NY's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the 2nd Amendment

[redstone14]

February 5, 2013

New York's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the Second Amendment

By Michael Filozof

In January, the New York State Legislature passed the Orwellian-sounding "SAFE" (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. The act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage -- after waiving the required three-day public comment period. Cuomo bragged that New York now has the "toughest assault weapons ban" in the country but claimed that the law respects the Second Amendment and preserves the rights of "hunters and sportsmen." The former is true; the latter is a bald-faced lie. Even if you do not live in New York, you should be very worried, because the SAFE Act is a harbinger of what Democrats in the federal government will do nationwide if they can.

The SAFE Act is far worse than you might imagine. Harold "Budd" Schroeder, member of the NRA Board of Directors from New York, described the law as "the rape of our gun rights." That is no exaggeration. The law is as harsh as (or harsher than) the gun laws of some European nations that do not have a Bill or Rights or a Second Amendment.

The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state an excuse to find ways to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future.

Shockingly enough, in many ways the "assault weapons ban" is actually one of the statute's lesser infringements on the Second Amendment. The statute criminalizes, potentially criminalizes, or places under state surveillance even the most innocuous, banal, and pedestrian forms of gun ownership, and it restricts the right of self-defense.

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

The purchase of large quantities of ammunition will likely set off alarm bells at State Police headquarters. But what is truly sinister about the ammunition registry is that no one actually knows "how much" will be deemed "too much" -- because the law does not prohibit the purchase or ownership of any specific quantity of ammunition. Thus, one may become the target of a police investigation for engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Since many gun owners have vowed to defy the "assault weapons" registration, it is highly likely that the State Police will use the ammunition database as a means to discover and confiscate unregistered rifles.

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized. (For instance, in the 1964 presidential campaign, a group of psychiatrists "diagnosed" conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater as insane.) But the law exempts such "professionals" from civil liability; thus, any "mental health professional" who believes that all gun owners are "nuts" could initiate the confiscation of a person's firearms, and the gun owner is forbidden to file a civil suit to challenge the "diagnosis."

The SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all centerfire guns to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense.

So suppose a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home. If you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit to possess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.

The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 13-shot Browning Hi-Power pistol, first manufactured in 1935, or the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. The M-1 "Garand" rifle, adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, was designed exclusively to use an eight-round "clip," which will now be considered an illegal "high capacity ammunition feeding device." Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The law also prohibits the private "sale" or "exchange" of any firearm to any person unless a licensed dealer performs the "sale" and a background check. The politically correct law exempts parents, spouses, children, stepchildren and "domestic partners." Thus, the divorced Cuomo may legally give his live-in girlfriend Sandra Lee a firearm without a dealer transfer and background check, but if a serial rapist and murderer (such as the notorious "Bike Path Rapist" Altemio Sanchez , who terrorized women for three decades while the cops put the wrong guy in prison) is on the loose, you may not give a shotgun to your sister for self-protection. You may give your live-in gay lover a firearm, but you may not give your brother or nephew a .22 rifle on Christmas Eve. The law does not clarify how long someone must be in possession of a firearm before such possession is understood to be an "exchange"; thus, it is possible that lending a rifle to your brother-in-law for deer season without a dealer transfer and a background check could be construed as an illegal "exchange." You would then be a criminal, and the gun used in the "crime" could be confiscated and destroyed.

Finally, the SAFE Act requires that gun owners report any "loss or theft" of a firearm or ammunition to the police within 24 hours. Failure to do so is a criminal offense. Read literally, a deer hunter in Saranac Lake who drops a single 12-gauge slug in the snow and cannot find it is a criminal unless he reports the loss to the police.

The New York SAFE Act is one of the most breathtakingly brazen assaults on the Constitution and on individual liberty in the history of the United States. Cuomo has gleefully thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 affirming the right to keep and bear arms. The intent of the law is to suppress and criminalize the common use of firearms, including guns not defined as "assault weapons."

