Guys (and girls) …

My company has been nominated for Best Firearms Safety Course for the Four Leaf Best of Long Island Awards. It’s a huge pride moment that someone would even consider nominating us - and whoever it was - Thank You!! Would really appreciate if you can send me some good vibes and the votes! You can vote once a day!

https://bestoftheboro.secondstreetapp.com/og/dcdbfd9f-428c-488a-9f6b-3ab6d55c2eba/gallery/560913067

Really appreciate the help!!

So the Glock ban is supposed to keep us safe, huh? How?

Do you agree?

CrimeRadar published an auto-generated transcript of a Suffolk County dispatch call reporting an “aggravated disturbance” at a Commack residence. According to the caller, five rifles, two pistols, two knives, a bow and arrow, and a pellet gun were found at a brother-in-law’s home. The caller reportedly believed he should not possess them.

The transcription says “CPAP,” but in context it almost certainly means CPEP—the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program at Stony Brook University Hospital.

CrimeRadar page:
https://www.uscrimeradar.com/commack-ny/46515_1786142479_ojswgeej-weapons-found-at-home-in-commack-disturbance

CrimeRadar warns that its transcript is AI-generated from public dispatch audio, may be inaccurate, and is not an official police report. We do not know what prompted the call, what officers found, what the CPEP evaluation concluded, whether anyone was arrested, whether a pistol license was involved, or whether an Extreme Risk Protection Order was requested.

Were these illegal weapons?

Nothing in the dispatch clip says the weapons were illegally possessed.

In fact, the caller reportedly said the relative “should not” have them—not that the guns were stolen, unlicensed, or otherwise contraband. That context is consistent with lawfully owned firearms becoming the subject of a safety concern, although the short clip cannot prove their legal status.

The distinction matters. Ordinary rifles generally do not require a possession license in Suffolk County, although prohibited-person, assault-weapon, and other restrictions still apply. Pistols and revolvers generally must be covered by a New York pistol license.

If police confirmed that the handguns were unlicensed or otherwise illegally possessed, that could create a separate felony weapons investigation, arrest, and possible custody—independent of any ERPO. The CrimeRadar page reports none of that.

This therefore appears more consistent with a potential ERPO situation involving presumptively lawful property than with a reported unlicensed-weapons arrest. But that remains an inference, not an established fact.

Medical care should come first

If someone may be experiencing a psychiatric crisis, getting that person evaluated and temporarily separating them from accessible weapons can be a responsible safety measure. Medical care comes first.

But medical treatment and the legal process that may follow are separate.

Under New York’s Red Flag Law:

• A judge may issue a temporary ERPO without hearing from the gun owner first if a sworn application and supporting evidence establish probable cause to believe the person is likely to cause serious harm.
• The temporary order prohibits firearm possession and ordinarily requires immediate surrender.
• The final hearing is scheduled 3–6 business days after the temporary order is served. The respondent may request additional preparation time.
• At the final hearing, the petitioner—not the respondent—must prove the alleged risk by clear and convincing evidence.
• A final order suspends an existing firearm license and may last up to one year. It can be renewed through another proceeding.

This is civil, preventive litigation—not a criminal prosecution. Nobody is being convicted, so the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard does not apply.

The cost of defending an ERPO

A respondent has the right to retain and appear with an attorney, but New York’s ERPO statute does not generally guarantee that an indigent respondent will receive appointed counsel.

Because the proceeding is civil, the respondent may have to represent himself or pay for an attorney while facing the government, police testimony, documentary evidence, and a hearing only days after service.

Potential costs include:

• Attorney consultations and hearing preparation
• Reviewing and responding to the petition and police background report
• Obtaining medical or other records
• Subpoenaing witnesses
• Retaining an expert when one is necessary
• Missing work to meet counsel and attend court
• Travel and court-related expenses
• Lawful storage or transfer of surrendered firearms
• Additional proceedings involving the pistol license or return of firearms
• A possible appeal or motion practice

There is no reliable statewide “average cost” for defending an ERPO. The amount depends heavily on whether the matter is contested, the evidence involved, and whether related licensing or criminal issues arise. But even a successful defense can impose substantial unreimbursed costs.

A 2024 trial-level decision recognized a right to assigned counsel where the respondent was indigent and facing related criminal proceedings. That is a limited, fact-specific ruling—not a general guarantee of free counsel in every ERPO case.

CPEP does not automatically create a federal prohibition

Stony Brook’s CPEP provides emergency psychiatric evaluation and extended observation for up to 72 hours. A separate Mental Hygiene Law §9.39 admission can permit retention for up to 15 days, but only after additional clinical findings and physician examinations.

A CPEP evaluation, observation stay, or voluntary admission does not by itself create the federal prohibition covering someone formally committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as a mental defective. Federal regulations expressly exclude observation and voluntary admission from the definition of “committed to a mental institution.”

A qualifying formal commitment or adjudication can have different and much more serious consequences.

Suffolk’s extraordinary ERPO numbers

According to the New York State Unified Court System dashboard, checked August 9, 2026:

• Suffolk: 6,247 ERPO applications
• Statewide: 23,310 applications
• Suffolk’s share: 26.8%
• Next-highest county: Orange, with 1,175 applications
• Suffolk temporary ERPO count: 6,116
• Suffolk final ERPO count: 5,262

The ratio of final orders to temporary orders is approximately 86%—about 86 final ERPOs for every 100 temporary ERPOs appearing in the dashboard totals.

That is extraordinarily high.

There is an important statistical limitation: these are cumulative dashboard measures, not a public case-level dataset linking each temporary order to its final disposition. Renewals, timing, counting rules, and cases that cross the reporting boundary may affect the comparison. We therefore should not claim that exactly 86% of Suffolk temporary orders became final orders.

But the cumulative numbers still show that final orders are issued in Suffolk at a level remarkably close to the temporary-order total.

Suffolk does not merely lead New York in ERPO use. Its 6,247 applications are more than five times Orange County’s 1,175, and Suffolk alone accounts for more than one-quarter of all applications filed statewide since the law took effect.

The strongest argument for this system is straightforward: when credible evidence suggests an immediate risk of suicide or violence, waiting can have irreversible consequences.

The concern is equally serious: lawfully owned firearms may be removed before the owner participates, the hearing arrives quickly, the respondent may have no appointed attorney, and defending the case can become his personal financial burden—even if the final petition is denied.

Should independent clinical evidence be required before a final ERPO arising principally from an alleged psychiatric crisis? Should New York guarantee counsel when the government seeks a final order? And what explains Suffolk County’s dramatically higher use of this law?

Official ERPO dashboard:
https://www.nycourts.gov/division-technology-court-research/extreme-risk-protection-order-dashboard

General legal information only, not individualized legal advice.