Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New York State Ban - We need your help as well as other states

Discussion in 'Activism' started by 1stmarine, Jan 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    I thought this was appropriate here....

    Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A
    The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
    Posted 2013-04-25 22:51
    by Karl Denninger
    in 2ndAmendment

    Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A


    The other night I got into a twitter-flamefest with Dylan Ratigan on, you guessed it, guns.

    He tweeted something about The Senate and "reasonable" gun control and I went after him. He responded and the game was on. You can back through my timeline (as Tickerguy) and have a look if you want.

    The conversation quickly degenerated when he started with the "So you're for private ownership of nukes, right?" crap and "The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets, so that's what it covers" nonsense.

    I retorted with "So the First Amendment is about movable type, paper and ink -- hand-driven -- right?"

    Ah, no answer.

    Didn't think I'd get one, by the way, so rather than keep hammering that I instead pointed this out the following (and it took three tweets to do it @ 140 characters each):

    The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution (no government can give what it does not have)

    2A recognizes the fundamental human right to self-defense, irrespective of the attacker's identity.

    The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT.

    This is why we can't have a "reasonable" debate on this point with people on the other side of the debate.

    They refuse to recognize these essential facts:

    The Government never possessed a single right, therefore it cannot grant them. Instead, we the people granted a limited set of privileges to Government. That's what a Constitutional Republic is.

    The Second Amendment is formal recognition of your, my, and everyone else's Right to Life. Since the police cannot be everywhere nor do they have a duty to prevent or stop a crime in process (and they cannot be held legally accountable if they fail to do so, never mind that even if they could dead is still dead) you have the right to self-defense which flows from your right to life.
    Dylan was looking for a place to insert a wedge because he refused to debate from principle. He wanted to look for a way to play the typical media "gotcha" game but I'm too smart for that as I've been at this for 20+ years as has he. He should know, having dealt with me on the bankster issues, that he wasn't going to get away with that crap but he tried anyway -- and failed.

    If you look at principle -- that is, what's embodied in the Declaration of Independence -- then there is nothing difficult in figuring out where the lines are at all. Not here, not on the First Amendment, not on the Fourth or Fifth. All are simple.

    And more importantly, all lead to inescapable conclusions for virtually every case, leaving only a few uncommon circumstances to be briefed and argued in a courtroom or legislative chamber.

    The First Amendment most-certainly applies to all types of speech, because speech is a component of Liberty. Government didn't give you that right (they never had it to give away), you have it because you are human. You therefore have the right to speak, but not the right to force someone to listen or to pay to amplify your speech for you. This right extends to words printed on paper using movable type, it extends to skywriting, it extends to the Internet and it extends to other forms and means of effecting speech that we have not thought of yet but will in the future. Note that this doesn't mean that you can't face consequences for your speech after the fact -- if you skywrite "Joe Schmoe is a pedophile!" and it's false Joe can sue you to beyond the orbit of Mars.

    The Fourth Amendment applies in Boston to the searches of homes and what was done there is blatantly unconstitutional and as a consequence is a crime under 18 USC 242 (and is civilly actionable under 42 USC 1983.) The so-called "law enforcement" people who committed those searches and seizures under duress without a warrant violated the law. Period. This is true irrespective of the means by which such is done because The Fourth Amendment does not grant you the right to be secure in your papers and effects, you have that right because it is an essential element of liberty; the freedom to possess privately-obtained property through the fruits of your labor without it being rifled through or stolen by anyone, including government agents, except under due process of law where probable cause exists to believe you have personally committed a crime. Again, there are logical exceptions -- if a police officer personally sees a fleeing felon he is chasing enter your residence he can follow him onto your property without a warrant. But what he can't do is guess.

    The Fifth Amendment likewise attaches to the actions in Boston and also gives rise to criminal liability under 18 USC 242 to the extent that anything was seized, no matter how momentarily, without a warrant. Again, The Fifth Amendment is not a grant from government it is recognition of your fundamental liberty interests that vested in you at birth.