The SAFE Act must be resisted on all levels. I urge firearm manufacturers, like Remington and Kimber, to leave New York State as soon as possible and stop paying taxes to a government that seeks to suppress the right to own their products. Firearms wholesalers and police supply outfits should boycott New York State law enforcement agencies. Gun manufacturers should refuse sales and warranty service to police agencies in the state. I strongly counsel residents of other states who value liberty to avoid New York at all costs. Avoid tourist trips to New York City; the law has made a mockery of the Statue of "Liberty." Residents of other states should avoid moving to New York under all but the most dire circumstances, and New York residents should begin making plans to leave as soon as possible.

New York has the highest taxes in the nation. Twenty-five percent of the population is on Medicaid. It has the highest rate of union membership in the nation. It is ranked as the least "business-friendly" state in the country. There is nothing to be gained in New York (unless you are on welfare). Nothing.

Above all else, remember that even if you do not live in New York, you cannot be complacent. The gun-banners are coming after you next.


www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/new_yorks_safe_act_the_rape_of_the_second_amendment.html

[coots]

Ulster County Republican legislators offer Resolution (0154) supporting the 2nd Amendment and opposing the NY SAFE ACT.

by Craig Lopez Ulster County Legislator Town of Shawangunk and Wawarsing on Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 7:58pm ·...

Draft Resolution 0154

Opposing The Process Of Enactment And Certain Provisions Contained Within The New York SAFE Act

Legislators Belfiglio, Bernardo, Fabiano, Gerentine, Harris, Lopez, Maio, Maloney, Roberts, Ronk and Wawro offer the following:

WHEREAS, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty, and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people of Ulster County; and

WHEREAS, the lawful ownership of firearms is, and has been, a valued tradition in Ulster County, and the rights protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are exercised by many of our residents; and

WHEREAS, the people of Ulster County derive economic and environmental benefits from all safe forms of recreation involving firearms, including, but not limited to, hunting and target shooting while utilizing all types of firearms available under the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, members of the Ulster County Legislature, being elected to represent the people of Ulster County, are duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, members of the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate, being elected by the people of New York State, are duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the enactment of the NY SAFE Act (Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2013) has engendered significant controversy over both the process by which it was enacted and certain provisions contained within it; and

WHEREAS, it is our understanding that many State Legislators had less than an hour to read the legislation, which contained approximately twenty-five thousand words, before being forced to vote on it; and

WHEREAS, having reviewed the legislation and time constraints, it is our conclusion that there is no possible way any individual could have read the entire bill and understood its full implications prior to voting on it; and

WHEREAS, our State Legislators most certainly could not have had the time to request, and receive, the input of their constituents regarding this matter; and

WHEREAS, seeking, and considering, such public input is a standard to which we hold ourselves in the Ulster County Legislature; and

WHEREAS, this legislation has 60 sections, of which only three take effect immediately; and

WHEREAS, in our opinion, there was no reason for the Governor to use a message of necessity to bring this bill to vote immediately and bypass the three day maturing process for all legislation; and

WHEREAS, the mishandling of the process in crafting the NY SAFE Act resulted in complex policy changes, many of which have been left up to interpretation, and are confusing even to the State Legislators who voted on them, and the law enforcement officials who are required to enforce and explain them; and

WHEREAS, requiring law-abiding gun owners to verify ownership of certain types of firearms every five years, in addition to registering them on their permits, which now also must be renewed every 5 years, does not increase the safety of the public and is unnecessarily burdensome to the residents of New York State; and

WHEREAS, there will be a significant financial impact due to the approximately 20,000 Ulster County permits that will have to be renewed requiring additional manpower and computer systems; and

WHEREAS, this legislation prohibits the sale of firearm magazines with a capacity larger than seven rounds; and

WHEREAS, those firearm magazines with a capacity larger than seven rounds, which are authorized to be retained by existing owners, may only be loaded with seven rounds and eventually must be permanently altered to only accept seven rounds or be disposed of, thus constituting a seizure of legally owned personal property with no provision for compensation; and

