New Law Mandating Gun Confiscation Signed Into Effect Immediately

According to News10NBC, Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed a New York bill that requires police to confiscate guns when responding to domestic violence calls. The outlet reports the measure expands a 2020 law that previously gave officers discretion to seize firearms if they were in plain view or found during a search. 

Now, as News10NBC explains, officers must temporarily take guns if a victim says they feel in danger, or if police believe removal is necessary to prevent harm.

That is the simple core. It’s mandatory, not optional, when those conditions are met.

Copper Jacket TV host William frames the change more starkly. In his words, this is “one of the craziest and most unconstitutional laws” he has seen – and he says it took effect the moment Hochul signed it. 

William stresses that this is not a typical red flag process; there’s no prior judicial sign-off. In his telling, if an officer believes there could be a threat, the law orders immediate seizure on scene.

Guns & Gadgets host Jared Yanis goes further on the mechanics. He says the law requires seizure when police respond to a domestic or family violence call where a victim expresses fear or officers believe removal is needed to prevent harm. 

He calls it a leap from “you may seize” to “you must seize,” emphasizing that discretion has been replaced with mandate.

From Discretionary to Mandatory

News10NBC situates the shift in plain terms. The 2020 framework let officers decide whether to take guns in specific circumstances. 

The new statute compels removal based on an expressed fear from a victim or an officer’s preventive judgment.

William argues that’s a low threshold that flips due process. He says it empowers officers to act as “judge and jury” over Second Amendment rights in the moment, and he notes it can include taking a carry permit on the spot – again, in his words, without a warrant. 

That’s the heart of his complaint: no prior judge, immediate deprivation, and the burden later shifted to the owner.

Jared Yanis, drawing on his law-enforcement background, warns that not every domestic call is clean or legitimate. 

He says it’s “extremely easy” for someone to be labeled the aggressor and points out that domestic calls are sometimes weaponized against the other party. In his analysis, a mandate tied to subjective fear supercharges that risk.

My take: whenever the state changes “may” to “shall,” it’s rewriting the moment of contact. The policy goal might be prevention, but the on-scene realities are messy. 

Mandatory rules remove judgment in the exact situations where nuance is hardest – and that’s precisely why critics like William and Jared see constitutional red flags all over this.

What Happens To Your Guns – And For How Long

News10NBC notes that police must temporarily take guns under the new triggers. 

Jared adds two practical pieces: first, he says the minimum time before return is now five days, up from roughly two in prior practice; second, he says the law casts a wide net over “any firearm, rifle, shotgun,” and even mentions items like electric dart or stun guns and certain antique firearms under specific rules.

William claims the retention window for property and permits has been pushed to 120 hours and says owners must prove they are not prohibited to get items back – a reversal that, in his view, makes the citizen climb uphill to reclaim their rights. 

His concern is the cost and complexity: lawyers, time, and bureaucratic friction that function as a penalty even if no crime is charged.

Jared’s point dovetails with that. He warns there’s a minimum but no explicit maximum in the statute as he reads it, opening the door to longer delays in practice. 

He also raises a broader equity issue: the process punishes those who can least afford to fight for their property.

I agree this is where theory meets reality. A “temporary” deprivation still changes the balance of power. Even five days can be significant if those arms were part of a home-defense plan or if the owner must now pay to unwind an error. 

The state may prevail in court on theory, but the lived effect is friction that deters exercise.

Supporters’ Rationale – And The Pushback

News10NBC conveys the state’s prevention logic succinctly: remove weapons when a victim reports fear or when officers see risk, and you may prevent harm. That’s the policy bet – fast action in volatile moments.

Jared gives the fairest articulation of that argument before challenging it. Supporters, he says, view immediate removal as “common sense” to reduce firearm-involved domestic homicides, and they see the seizure as temporary, with return mandated if no legal barrier exists.

Then he counters: the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Second Amendment’s core right (as affirmed, he emphasizes, in the Bruen decision), and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantees are all implicated when seizure happens before any hearing. 

Jared’s concern is the definition of fear and necessity – inherently subjective, officer to officer – which he says becomes the trigger for taking property from lawful owners who did nothing wrong.

William’s rebuttal is similar but sharper. He likens the move to a “Judge Dredd” model where enforcement and prosecution blur on the front end, and he warns that other states will adopt the same template if New York’s approach stands.

My read: both creators are highlighting the classic rights-vs-safety tension, but they’re not arguing safety doesn’t matter. 

They’re arguing the state picked a tool that cuts across constitutional grain. In a post-Bruen landscape, policies that operate first and adjudicate later are always going to invite challenge.

The “Who, Exactly?” Problem On Scene

News10NBC’s report centers on domestic violence response, but it doesn’t delve into multi-occupant scenarios. Jared does. 

He sketches how, in a typical call, officers might decide they “have to take the guns” present in the home even when the gun owner isn’t the subject of the dispute, because the law says so.

William adds that police get these calls from neighbors or passersby with limited context. 

If mandate replaces discretion, he argues, entire households could get swept in – including unrelated, law-abiding adults who merely live there and lawfully possess firearms.

This is not a small issue. The broader the net, the more likely the law seizes from third parties who did nothing but share an address. If that’s how agencies implement it, litigation risk rises — and public trust drops.

What This Signals Beyond New York

News10NBC focuses on the state action and its immediate effect. William repeatedly warns that “things like this tend to spread,” calling New York’s move a new floor for confiscation standards. 

Jared shares the same concern, arguing that if this stands, other gun-control states will “follow” with similar mandates, citing how prior “common sense” moves grew over time.

As commentary, I think they’re right about policy diffusion. States borrow. If the mandate survives early challenges and is seen to reduce high-profile incidents, it will be pitched elsewhere. 

Conversely, if it produces obvious due-process misfires, that backlash will travel just as fast.

News10NBC provides the what: a signed law, an expansion of a 2020 framework, and a requirement that police take guns when a victim reports fear or officers judge removal necessary to prevent harm.

Copper Jacket TV host William provides the how it hits: immediate effect upon signature, mandated seizure and permit removal without a prior warrant, longer retention windows, and a rights-first critique that urges gun owners to recognize the precedent being set.

Guns & Gadgets host Jared Yanis provides the street-level view: domestic calls are messy, discretion matters, and a “shall seize” rule tied to subjective fear risks trampling the Fourth, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments. He underscores the new minimum hold time, the breadth of covered items, and the likely ripple effects outside New York.

My view: if the state wants immediate removal tools, it needs immediate safeguards too – rapid judicial review, narrow tailoring to the actual parties in the incident, and hard limits on timelines and scope. 

Without those, the mandate invites exactly the challenges William and Jared predict. In a world where courts are scrutinizing gun restrictions against history and tradition, mandatory, pre-hearing seizures are going to face heavy weather.

For now, New York has chosen speed over process in the most volatile kind of police call. 

Whether that saves lives and survives court review will define what other states do next – and how gun owners prepare for the knock at the door.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.