    And finally, The Second Amendment protects your right to exercise self-defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that could reasonably be expected to attempt to unlawfully deprive you of your life. It is again not a grant from government either of a right or a privilege because government never had this to give.

    The Declaration called forth where your right to life came from -- your creator. In other words, you have that right because you're human just like you have the right to liberty and pursuit of (but not guarantee of attainment of) happiness.

    All the answers to "where is the line?" come easily and logically when you debate from principle instead of playing games. The Second Amendment therefore protects your right to keep and bear any arms that might be reasonably used in the present time for the purpose of defense of yourself or those in your charge, voluntarily or otherwise, against any reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm by any reasonably-foreseeable malefactor who would take your life or liberty unlawfully from you.

    It is therefore quite clear that you may keep and bear any gun which you are able to carry and deploy as a single individual because murderous marauders sometimes attack in packs, sometimes are jacked up on drugs and often are capable of physically overpowering you. Attackers also often keep coming even when hit in places that ultimately will be fatal; that the assailant will die from acute lead poisoning is of no value to you if he kills you first. Yes, this means you may keep and bear, under The Declaration's statement of your rights, a machine gun. Yes, this includes a gun with a "silencer" (which really doesn't make it silent.) Yes, it includes a gun with a 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazine -- or ten of them. Yes, it includes a concealed pistol. Yes, 2 guns. Yes, if I (or someone else) invent one, a Star Trek Phasor. Yes, 100 guns and as much ammunition as you care to buy and store should you so choose; although you can only shoot two at a time (unless you're from Mars and have six hands) there may be others in your care, custody or association that could use them in the event of a need of defense when they are in your company.

    Now let's look at the "nuke" argument that the left loves to trot out.

    Is there a reasonable argument to be made that a person possessing a nuclear device would have reason to use it under any rationally-foreseeable circumstance that would be deemed, in full totality of the circumstance in hindsight, self-defense?

    I can't come up with the circumstances under which that would apply, despite putting a fair bit of mental effort into it.

    We answered the question with logic, didn't we?

    So where's the line?

    Let's apply logic and your right to life as the guideposts.

    If there are no MS-13 gangs coming into the country with armored vehicles, then I don't need an anti-tank rocket. If there is no permanent Army with tanks on American soil, then I don't need one for the eventuality that our government may go rogue and try to blast me with one. If there are no drones based in, located in, or flying over American cities then I don't need defensive devices that can shoot them down, disable their weapons or jam their communications. And before you say "but the government would never do that" please go ask the question of the 6+ million dead Jews who would beg to differ with you, or if you prefer you may pick on the dead Armenians, Soviets, Chinese, Guatemalans, Ugandans, Cambodians or Rwandans -- and that's just in the last 100 years or thereabouts, totaling something like 80 million people or several times as many as were killed in all the wars of the 20th Century combined.

    By the way -- The Constitution prohibits standing Armies -- it prohibits an appropriation spanning more than two years for the purpose of raising an army. On the other hand the Constitution explicitly permits forming and funding a standing Navy.

    Guess why? Because that ties in directly to the people's right to life; a Navy is used to protect vessels at sea and the coastline and has by its nature rather limited inland reach.

    That our government has wantonly and illegally violated its own founding documents doesn't change a thing. But it does change what's covered by the Second Amendment if you debate from the principles that founded this nation and are embodied in The Declaration, and the items covered by the Second Amendment are directly linked to our government's own voluntarily-taken actions.

    All of the other so-called "tough questions" are likewise answered by looking to principle, and at the same time we solve, to a large degree, our crime problems.

    Like, for example, this question that left loves to run:

    Does a felon have a right to life? Yes, under The Declaration. During the time he or she is incarcerated The State takes responsibility for that life and is duty-bound to protect it. During the time he or she remains under supervision that duty and responsibility remains with The State. However, upon satisfaction of that person's "debt to society" they still have a right to life, which means that no law impairing their ability to defend themselves, post-discharge, is Constitutional!

    But what about the bad guys, you ask?