WHEREAS, few or no low capacity (7 rounds or less) magazines currently exist for many of the firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding residents of New York State; and

WHEREAS, limiting the number of rounds to seven versus ten is arbitrary and capricious, has no correlation to public safety, unfairly burdens law-abiding gun owners, and puts an undue burden on gun manufacturers to retool their manufacturing plants; and

WHEREAS, the only persons who will comply with the new high-capacity magazine ban are law-abiding citizens, leaving the same high-capacity magazines in the hands of those who choose not to obey the law; and

WHEREAS, requiring documentation of all ammunition sales in New York State, as provided for in this legislation, is a significant unfunded mandate on business; and

WHEREAS, the New York State Combined Ballistic Identification System, which wasted $44 million in taxpayer money and resulted in zero convictions, illustrates the propensity of government to waste taxpayer resources when legislation is not properly reviewed; and

WHEREAS, Governor Cuomo has proposed spending $36 million dollars in his 2013-2014 Executive budget for the implementation of the NY SAFE Act at a time when New York State residents are crying out for tax relief; and

WHEREAS, this legislation severely impacts the possession and use of firearms now employed by the residents of Ulster County for defense of life, liberty, and property; and

WHEREAS, this legislation severely impacts the possession and use of firearms now employed for safe forms of recreation including, but not limited to, hunting and target shooting; and

WHEREAS, Ulster County Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum has said “the state already has laws prohibiting individuals from possessing fully automatic rifles, along with limitations on high-capacity magazines for ammunition”; and

WHEREAS, Ulster County Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum has said that he “does not believe there needs to be any change to current gun-control laws because it’s not the honest people who commit crimes”; and

WHEREAS, while there are some areas of the legislation that the Ulster County Legislature finds encouraging, such as addressing glaring shortcomings in the mental health system, the strengthening of Kendra’s Law and Mark’s law, as well as privacy protections for certain of pistol permit holders, by-and-large, we find the legislation does little more then negatively impact lawful gun ownership; and

WHEREAS, this legislation fails to offer any meaningful solutions to gun violence and places increased burdens where they do not belong, squarely on the backs of law-abiding citizens; and

WHEREAS, this legislation effectively turns countless New York State law-abiding gun owners into criminals; and

WHEREAS, the manner in which this legislation was brought forward for vote in the State Legislature is deeply disturbing to the Ulster County Legislature, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Ulster County Legislature does hereby oppose, and request the repeal of, any legislation, including the sections within the NY SAFE Act (Chapter1 of the Laws of 2013), which infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and further be it

RESOLVED, that the Ulster County Legislature considers such laws to be unnecessary and beyond lawful legislative authority granted to our State representatives; and further be it

RESOLVED, that the Ulster County Legislature strongly encourages members of the New York State Legislature to hold public hearings to address the issue of gun violence in a way that will produce meaningful results; and further be it

RESOLVED, that the Ulster County Legislature requests the members of the New York State Senate and Assembly who represent all, or part of, Ulster County to reply, in writing, with their views on, and actions taken, in support of, or opposition to, the NY SAFE Act; and further be it

RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressman Chris Gibson, New York State Senators James Seward, John J. Bonacic, William J. Larkin, Jr. and Cecilia Tkaczyk, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, New York State Assemblymembers Kevin A. Cahill, Claudia Tenney, Frank K. Skartados, and Peter Lopez,
and moves its adoption.

[tornado]

The SAFE Act is bullshvt, unconstitutional & a stunt by Emperor Andy to cvck-block B.H.O. on the national stage with gun-control. What I read above was the first analysis of what it's really about. Did not see anything like this in the newspapers or on the news. In fact, they were all applauding it and ignoring the fact that it is aimed at the regular, law-abiding people in this state. It won't do a thing to stop the savagery in Roosevelt, New Cassel, Queens, Harlem, Wyandanch, North Bellport, Buffalo, etc...

[captzack]

Maybe those boys and girls in Albany should try something that will work. Try this on for size.

