What many had assumed would be a meeting regarding New York State Sheriffs’ Association concerns about New York’s strict new gun laws, turned into a verbal scolding from the Governor which included the threat of some people’s jobs if they didn’t toe the line and shut up about the SAFE Act.
Via the Times Union:
The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York’s gun control law, the SAFE Act. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told them to keep quiet.Opposition to the new law has simmered in upstate areas since Cuomo signed the law in January. Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state. In January, the New York State Sheriffs’ Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.
Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month, people briefed on the meeting said.
Rather than discuss the merits of the letter, Cuomo asked those in attendance to stop publicly discussing opposition to the SAFE Act.
One individual briefed on the meeting claimed that Cuomo had threatened to remove some sheriffs from office.
What has raised the ire of the Governor is a lawsuit the Association has joined in, challenging the Constitutionality of the SAFE Act.
Via Empire State News:
The New York State Sheriffs’ Association has joined as amicus curiae in a lawsuit brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of SAFE Act. Sheriff Maciol has been a member of the NYS Sheriff’s Association since taking office as Sheriff in 2011, serves on many of their committees, and is currently serving as the association’s Sergeant at Arms.
The amicus brief will support the main suit by setting forth legal arguments against the SAFE Act specifically from the view of law enforcement. Some of the arguments contained in the brief are that the law impinges upon the 2nd Amendment to a degree that renders it unconstitutional, that the law is fatally vague, and that the law does not provide sufficient guidance to law enforcement.
Much as he did when ramming the gun legislation through in January by avoiding a three-day public screening, Governor Cuomo is simply trying to silence opposition.
Silencing opposition is a good way to flesh out one’s Democrat credentials for national office, no doubt. If his presidential aspirations fall through, there may be a position available for Cuomo at the IRS.
This had to be infuriating to the Democrat state Senator from New Jersey. Because, what do libs hate more than the Second Amendment? The First Amendment apparently…
Via Guns Save Lives:
Second Amendment activist, James Kaleda, was forcefully removed from a hearing on a new gun control bill in NJ during his testimony.
Yes, James’ testimony got a little heated, but he was still making an intelligent argument.
Notice in the video the legislators laugh as they have their security (armed with guns of course) remove Kaleda before he finished his testimony.
The YouTube description reads:
James Kaleda explains that the proposed NJ Gun Bills will not save any lives but will endanger them. He is ejected by Committee Chair Senator Norcross. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013.
The Chair is Donald Norcross, District 5.
What followed after the ejection was pretty amazing. After the legislators shut down a private citizens right to speak freely at the hearing, the remaining citizens shut down the legislators by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Via Guns Save Lives:
Several members of the audience yelled at the state senator in charge from the audience, several called him out of order, and at least one more was escorted from the room.
Then in one of the best displays of civil disobedience I’ve ever seen, the entire audience recited the pledge of allegiance, while most of the lawmakers remained seated.
Good to see some citizens still willing to stand up for their rights, and the rights of others.
In late December, Governor Cuomo appeared to slip up when he mentioned that gun control could be implemented using various extreme means – which included confiscation.
Back then my opinion was that this was not a serious option in the gun control debate, stating that “There is no possible manner in which gun confiscation could end well for anybody involved.”
I was wrong, apparently. Gun confiscation is indeed an option, and has apparently become a reality for some people taking anti-anxiety medication.
The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation.
“We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government,” Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York.
“We were flummoxed by this whole matter,” the attorney said. “The HIPPA act is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It’s a gross invasion of our privacy rights.”
Worse, it is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment of course, but also the Fourth Amendment, trampling the legal definition of probable cause. It is unconstitutional. Period.
The only cause necessary to bring this confiscation to fruition? A provision in New York’s SAFE Act allows authorities to confiscate firearms if medical professionals determine a patient may cause harm to themselves or others. Section 9.46.
Scratch that. The provision actually allows for “unlicensed” psychologists and registered nurses to report such a perceived threat.
That’s right – Unlicensed individuals can determine whether or not you can legally own a firearm in New York State.
