FYI...on the NY Safe Act
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, “We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.”
The letter:
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.
April 15,2013
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 don’t. 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
****menially ill individuals****
In my opinion this is a “hinge phrase”. Highly appropriate in its use and highly useable by the left to distort its meaning.
I know that this guy has to say this about law-abiding citizens, but I'd like to know if he really believes that there's going to be anything close to 100% compliance. Methinks that it'll be more like 25%. I can tell you from my experience in NJ with its magazine ban that compliance will be miniscule - the people that own guns generally know their rights, know that a Constitutionally-void law is no law, and have a certain contempt for statist SOBs that want to burden them for the acts of criminals and mental defectives.
Oh, and I wouldn't want to be a cop in NY trying to enforce this POS legislation. I presume that they all want to return home in their automobiles every day, not leave work in a body bag. THAT is the real reason this letter was written.
Oh, and I have a message for pResident Zero: Phuck you and the horse you rode in on. We won, and you can't do diddly about it, chump! Hope you get a bad case of the Hershey squirts and don't sleep a wink tonight, knowing that the American People are wise to your statist crap, and that even your bought-and-paid-for Senators can count voters.
One thing I’d like to see more people start doing: use terms other than “law” to describe illegitimate statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. Statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. which are contrary to the supreme Law of the Land are void and are not laws; thus by definition, anything which is actually a law must be constitutional. I’m not saying every mention of unconstitutional acts must get into a discussion of the fact that such things are not laws, but would like to see such things using nouns like “statute” or “rule” rather than “law”. Liberals subvert vocabulary to promote lies; conservatives need to use correct vocabulary to promote truth.