Penal Law Section 1000
Possession of an illegal Firearm during the commission of an offense or crime as defined in the Penal Law of the State of New York.

1. Possession of an illegal firearm during the commission of an offense or crime as defined in the N.Y.S. Penal Law will be classified as a Class D Felony.
a. firearm is described as a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, designed to discharge a projectile capable of causing serious physical injury or death.
b. For the purpose of this section, it is irrelevant if the firearm itself is
capable of actually discharging a projectile.
c. For the purpose of this section, it not necessary to display or use the
illegal firearm in order to be convicted of the charge of Possession of an illegal firearm during the commission of an offense or crime.

2. Use of an illegal firearm during the commission of an offense or crime as defined in the New York State Penal law will be classified as a Class C Felony.
a. Use of an illegal firearm is described as, the threat of use of, or actual presentation of a firearm while in the commission of an offense or crime.

3. Discharge of an illegal firearm during the commission of an offense or crime as defined in the New York State Penal Law will be classified as a Class B felony.
a. The discharge of a firearm is described as the firearm is fired to cause a discharge of a projectile capable of causing serious physical injury or death.
b. It is not necessary for the discharge to have caused serious physical injury or death to be Guilty of Discharge of a firearm during the commission of an offense or crime.

4. Discharge of a firearm during the commission of an offense or crime as defined in the Penal Law of the State of New York that causes serious physical injury or death of another will be classified as a Class A Felony.
a. It will not be an affirmative defense if it is claimed that the discharge of the firearm was accidental or unintended.
b. In the event the discharge of a firearm results in the death of another person the Offense will be classified as a Class A1-Felony.

The above sections will stand apart from any other charges applied to a defendant for the original commission of an offense or crime and where a firearm was present during the commission of said offense or crime. Conviction of the underlying offense or crime will not be necessary in order to be convicted of a violation of this section. All convictions under this section, the sentence for said conviction shall in all case’s be mandatory and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime.

Definition of an Illegal Firearm.
An illegal firearm is described as a firearm that is possessed by a person who would normally be barred from said ownership and possession, by virtue of any of the following circumstances

1 A prior conviction of a Felony that would preclude the issuance of a license or to purchase, possess, deal in, or own a firearm under existing law

2 A person who has been adjudicated as being mentally unfit to obtain a license for or to own, possess, purchase, or deal in firearm transaction under existing law.

3 A person who has been dishonorably discharged from the military and who would be unfit to obtain a license for or to own, possess, purchase, or deal in firearm transaction under existing law.

4 A person who has been charged with domestic violence as defined by the penal Law of the State of New York, who would be unfit to obtain a license or to own, possess, purchase, or deal in firearm transaction under existing law.

Sentences
Conviction of a Class D felony under this section the prescribed mandatory sentence will be 5 years and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime. Second offense 10 years

Conviction of a Class C felony under this section the prescribed mandatory sentence will be 10 years, and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime. Second offense 15 years

Conviction of a Class B felony under this section the prescribed mandatory sentence will be 15 years, and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime. Second offense 25 to life

Conviction of a Class A felony under this section the prescribed mandatory sentence will be 25 to Life, and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime. Second offense Life without parole.

Conviction of a Class A-1 felony under this section the prescribed mandatory sentence will be Life without a chance for parole, and consecutive to any other sentence for any other offense or crime.
In all instances of this section, when it is determined that a defendant has a previous conviction for any sub section, the second offense will be sentenced under the next higher charge.


Lets see if they have the B@$%'s to work on this !

[ncpdretired]

Wellcome Captzack.... You have some very interesting entrys. Keep them comming.

Just enjoying...........

[thesquad]

Does anyone know the impact this new legislation will have on the retired members?

[redstone14]

Feb 7, 2013 7:19:45 GMT -5 captzack said:

Maybe those boys and girls in Albany should try something that will work. Try this on for size.

No good, that targets criminals. They only go after law abiding citizens in Albany.

[redstone14]

Feb 7, 2013 11:30:53 GMT -5 thesquad said:

Does anyone know the impact this new legislation will have on the retired members?

