Skip to comments.Albany Police Officers Union demand repeal of gun law. (AFSCME, AFI-CIO)
Posted on 04/17/2013 2:15:17 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
FROM: Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO, P.O BOX 6567, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12206 (518) 438-9422
To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and" that it will not deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed and violence. Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed into law via an unjustified and expedient "message of necessity", which circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law' and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety. Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed "assault weapons", do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms? Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will "safely store" his firearms? Of course you dont. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw. What then, have you accomplished?
Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be "assault weapons"? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively "opt into" protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or "assault weapon" registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong?
Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes. The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and" used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting.
We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not about making anyone safer.
Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the "assault rifle" which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called "Assault Weapons" were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011.
For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law. Very truly yours,
Thomas Mahar: President Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841 Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO
But..but...but I thought police were 99.9% behind the new gun laws and only crazy gun nuts opposed it? sarc>
” menially ill individuals “?
It appears that the little fascist dictator Cuomo has stirred up a barrel of trouble. He should hightail his Nazi butt to New York City where he can seek refuge with his fellow Nazi Bloomberg. If I were Cuomo, I’d seriously question whether my security detail would be willing to protect me. I bet he’s sweating over those images of Qaddhafi’s last minutes on Earth.
[[ menially ill individuals ?]]
I beleive it’s referrign to nominally ill people- thiose who suffer brief bouts of depression or anxiety (which is just abotu EVERY actor in hollywood)
Great letter in terms of logic. A few more citations to original source data would have made it more effective.
And 90% of the people are for it. But only 40% of the senate killed it. Now the question is what percentage of his brain does Biden use? I doubt he’s even a two percenter.
I think menially ill is when you’re sick and it’s a lot of work. Like you’re projectile puking all over the place and have to keep hosing down the bathroom.
Nice crack in the dam.
Cuomo is just another dago in an expensive suit whoring himself to the Obama admin.
A blithering incompetent like is dumba$$ father.
Looks like the cops in NY are starting to feel the pinch of of the boycott (on the part of gun and ammo companies) of NY LEO business...
Having met the worst society has to offer face to face, I want my family to be able to defend themselves in the event they ever meet some of these people. It is my sincere desire that the New York officers, and the majority of police, think this way also.
More like the other way around. Police officers know the guns that threaten them are almost always stolen. Almost no criminal is dumb enough to uses his own gun in a crime.
What this act will do is create an entirely new and massive class of criminal out of honest citizen patriots that they will be asked to go after for the most amoral of reasons.
I wouldn’t want to enforce any such amoral and unconstitutional law. I don’t blame them for their opposition. Were I in their shoes and the State of New York to ignore such an appeal i would do as little as possible to pay attention to that particular law. I would find every excuses to go after every other criminal offence.
And if i were a sheriff with the common law right to say no, i would do so without question on behalf of my deputies, and the people who’s rights I am swore to uphold. This is not a just or legitimate law.
Just be sure they know how to safely handle and store their firearm. A firearm is just a tool, it doesn’t do anyone any good if you don’t know how to safely use it.
menially ill individuals ?
Auto-correct is NOT your fiend!
“Auto-correct is NOT your fiend!”
And spell czech is knot yore friend!