{"id":14797,"date":"2017-07-19T09:37:41","date_gmt":"2017-07-19T13:37:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=14797"},"modified":"2017-07-19T09:37:41","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T13:37:41","slug":"victory-for-due-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=14797","title":{"rendered":"Victory for due process"},"content":{"rendered":"

The New York Law Journal reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“A federal appeals court said<\/a> there is “no clear reason” why a Nassau County woman whose rifles and shotguns were taken away as part of a now-expired order of protection should not receive a hearing to determine if her weapons should be returned. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit<\/a> affirmed Eastern District Judge Joan Azrack’s 2015 decision<\/a> to order a hearing on returning plaintiff Christine Panzella’s two rifles and two shotguns, which were seized as part of an order of protection filed by her ex-husband … Holding a “prompt” post-deprivation hearing would provide Panzella with a “timely and inexpensive” forum to challenge Nassau County’s retention of her weapons, the judge said …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This could impact antigun efforts to enact laws which allow the “emergency” seizure of firearms when a family member complains because some police departments which take guns don’t want to return them.<\/p>\n