    That's simple, but we don't want to talk about it. In particular the liberals don't want to talk about it, because they're largely responsible for the dangerous animals prowling our streets.

    If you are dangerous to others, as determined under due process of law, whether by reason of criminal activity or mental defect, the proper place for you is in an institution where your right to life remains but the duty to protect it is transferred to the state. At the same time since you have demonstrated (under due process of law) that you're dangerous to others you must be removed from having the ability to do that harm to others because their right to life trumps your asserted but non-existent right to murder,******or rob.

    We could have prevented the shooting in upstate NY of several firefighters if we had not let the shooter out of prison after he killed his grandmother with a hammer. Likewise, most of the other murders are committed by people with violent criminal pasts. Yes, there is the exception, but it's exactly that -- an exception.

    In fact, that's the history of "crime reporting" in this nation. The gang-bangers who shoot up people in Chicago literally every day rarely make the news, but the occasional nut is front-page news for weeks, despite the fact that the 20 people the nut kills are surpassed in less than a day by the thugs. Our media doesn't talk about the thugs because if we do we must face that we keep letting them out of prison with full knowledge that they are dangerous predators. Neither the media or politicians want to deal with this fact and so we bury it on page 15 -- if it gets mentioned at all.

    How about private property? If I own property I may ban the keeping and bearing of arms upon it. I therefore may post signs demanding that you not bring guns into my store, theater or other place of business. I may also prohibit them in my home. The choice is mine, not yours. But on public property, where the people all have an equal right to be, they also have no obligation to give up their right to defend their life in order to be there. Therefore any peaceable person who wishes to have a firearm with them in a public park, on a beach, in their car on the road or in a public parking lot may do so. If and only if that person commits a crime by threatening others (or worse) is there cause to remove them from the people they are threatening, and the way we do that is by arresting them and charging them with the crime. If this threat is deemed (again, under due process) to be material and ongoing then we imprison them until that is no longer the case.

    It's not hard folks. We don't need a National Firearms Act, we don't need a Gun Control Act of 1968 and we don't need a Brady Law. We don't need any of the 20,000+ gun laws now on the books, none of which have stopped gun violence because the definition of a criminal is a person who ignores the law. We can (and should) keep laws that enhance punishment for a crime committed with a firearm, and perhaps even strengthen those laws as they punish conduct, not possession of a device.

    I remind everyone that with some 300,000,000 guns in America and about 11,000 homicides a year 0.004% of them are used in a murder annually. In other words 99.996% of the firearms owned are not used to murder someone in a given year.

    None of the firearm laws will ever be effective and all of them are direct violations of your rights no matter what a liberal, conservative, cop, mayor, governor, or a man or woman in a black robe says.

    They are violations of your rights because The Constitution does not grant rights -- it is incapable of doing so because Government never had any rights to begin with and thus cannot delegate what it never possessed.

    There is only one solution to violent people, whether their violence manifests due to malevolence or insanity, and that is to isolate them from society until they either rehabilitate, are no longer insane, or die. That too is a fact and no amount of arguing over this can change reality. Gun prohibition has never and will never stop someone from committing a violent felony because the problem isn't a device, it's the criminal mind.

    A person who intends to do harm will find a way; you can murder with a knife, an axe, a hammer, a gallon of gasoline or a Suburban. There are more people killed with hammers, baseball bats and fists than rifles of any sort, including so-called "assault rifles", each and every year. And let us not forget that the Boston Bombers appear to have chosen to use ordinary pressure cookers and fireworks to make their bombs.

    Men and women with evil in their hearts are not deterred by laws. They are only deterred by being physically restrained -- that is, locked up.

    If people on the other side of this position wish to have a principled debate where one must lay foundations for their positions and questions, tracing them to fundamental rights, then I'm all for it. Bring it on and I'm willing to engage. Contact me. I'm game. Let's do it, in public view.

    But if all you've got is the common media game of "gotcha" you're wasting your time among those of us who understand where our rights come from, what limited government is, and what The Constitution actually does -- and doesn't do.

