rights are being expanded. No, no, no. They’re being reaffirmed. They were there already. Yet states are also passing new controls, new workarounds, and that tension is growing. It’s very real, and it’s very, very dangerous to the future of the Republic. Also remember that free men and free women do not ask for permission. Yeah, I said it. So let me speak to you gun owners straight. Let’s put it out there. If you own firearms in New York, or you’re tracking what this means nationally, here are some real concerns.

Number one, due process. This law gives cops the authority to seize guns before any formal hearing in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that means that your Second Amendment rights can be stripped before charges are even filed, before you have the opportunity to respond. That’s very troubling. Very, very troubling. You guys and gals really need to understand what your rights are, because if this country knew what our rights were, this crap wouldn’t be happening. We would not accept it. Number two, broad discretion. What constitutes fear or necessary for preventing harm is totally subjective. What one responding cop thinks is different from another.

And gun owners should be very concerned that officers’ subjective judgments could trigger seizures of guns from lawful owners who did nothing wrong. Number three is the impact on law-abiding gun owners. You know, we’re responsible, we haven’t broken any laws, just want to be left alone, but now your gun can be taken because of a domestic call. And if you’re not the primary subject, even if it’s not a real domestic violence call, I’m going to put that in quotations, a real domestic violence call. If you live in that home, you could be caught here in the net.

What do you mean, Jared? Well, this is how laws are actually applied. The people who write laws, they think they’re smarter than everybody else, was usually the kids that were bullied in school. When cops go into the home, this is how it works, to get called for a domestic. Well, I have to take the guns now. I get mom and pop, or pop and mom, who are arguing, maybe even fighting. But there’s other people in the home, other adults maybe, 18, 19, 20 year old, who knows, whatever, maybe a family member living there. Well, my new law says I don’t have discretion and I have to take the guns.

You live in this home, you have guns, I’m taking your stuff. I have to. The law says so. That’s a problem. That’s a big problem. And cops need to grab them and shake them and stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. Your job is to not enforce those orders. Period. I’ll leave that there, too, because there’s a lot to that. But there’s precedent here. Today, it’s domestic violence calls in New York. What about tomorrow? And what perversions will New York or California or any other state come up with next? Other states are watching. And if this law stands, it will pave the way for similar mandates in other jurisdictions.

And let me say, like, when the red flag craze was being pushed and started, people were like, oh, we just want to keep people safe. But now you can see the actual perversions by those in power who think that they have more control, take more guns, we’ll just do it this way. What about let’s add this. If people aren’t Yankee fans, we can take their guns. If people think the New York Jets suck, then we’ll take their guns. It’s that easy to just pervert this stuff. And if you don’t think other states are going to put this into play, you haven’t been paying attention.

Then there’s the legal retrieval issue. This is I think is huge. The law says five days minimum. There’s no maximum. And what about when you have to fight to get your guns back? You’ll have to pay legal fees. You’ll have to your own lawyer. You’ll have to navigate all this bureaucracy. That’s a real concern. It’s it’s being raised by advocacy groups, but nothing’s being done about it yet. And it is a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Again, read the damn Constitution. The bottom line here is keeping and bearing arms means more than buying a gun and having a permit if a state mandates a permit, which is also unconstitutional.

It means preserving the right from encroachment. And this law challenges that in a major way. Now, in fairness, this hurts me to do it, but in fairness, let’s walk through the pro control argument here. So that now we’re not just one sided, like let’s play devil’s advocate. Supporters say that domestic violence is a serious risk factor. When firearms enter the picture, the danger to victim skyrockets. And they say taking guns out of the equation during volatile situations can save lives. Jared speaking, what about arming and training the victims so that they are victims no more? Hmm.

Now, the proponents say that the law is temporary. The seizure is for a defined period. Five days minimum. And return is mandated if no legal bar exists. Well, Jared here. Well, let’s take all your stuff. If you’re in favor of this bill, this law, let’s just say that you’re in favor of violating my rights. So I’m going to take your stuff for a minimum of five days and I’ll make you fight in the courts to get it back. Sounds fair. Now, the proponents also say that it targets a specific problem set. Domestic violence calls rather than a blanket prohibition.

And some argue this is targeted rather than broad. But what if laws were passed that only targeted certain segments of free speech? Nobody would stand for that. Or certain ways to protect the practice of religion. Nobody would go with that, right? Or certain ways to gather and pass information. Well, we wouldn’t stand for that violation of any of our constitutional rights. For some reason, the most important one, the right to keep their arms. Man, people want to just tread all over that one. Got to ask yourself why. The takeaway is that the state’s framing is protecting vulnerable people is what they’re saying, right? And they want to say they would want to reduce risk and leverage law enforcement at the moment of crisis.

But here on my channel, Guns and Gadgets, you already know even protective legislation needs to be scrutinized when it impacts constitutional rights. You do not have a right to be free from fear. You do not have a right to be safe. You have the right to keep yourself safe. Now, let’s zoom out here and talk about the bigger implications. With the Bruin decision, the Second Amendment right is reinforced. When a state mandates seizure without a hearing, we enter a tough legal terrain. Will this survive a court challenge? I don’t know. Will it be struck down as unconstitutional? It should.

We’ll watch that closely here on the channel. This isn’t just about New York, because if this becomes accepted state policy there, other states will follow, especially those with gun control agendas. And we’ll need to monitor the ripple effect here and stay in the know. So subscribe to the channel. You know, guys, we have a community. We have rights. We have responsibilities. And this law signals the importance of staying politically active, not just buying gear, but actually being engaged in the right that allows you to buy that gear. Because they’re trying to take it all the time, day and night, every single day.

Government shutdown? No, they’re always looking to take your guns. Now, the proponents here will continue to frame this as a common sense safety. But the challenge for us is to frame this as preserving rights under the Constitution. That’s our fight back, pushing back. We’re preserving constitutional rights. And that safety should never come at the price of due process. If you’re watching this channel, I know you care about your Second Amendment rights. And this law is a red flag that’s like no other. And the next move here matters. Stay alert. Stay active. Let your voice be heard.

Share this video. We need America to know about this. Let your friends know, because what happens in one state is the template for others, including yours. At Guns and Gadgets, I am committed to keeping you informed, not just the headlines, but what it actually means for you. So let me ask you this. What is your view on this new law? Are you concerned that search mandates threaten your rights to keep and bear arms? Or do you think this could be a model for protecting victims? Drop your thoughts in the comments down below and let’s talk about it.

If you found this video helpful or informative, please, because YouTube hates the channel, please hit the thumbs up button. Please share it with someone that needs to know it. Share it on your other forums off the platform. And don’t forget to subscribe to this channel for daily updates on our right to keep and bear arms. I’ll see you next time. Stay free, stay armed, and stay ready. Take care, America. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.