As written, this law contains no exceptions for retired Cops. Miscount and put 1 more round than 7 in that magazine and you go to jail. This is what passes for crime fighting in Albany. Really sick bunch up there.

[retncpd]

I hope everyone remembers this new law the next time Senator Skelos is up for election and vote him out!! He's nothing more then a Democrat Lite!

[coots]

Green County Daily Mail

Legislature Takes Stand Against NY Gun Law

2/21/13 - CATSKILL — Greene County legislators sent a clear message to Albany Wednesday when they voted in opposition to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s NY SAFE Act and proposed state legislation requiring gun owners to obtain a $1 million liability insurance.

Lawmakers voiced their individual and collective voices on the floor of the legislative chambers in Catskill during a roll call vote calling for repeal of the enactment of the New York State Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act.

The resolution opposing the SAFE Act passed with a 13-1 vote with freshman Legislator Vincent Seeley, D-Catskill, voting against the measure. The second resolution related to the proposed insurance passed 14-0.

Along with both oppositions, a request to members of the state senate and assembly representing Greene County has been made for a reply in writing, with their views on, and actions taken, in support of, of opposition to the NY SAFE Act.

Speaking on behalf of the Greene County Republican caucus, Legislator William Lawrence, R-Cairo, said among the rights the constitution details is the freedom to disagree, and disagree they do.

“We disagree with a bulk of the recently enacted NY SAFE Act,” Lawrence said, “and those of us that disagree with it are not seeking revolution but requesting a reconsideration.”

Lawrence said whatever good intent the sponsors of the NY SAFE Act had in mind has been lost to the “fear and anxiety and anger … in the very people it was designed to protect.”

“We have to start over,” Lawrence said. “We are obligated to initiate a rational discussion statewide.”

Lawrence said he was in favor of the resolution opposing Cuomo’s act because input needed to be welcomed in on the real issue in this matter, gun violence, not what has been confused by many as gun control.

But there were two things everyone in the legislative chambers Wednesday night could agree on, Minority Leader James Van Slyke, D-New Baltimore, said.

Point one being a respect of the Second Amendment and the rights guaranteed by it. Point two, that too many Americans are being harmed by gun violence.

“Somehow we need to find a balance between these two points of view,” Van Slyke said. “We all agree that there are some good things in this law and there are some things that need to be examined or eliminated, but we have been saying that for years without action.”

Van Slyke said that the state is now faced with a deadline of one year before legal penalties go into effect under Cuomo’s NY SAFE Act.

“We all have a chance to express our opinion and help make the law what we want it to be,” Van Slyke said, “legislation that respects the second amendment and the rights guaranteed by it and one that generally helps protect the people of Greene County from gun violence.”

“The Democratic caucus looks forward to working with our Republican colleagues in helping to enable this discussion,” Van Slyke added.

During February’s Public Safety and Finance committee meetings Seeley voted in favor of the resolution in order to get it to the legislative floor, where he said all resolutions should be heard, not die in the committee hearings.

Seeley said the resolution was ceremonial at best and that the NY SAFE Act had passed legally by both the state and the assembly, though he agreed with his fellow lawmakers that it was not optimal in the way that it was passed.

“I would have rather had more stakeholders at the table when it was discussed and then passed,” Seeley said. “The vast majority of the act makes sense. If you sit there and you go through each of the different provisions, it only makes sense, do I want somebody who is mentally ill to have an assault rifle? Of course not.”

But the provisions in the NY SAFE Act that are questionable should and would be decided upon in the courts, Seeley said.

“I don’t think that should come from this venue,” Seeley said. “There are a few flaws and vague areas that need to be cleared up, but again, that is going to be the courts. Instead of a repeal, which is highly unlikely, let’s amend to make this work for everyone.”

Seeley said he stood with Cuomo and the families of Newtown, adding that if something like the NY SAFE Act was in effect there, where a 20-year-old gunman took the life of his mother, 20 children and six adults and, finally, his own four handguns, the deaths could have been prevented.