    That's the bottom line.
     
  2. vincyr

    vincyr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    142
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    Keep your hopes up ... Today, NYS has to prove that the NY SAFE act is Constitutional in court(not bloody likely), or face an injunction... fingers and toes crossed people... pray if you're into that, it can't hurt...
     
  3. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    You bet we are praying but this has been moved to Friday I think.
    Anyway lest hope the judges look at the law in a state where bankers, lawyers, judges, big shots, and politicians sleep all in the same bed together.
    We'll see.
     
  4. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
  5. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
  6. DeadMoneyDrew

    DeadMoneyDrew Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    94% say to leave gun laws alone, after almost 10k votes. Nice.
     
  7. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Thanks. Please post and then share all over.
     
  8. ArcherandShooter

    ArcherandShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Llano, TX
    Still 94% after 15,000+ votes, and the comments are a very good read for the most part.
     
  9. Truckie117

    Truckie117 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Long Island
    Reply from UPCHUCK

    Hi
    New here but I write to the "Law Makers" and this is the drivel you get back from them.

    Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions.

    While I certainly respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for purchasing legal firearms.

    You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property.

    Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.


    Sincerely,

    Charles E. Schumer
    United States Senator

    He has no regard for the Constitution only the power he has I got the same reply from his puppet Jillibrand we need to get these people out of office.
     
  10. DSling

    DSling Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    98
    Sad to say but there are so many liberals that believe the hype from the media that you are in short supply in N.Y. I am sorry to say but the only help you will have there is from the courts.
     
  11. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Typical autoresponder from Chuky. They do not mention that they are failing to enforce the existing laws. The guy how killed the 2 fireman here in webster with an AR15 had murdered his grandmother with a hammer and he had acquired somehow illegal firearms. What was he doing out of jail in the first place?
    That is what we need to question and leave honest citizens alone.
    The next logical thing to do is in the next election to take this Chucky Schemer Schumer and show him the door.
     
  12. toivo

    toivo Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,489
    Location:
    New York State
    I got one of those Chucky letters too. I responded to it, politely telling him what a hypocrite he is. No robo-response to that one.
     
  13. SleazyRider

    SleazyRider Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,822
    Location:
    New York
    Reply from Senator Bonacic

    Here's a reply to an e-mail I sent to my state senator several weeks ago. I was---and remain---outraged that we New Yorkers are treated differently than other citizens, yet under the very same Constitution. This guy's a pretty good egg and he's doing his dead level best, but he's outgunned in the New York State legislative body:


    "Dear (SleazyRider):

    Thank you for your email correspondence regarding your concerns
    relating to Governor Cuomo’s so-called “SAFE” (Secure Ammunition Firearms
    Enforcement) gun legislation, Senate Bill S.2230, and your frustration that
    New Yorkers are being treated differently than residents of other states,
    under the same U.S. Constitution.

    I share your concerns. I am hopeful that we will be able to negotiate
    meaningful amendments to this flawed legislation. I will consider your
    views regarding this disparity.

    You may wish to sign on to my online petition in support of repealing
    this law by visiting my website at www.nysenate.gov/senator-john-j-bonacic.
    For specific questions relating to the law, please visit Governor Cuomo’s
    website at www.governor.ny.gov.

    Thank you again for taking the time to write and express your views.
    If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my
    office."
     
  14. toivo

    toivo Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,489
    Location:
    New York State
    ^ ^ ^
    That. John Bonacic is one of the best friends NY gun owners have in our state government, and we don't have very many.
     
  15. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Illinois CCW license wheel of fortune.

    A sad yet clear representation of what the gun-grabbing radicals are achieving in their delusional game.
    Pulling apart the nation until the union breaks hard and apart somewhere.
    People will not give up on their fundamental rights, ever.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P4YNzSIk6d4
     
  16. Tom from WNY

    Tom from WNY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Western New York
    Liberal politicritters are hypocrites; they will use language to their advantage and denigrate those who demand words and ideals have meaning and precision.
     