Confiscation is an option. Is it now also a reality?
Despite repeated assertions to the contrary coming from Governor Cuomo’s office, law enforcement in New York state are still not exempt from ammunition limiting provisions of the SAFE Act, severely hampering their ability to serve and protect the public.
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlan tells the Mental Recession that for months now, the Cuomo administration may have been misleading the public about whether or not law enforcement were exempt.
He writes, “Since the day the bill passed they’ve insisted that police were exempt. They’re not exempt and never have been. It appears that the National Guard may not have even been exempt.”
Since it was first reported in mid-January that law enforcement were not addressed in the hastily passed gun control legislation – preventing them from carrying extended ammo magazines, or even from bringing guns on school property – the Cuomo administration has insisted the opposite.
Fox News: “Police officers possessing ammunition clip with more than seven bullets are not in violation of this law and they never will be, period.”
Politics on the Hudson: “No police officer possessing ammunition clips with more than 7 bullets is in violation of the law or guilty of any crime, period.”
In a Q & A using information from state legislative staff, Syracuse.com reported that the new law would not hinder law enforcement.
Will anything in the new law limit police officers’ capacities?
No, though that exact language was left out of the original bill. The governor and lawmakers have agreed to codify it in the final law.
And in an article discussing a new website aimed to provide concerned citizens with facts surrounding the SAFE Act, New York State Police Superintendent, Joseph D’Amico, stated that, “police will remain exempt from the weapons ban.”
Assemblyman McLaughlin explained to us that this simply isn’t the case, and that legislators are actually forced to enact changes to the law as part of the state budget. The proposed exemption would allow police officers to carry more than seven rounds, and to respond to an incident on school grounds without concerns over possibly committing a felony.
That’s why we’re going to pass as part of the budget, an exemption for them (police) to carry more than 7 rds and to make it legal for them to carry on school grounds.
A budgetary amendment to correct a major law enforcement oversight by the governor’s office? Sounds like something that could have been corrected if the public had three days to review the law.
While the administration has failed to address the law enforcement aspect, leaving them in potential violation of the law and handcuffed when dealing with a school shooting, Cuomo did manage to find time for a special exemption for tv and movie producers who wish to use banned weapons in their violent action movies.
I’d go with anti-oppressive Constitutional realists. But that’s just me.
Referring to the NRA lawsuit against New York state which contests the constitutionality of the SAFE Act as “propaganda”, Governor Cuomo proceeded to lay into those who oppose the law as paranoid extremists devoid of facts.
Via Capitol Confidential:
What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government,” Cuomo continued. This is true: at gun rallies, I’ve heard this “slippery slope” line of argument from multiple attendees. They view the right to bear arms as a kind of check against government power.
Malarchy, Cuomo said.
“Common sense. Cool heads. Moderation. And remember there’s a majority of people in this state, this nation [that support gun control measures] and they have rights, too. It’s not just the Second Amendment right. People have a right to be safe,” he said. “Criminals and the mentally ill don’t have a right to a gun. They don’t. And you need a system and government regulation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”
“These people are spreading fear because the facts don’t work for them,” Cuomo said.
First off, the Second Amendment is an absoulte right guaranteed by the Constitution. It can not be trumped by a made up generalization such as “people have a right to be safe”. Assuming that Second Amendment advocates getting their way will result in people being less safe makes Cuomo sound … well … paranoid.
Second, you can’t complain about people “spreading fear” a few seconds after saying your anti-gun legislation grants people the “right to be safe”. That’s spreading fear.
Third, your strongest argument is in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But that was something insisted upon by Republicans in the bill, not you.
Fourth, it doesn’t matter whether or not people buy into the theory that they need a gun to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was put in place for that very reason, and whether or not you believe it is nonsense is completely irrelevant. The Founding Fathers were indeed referring to such a scenario when they granted this right – they weren’t debating the merits of deer hunting.
Fifth, I’ll take a paranoid extremist who follows the Constitution over a paranoid extremist who spits upon the Constitution any day.