“I stand by the governor and the families of Newtown,” Seeley said. “There was a mentally unstable person in this house, those guns wouldn’t have been in the house and those families would have those kids, period.”

[coots]

Greene County Mail


CATSKILL - 3/3/13 - Anti-NY SAFE Act sentiments have been strong and constant throughout Greene County since its being passed in mid-January.

From sportsmen to elected officials, rallies and resolutions have been held and passed demanding that Governor Andrew Cuomo repeal his Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act due to concerns of infringement to Second Amendment rights and that it was passed without legislators having the chance to read it.

But the biggest surprise to some has been the opposition to the law coming from some law enforcement officials and representatives.

In a statement emailed to The Daily Mail, members of The Greene County Police Officers Association voiced their opposition to the new gun laws. GCPOA President Bruce McNab Sr. and Secretary George T. Carroll each had their names attached to two separate releases making the same statement for the association which is comprised of active and retired Law Enforcement Officers.

“Law Enforcement Officers, The Military, your elected officials (Town, County, State and Federal) all take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York from enemies, both foreign and domestic,” the email reads. “It is the opinion of the Greene County Police Officers Association that the NY Safe Act goes against the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Amendments. We request that the NY SAFE Act be repealed in its entirety.”

In a meeting held at Kirwan’s Game Store last week, members of the Hudson Valley Americans for Freedom invited elected officials to speak to the over 200 in attendance, among them was Greene County Sheriff Greg Seeley.

Seeley has been a steadfast opponent of the SAFE Act. He told the crowd he stood before them representing no one party, person or agency.

“I’m talking Greg Seeley, Greene County taxpayer and your elected sheriff of Greene County,” Seeley said. “Everybody in this room knows my opinion about this New York State Safe Act, it stinks,” Seeley added. “Don’t believe it was written overnight. It has been in progress for the last year or two, ‘cause I don’t believe anybody can write that much, that fast overnight.”

The sheriff told members of the Hudson Valley Americans for Freedom and others attending the meeting that they need to be professional about this and let their voices be heard.

“Let the governor know what our concerns are,” Seeley said, “and let all those politicians in Albany know what our concerns are.”

The sheriff said he took issue with the fact that the state police were being called in to do a job that has been conducted through his office.

“The sheriff’s offices across New York state and the county clerks have done the pistol permits for their counties in New York State for as long as I can remember,” Seeley said, “and I have been here for 30 years in the sheriff’s office. Now I guess we’re not good enough anymore; the state police have to get involved in this, and again, I’m not beating up anybody. I’ll let you decipher.”

Seeley referenced the portion of the law that requires handgun owners to renew their permit every five years, to which he said the burden will come back to the county.

“We’ll have to do all the work, they’re going to get all of the money and they are going to know every person who is going to have a pistol permit,” Seeley said. “To me it is a moneymaking thing, $36 million the governor is giving to state police to put a database in for it. Don’t we have a lot of unfunded mandates that I think that $36 million could actually go to?”

Seeley asked why it was required of hunters who might only own a rifle to register that weapon when they might not own what he said was being considered an assault rifle or pistol.

“The question I have is why do we have to do that?” Seeley asked, to which a voice from the crowd muttered, “Confiscation.”

“Thank you very much,” Seeley responded. “It’s what’s coming down the road.”

Although he didn’t like the SAFE Act, Seeley said he was in favor of a number of sections, including the strengthening of Kendra’s Law and Mark’s Law, which provides additional penalties for assaulting first responders.

Regarding the sections of the law that pertained to mental health alerts, Seeley said in the past mental health issues have been one of the biggest battles law enforcement agencies have had to face.

Seeley told the crowd that it was a good thing that the NY SAFE Act allowed for law enforcement to obtain the information needed to achieve that goal.

Under the NY SAFE Act, mental health professionals will be required to report to local mental health officials when there is reason to believe a patient is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to themselves or others. This information will then be crosschecked against the new comprehensive, and regularly updated, gun registration database. If the patient possesses a gun, the license will be suspended and law enforcement will be authorized to remove the person’s firearm.