  17. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    NYC
    This flat out ridiculous.

    No one wants to give an advantage to criminals. They want to give an advantage to law enforcement over citizens.

    It's moronic statements like this, made public, that aid the anti-gun movement.


     
  18. TheSaint

    TheSaint Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    The People's Republik Of Kommiefornia
    I disagree. The urban criminal is an important voting bloc for the Democrats, even if they'll never admit to it. It is a form of political incest if you ask me.
     
  19. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Wolfbane,
    I think my comment taken out of context might not look accurate but my point is that you have now criminals that have more rights than the police and the citizens themselves. We even give citizenship's to terrorists, give them shelter, food, jobs and then they bomb us.
    Those people, including the criminals will not vote for conservative agendas but I am sure might do quite the opposite. They are the main beneficiaries of these bans and senseless statutes.
    In reality nobody is giving benefits to a criminal directly but indirectly they are taking advantage of the bad policy in place and everyone can see in the facts and statistics we have.
    Also look at the study after the previous ban or the situation in Australia or Mexico right now.
    The gun free zones are another example of irrational and reckless laws. They are officially designated criminal safeheaven areas.

    I accept disagreements and corrections but keep your insults out of this otherwise positive thread. Insulting comments do not go far.
     
  20. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Unacceptable! - nj senators’ true view of gun owners revealed by hot microphone


    NJ SENATORS’ TRUE VIEW OF GUN OWNERS REVEALED BY HOT MICROPHONE FOLLOWING YESTERDAY’S HEARIN
    G


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jMptQ_YfvzE


    Call the Senate Majority Office Immediately to Express Your Outrage
    And Demand That Monday’s Bill Package be Held


    An astute person listening to the official audio recording of yesterday’s Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing noticed that the official recording continued following conclusion of the hearing. The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners.


    A YouTube video with an excerpt of that recording has been posted here. The following lines can be heard in the recording:


    "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”


    "They [gun owners] want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”


    "They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”


    "That’s the line they’ve developed.”


    The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff.


    This discussion can also clearly be heard at the end of the official audio recording, beginning at 1:52:30, currently available here (find Thursday, May 9 from the menu, then click "listen”). It is possible that the official recording will be sanitized following release of this alert, and the official YouTube video could be deleted, so be sure to listen to it promptly.






    The discussion reveals absolute contempt for the Second Amendment and those who exercise it, as well as complete ignorance of the fact that gun rights organizations like ANJRPC have long advocated for clear and specific legislation punishing criminals who misuse firearms, instead of misguided legislation (like the bills currently being pushed by Senate Democrats) that demonizes hardware. Senator Loretta Weinberg is the chief proponent of the anti-gun legislation being moved through the Senate.


    In advance of Monday’s full Senate floor vote, please immediately call AND fax the Senate Majority Office, tell them you are outraged by the misguided, disparaging, and clueless comments of those pushing the anti-gun bill package, and demand that Senate Democratic leadership hold the entire package of anti-gun bills currently scheduled for consideration by the full Senate on Monday, May 13.


    SENATE MAJORITY OFFICE
    Phone: 609-847-3700
    Fax: 609-633-7254
     
  21. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    Sheriff Howard on SAFE Act: ‘I won’t enforce it’

    Sheriff Howard on SAFE Act: ‘I won’t enforce it’

    http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbc...ITYANDREGION/130519267/1010&template=printart

    By Phil Fairbanks | News Staff Reporter on May 16, 2013 - 11:56 PM
    , updated May 17, 2013 at 1:02


