As citizens of New York state, we have been accustomed to laws and regulations that more often than not don’t favor sportsmen and First Amendment purists. Many times, we feel like that time when your boat broke down and you are without power to get back to shore. Well, the good news is — if this is good news — we are not alone.

It seems other states have been sliding through legislation to make it harder for those of us of like minds to enjoy our passions. Recently a couple of states on the Pacific Coast of this great country decided to join the anti-gun bandwagon.

Oregon has passed a new gun law that is quite possibly one of the biggest violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments that our country has ever seen.

Senate Bill 79 created a process by which a judge can issue an “extreme risk protection order” to seize an individual’s guns if petitioned by a law enforcement officer or family member.

The petition must show the person in question is an immediate risk to themselves or others through a statement or affidavit under oath. The court will consider, in part, history of suicide threats or attempts; history of physical violence; previous convictions for stalking, domestic violence or cruelty toward animals; and previous unlawful and reckless use of a deadly weapon.

If a petition is made, the court will hear the case and deny or issue an order that very day.

California has new gun laws that are beginning to take effect. Thanks to the Criminal Relinquishment of Firearms, beginning on Jan. 1, 2018, Proposition 63 introduces and implements a clear, mandatory and enforceable process for criminal offenders to give up their firearms upon their conviction. Ammunition sales, beginning on Jan. 1, 2018, must be conducted by or processed through licensed vendors. It will serve to prevent certain convicted criminals from purchasing ammunition once the new law for background checks for ammunition sales come online in July 2019.

Sales of ammunition by unlicensed individuals must be processed through a licensed ammunition vendor, in a manner similar to private party firearms transactions, and ammunition obtained over the Internet or from out of state must be initially shipped to a licensed ammunition vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser pursuant to a background check.

To add another bump in the road it has also added to Proposition 63 restrictions on magazine capacities.

In June, two federal judges in separate district courts considered request to delay implementation of Proposition 63’s large capacity magazine provisions, which were scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The two judges reached opposite conclusions.

In Duncan v. Becerra, the case in which Lt. Gov. Newsom and Giffords Law Center filed their brief, a federal judge in San Diego ruled in favor of a temporary delay said California could not enforce the large capacity magazine ban until a final decision can be made.

By contrast, in a separate ruling, Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee based in Sacramento, rejected arguments against the magazine ban after thoroughly evaluating each of the gun lobby’s arguments and explaining why they were likely to fail. Judge Shubb specifically noted that the loophole in California law that previously allowed for possession of large capacity magazines meant that “there was no way for law enforcement to determine which magazines were ‘grandfathered’ and which were illegally transferred or modified to accept more than 10 rounds.”

Judge Shubb noted that the stated objective of the large capacity magazine ban is to reduce the incidence and harm of mass shootings and observed that “there can be no serious argument that this is not a substantial government interest, especially in light of several recent high-profile mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines, “including the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, the 2011 Arizona shooting involving then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

Similar efforts to overturn large capacity magazine bans have been roundly rejected by federal appellate courts across the United States, and the Ninth Circuit with jurisdiction over California recently rejected the gun lobby’s efforts to enjoin Sunnyvale’s local large capacity magazine ban.

In today’s world, I can relate. It looks like a common sense law. And I agree, someone that is a risk to themselves or others should not have access to firearms. Here is the flip side of the coin however: What is to prevent someone from making a false report about another person?

I personally know of cases where, NYS licensed pistol permit holders have lost their privilege to carry. During divorces, as many of us know, these can get little testy and very expensive. With no cause, such as breaking any laws/arrests/police reports, licensed to carry or hand gun owners have been brought in front of the court to have their permit suspended. One side decides a good way to “get back” at the other party is petition the court for loose of permit, for no other reason that they “feel threatened.” When all is said and done, ie. court costs and lawyer fees, the permit holder doesn’t have the fight in them to attempt to keep their permit. This is just way one around the law in New York state and with a research one could find other “legal” ways to do the same.

Trying to get revenge, wanting to mess with another person’s life for personal gains, anyone could make an allegation about another person and utilize this new law to have them disarmed.

While most laws are designed and passed to protect the masses, there are always loop holes that anybody with law degree will discover.