“We know there [Newtown] and all the other killings around the United States, there wasn’t one sane person that did this,” Seeley said. “Every one of these shootings have been some kind of mental imbalance.”

Addressing the issue of tougher assault weapons ban in the new law, Seeley said he had to “beat up the media” over the coverage of Newtown and how it was continually reported that an assault rifle was used in the mass killing.

“The said assault weapon, assault weapon, assault weapon,” Seeley said. “Finally another media got a hold of it and said the truth is, the assault weapon was in the trunk of the vehicle.”

Seeley said he didn’t understand the reduction of clips in magazines.

“Can anybody tell me what the difference is?” Seeley said. “My opinion is this: Law abiding citizens, somebody comes into your house and is going to harm you and some part of your family … I don’t care if you have 500 rounds, you should be able to have 500 rounds.”

“Does anybody in this room think that the criminal is going to come in with seven rounds?” Seeley furthered. “What are they thinking about?”

Greene County residents elected Seeley their sheriff six years ago and he told the crowd that on that day he swore to protect their Constitutional rights and his plan was to do just that, to uphold the constitution of the United States and New York state.

“Ladies and gentleman, I will do nothing but uphold the laws and the constitution of New York State and the United States, period,” Seeley said, adding that he had been FOILed by a group out of Brooklyn looking for the names of every pistol permit holder in Greene County.

“We have approximately 10,000 pistol permit holders in Greene County,” The sheriff said. “They wanted everybody’s name, where they lived, the same thing that happened down in Westchester County. I absolutely refuse to give it.”

Seeley had Sheriff’s Sgt. Michael Bolz and Greene County Assistant District Attorney Charles Bucca on hand to answer questions that gun owners might have regarding the law.

Members of the crowd didn’t identify themselves and some even asked to keep their last names for being printed for what they said was concern for their loved ones if they were identified.

One older gentleman stood and told Bucca that he has never been in trouble with the law; however, he believed in civil disobedience and what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi stood for, and he is refusing to register his gun, which the NY SAFE Act defines as an assault weapon.

“This will make me a criminal for the first time,” the man asked. “What’s my penalty?”

Bucca said there were two different penalties for noncompliance of registration. Failure to register the weapon itself is a misdemeanor offense. Being in possession of an unregistered weapon would be a class B felony.

A young man stood up in the middle of the room and asked the sheriff where he stood if state authorities came in to take the guns of county residents that didn’t comply with the law.

“Do you stand with us or with them,” the young man asked.

“I’m not beating around this question whatsoever,” Seeley said, “I’m not going to say that we are going to get the National Guard and shoot the state police and shoot the federal agencies and stuff like that.”

“I’m asking you what you will do,” the voice persisted.

“I will not violate you constitutional rights,” Seeley said sternly. “So if somebody comes to me and you are a law abiding citizen and you legally possess your guns and you legally have permit, we’re not coming to your house to take your guns from you … I’m with you.”

Seeley said he had attended the New York State Sheriff’s Association’s Annual Winter Meeting just after the NY SAFE Act was enacted.

“I can tell you there were 52 angry sheriffs in Albany and what I can also tell you is that, unfortunately, we weren’t really a part of this process under any shape, manner or form,” Seeley said. “We can’t imagine why. We spent two days trying to go through this trying to come up with some answers, some good points. We all know we have to work with everybody. We all know that violence, I hope, isn’t going to be the answer to this, but I can tell you, in Greene County, there’s a lot of angry people. A lot of angry people.”

Seeley said what he was worried about was that six months from now the subject of this gun control law will be disappear. It’s something he said he has seen time and again.

“We have to stick together on to this. It’s our second amendment rights,” Seeley said. “If they get away with this one, you know what’s coming next. You know what’s coming next, because I don’t care what anybody says, what they have in this law now is just for the next step to come and confiscate every gun you have in your house.”

US Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, and 102 Assembly District Assemblyman Pete Lopez made an appearance at the end of the meeting to address the crowd.