    It’s no secret Sheriff Timothy B. Howard is opposed to New York’s new gun-control law.
    But Howard, who is running for re-election this year, is now ratcheting up his opposition by filing a friend of the court brief in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the SAFE Act and, even more important perhaps, by suggesting the law not be enforced.
    “I’m more than reluctant,” he said of the new law Thursday. “I won’t enforce it.”
    Howard, one of four sheriffs who joined in filing the brief this week, said he considers the law unconstitutional and a waste of valuable resources, and believes it will ultimately be overturned by the courts.
    The law, passed in January, is the subject of a federal court challenge in Buffalo by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and others. The suit claims the law violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
    “The Constitution is the law of the land,” Howard said. “If you know it’s a violation of the Constitution, how can you enforce it?”
    Howard said his views on the law’s enforcement are his own and he has not encouraged or discouraged his deputies to follow suit. He also indicated the district attorney has the ability to charge people with SAFE Act violations even if he and his deputies disagree,
    “I don’t think we’re going to suppress evidence,” he said. “I just don’t think we’ll be actively pursuing it.”
    The SAFE Act, pushed through the State Legislature following the Sandy Hook school shootings in Connecticut, included an expansion of New York’s assault weapons ban, as well as a new restriction on the size of ammunition clips. The Legislature later changed the measure back to the old standard of 10 rounds in a clip.
    Howard is not the only sheriff to oppose the law – his brief was filed by the New York State Sheriff’s Association – but his stance on enforcement does put him at odds with some of his like-minded peers.
    “I don’t get to pick and choose what laws I enforce,” said Putnam County Sheriff Donald B. Smith, a former president of the association. “That’s exactly why we filed the amicus brief. We need to change this law.”
    Smith, like Howard, does view the SAFE Act as a step backward and a blow to law-abiding citizens, especially gun owners.
    The law, he said, may prove successful in limiting the type of weapons the general public can buy, but it will have little or no impact on what drug dealers, gang members and other criminals can get their hands on.
    “I actually call it the not-so-safe act,” Smith said. “Ultimately, why would we put our citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals.”
    Assemblyman Sean Ryan, D-Buffalo, almost couldn’t believe his ears when told of Howard’s public stance.
    “He said that?” Ryan asked incredulously. “There are all sorts of principled ways of going about this. Law enforcement officials aren’t allowed to pick and choose.
    “He’s elected as the law enforcement official in Erie County, and he’s elected to enforce the laws,” he added. “If he’s not happy with the laws, he should join the legislative branch of government.”
    There are some public officials across the state, however, who agree with Howard’s stance.
    In March, the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors voted to defy enforcement of the new law and urged its state lawmakers to oppose any state budget proposals that include money to enforce it.
    “I don’t want to see a lot of government resources spent on something that might not last,” Howard said. “If we start making criminal cases and making charges under this law, it means resources will be diverted from other things.”
    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, one of the law’s major backers, said the sheriffs’ opposition to the SAFE ACT has as much to do with politics as constitutional law.
    “They’re free to litigate,” he said. “God bless America.”
    He then added, “They’re politicians who run for office, too.”
    Howard, who has publicly aired his concerns about the SAFE Act, including testifying at an Assembly hearing in Buffalo in February, believes the law is both illegal and impractical.
    It won’t help police fight crime, he insists, and it may do just the opposite by causing law-abiding gun owners to lose trust in law enforcement. In the past, he has used words like “reckless” and “irresponsible” to describe Cuomo’s push for the measure.
    In addition to expanding New York’s assault weapons ban, the new law also requires mental health professionals to report the names of patients they think are a threat to themselves or others and gives the state authority to confiscate weapons if they have them.
    Mental health experts claim the provision will create a chilling effect on people who need professional help but might otherwise avoid it because their weapons might be taken away.
    “I just think it’s wrong every way you look at it,” Howard said. “Excuse the pun, but the result was a shotgun approach.”
    email: pfairbanks@buffnews.com
     
  22. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
  23. DSling

    DSling Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    98
    I still don't understand the 50 cal law but I'm glad this happened. Y'all need to talk to people and get then on our side to help control the vote.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
     
  24. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,834
    Location:
    On the road again
    The 50 caliber is very dangerous. Lots of robberies and crime are are being committed every year with it due to its easy concealment and portability (sarcasm).
    Total crimes committed with the 50 cal last year:
    Zero thousand, zero hundred, zero zero.
     
  25. HD_Ride

    HD_Ride Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    US
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page