Gibson said he was impressed by the way law enforcement officials came out and lambasted the NY SAFE Act.

“We obviously support not only this sheriff but all of our sheriffs here,” Gibson said. “And by the way, how courageous was it for our sheriff to come out and make that statement?” He asked to an applauding crowd.

“Like everyone in this room,” Gibson said, “I oppose the NY, so-called, SAFE Act. I think you deserve candid conversation, candid comments and I believe you are getting it here.”

Gibson said as long as Cuomo remained governor there would be no repeal of the NY SAFE Act; however, he encouraged those in attendance to sign petitions and express the fact that they don’t like the law and don’t like the way it was passed.

“But you should have to realistic expectations on that that we have to defeat the governor if we are going to be able to repeal it,” Gibson said.

Gibson said although the outcry for repeal is about the Second Amendment, it’s bigger than that.

“This has to do with the rights of free men and women,” Gibson said. “This has to do with the First Amendment. This has to do with the Third Amendment, the Fourth, Fifth, you get the point. This is about our Bill of Rights and like many of you in this room, I fought and bled for that right and we are going to stand up for the bill of rights.”

Gibson told the crowd that in order to do that, they would have to register and vote.

“I know a lot of you are pissed off at the government, I get that,” the congressman said, “but you know what, you got to get involved, because it you believe in the constitution and you believe in democracy, then the only way you are going to make a difference is if we get involved.”

Lopez added to Gibson’s sentiment of citizens becoming engaged and also encouraged them to register to vote if they planned on fighting legislation of the likes of the NY SAFE Act.

“So what has to is engagement, as the congressman has said,” Lopez said, “and I use this phrase before … Oppression, conflict, freedom, abundance, apathy, oppression. We cannot be an apathetic society, we can not be a society that takes for granted that our freedoms will be protected as sew are home comfortable in our houses. That is not going to happen.”

[redstone14]

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver wants Cops to load Blanks.


Silver open to potential changes on 10-round magazine ban

Posted by: Joseph Spector - Posted in Uncategorized on Mar 05, 2013


Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, indicated he may be open to changing a major piece of the state’s gun-control law that limits the number of bullets in a magazine to seven.

Silver suggested today that because manufacturers do not make magazines with seven bullets, lawmakers and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may need to revisit the restriction, which was part of the gun-control law passed Jan. 15. The prior law put the limit at 10 bullets in a magazine.

“A lot of things are being discussed,” Silver said. “It’s a question of whether no sevens are being manufactured in the state and maybe you’ll be able to use a 10 magazine with three blanks.”

Silver said it’s unclear whether any significant changes to the controversial law would be made.

“From a practical matter, we’re discussing it. I’m just saying I’m open to it,” Silver continued. “Everything in this state will better and does move better when people are open to compromise.”

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Nassau County, said yesterday he wants significant changes, including a change on the magazine limit.

Cuomo said yesterday he would only support technical corrections to the law, such as excluding police and film productions from an assault-weapons ban. Cuomo told reporters that changing the number of allowable bullets in a magazine would be more than a technical change.

But it’s unclear whether he would allow for new 10-bullet magazines that could only carry seven bullets, which Silver seems to be suggesting.

“I do not consider that a technical change,” Cuomo said. “If it is raising what it now says in the law about seven to 10, I don’t believe that’s a technical change.”

statepolitics.lohudblogs.com/2013/03/05/silver-open-to-potential-changes-on-10-round-magazine-ban/

[ncpdretired]

I'm sure this a$$hole cuts his steak with a rubber knife cause he does not want to have an "illegal" weapon in his hands.......

Just sayin..........

[overthecap]

Best idea 'EVER'.

I got a better one.

Allow 10 rd mags and every other round is a blank. Only five/ live in the mag.

Now, everyone has to tap, rack, fire.

Imagine the lives saved! ;D

[ncpdretired]

That's like having five locks on your door. You lock every other one, so when some body picks the locks they lock every other one they unlocked....

Just saying....