NY-SAFE Act is here to stay

[SecularMotion]

Lockport Union-Sun & Journal — North Tonawanda Mayor and state senatorial candidate Rob Ortt has taken the pledge. So have Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino and state Assemblyman David DiPietro. As have others who are pandering to the corporate gun lobby.

These candidates have vowed to repeal the NY-SAFE Act if elected. They have even stooped so low as to sign oaths foisted upon them by NRA zealots in their twisted version of a deal with the devil.

I continue to be amazed by political candidates who bow to the corporate gun lobby, to the NRA and its ilk. So who are they seeking to represent? Polls show that 92 percent of Americans support universal background checks and 67 percent of New Yorkers support the SAFE Act.

What concerns me is that people buy into the mantra. Obviously these candidates don’t understand that the NY-SAFE Act was passed by a bi-partisan vote in both houses of the New York State Legislature. The state Senate approved the measure by a vote of 43 to 18 (70 percent) and Assembly approved the act by a vote of 104 to 43 (70 percent). A recent Siena College poll demonstrates that NY SAFE is supported by two-thirds of New Yorkers. Astorinio, DiPietro and Ortt and others can’t change that, no matter how many oaths they sign.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/opinion/x1927900351/MAILBAG-NY-SAFE-Act-is-here-to-stay

[NYC_SKP]

1. Some parts are good, other parts not. That's OK, we'll fix it.

I disagree with the magazine capacity limits and the gun registry parts.

Almost every section mentioning "assault" is pathetic and kind of pointless.

Much of the rest of it is sensible.

[Lurks Often]

2. The 7 round limit as already been struck down in court

http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/31/new-york-7-round-limit-struck-second-amendment-grounds-assault-weapons-ban-10-round-magazine-ban-upheld

The real question is which state's gun law will be overturned in court first, CT or NY. From what I have heard, those bringing suit in court expected to lose the case and in both cases, the judges language in the decision gave at least supporting credence to the gun owners suit.

[derby378]

3. Besides, the letter's from a gun-control organizer sounding his triumphant yawp far and wide

Consider the source.

[TIMETOCHANGE]

4. So there's no problem right?

It's just a bunch of politicians posturing for votes. Democracy will take its course and the people will speak and maybe their voices will be heard.

[krispos42]

5. Because, of course, there's absolutely no chance that the SAFE Act...

...is an irrational piece of culture-war lawmaking of dubious effect, right?




I mean, there's absolutely no chance that the legislation might simply suck like a black hole, right?

Oh, wait, I'm asking YOU for a comment. Damn, I'm an optimist.

[blueridge3210]

6. "Hope is a good thing, the best of things". (nt)

[Straw Man]

7. Just wait until the "ammo background check" kicks in.

It's a gun-controller's wet dream. Every ammo purchase will require the buyer to fill out a form and submit to a phone-in background check à la NICS. Given the time and inconvenience factors, logically one would want to consolidate purchases, right? But the State Police have been instructed to flag suspiciously large purchases for further investigation. No information has been given about what volume of purchase will trigger such an investigation. As an active target shooter, I buy .22 LR by the case -- 5000 rounds -- when I can get it. Should I expect a knock on the door?

Let's hear it for an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation. Keep 'em looking over their shoulders, boys.

[ileus]

8. The people need to learn to speak up before crap like this happens.

not whine about it after and promise to vote "next election"




When folks set about to destroy your rights that's the time to fight like hell and mobilize. Of course regressives know this that's why there are so many backroom deals and 3 minutes of warning before regressive laws are passed.

[spin]

9. That remains to be seen. ...

One thing that may help save the "NY SAFE Act" is the fact that many gun owners are leaving New York State and many other gun owners have crossed New York State off the places they would like to live in.

The sad part is that gun owners in other states will turn up at the polls to vote against Democrats at the local, state and national levels as they feel the Democratic Party is once again the Gun Control Party. That may cause some good Democrats to lose close elections in the upcoming midterms.

Time will tell.

[derby378]

10. Not to mention that New Yorkers have to live with the same Constitution that we do

Once provisions start getting struck down as un-Constitutional, it's going to be a big reality check.

[spin]

12. Good point. (n/t)

[spin]

13. It's a shame that the Democratic Party has once again became the gun control ...

party.

A good percentage of gun owners are single issue voters. They often have a considerable amount of money invested in their gun collections. It's understandable that they will show up at the polls to vote against any and all Democrats at the local, state and national levels.

I'm a Democrat who comes from a long line of Democrats who worked in the iron and steel mills of Pennsylvania. All my ancestors owned firearms and enjoyed shooting them. Several used their firearms for legitimate self defense.

It sometimes seems to me that the Republican Party should be the gun control party as it largely is the party of the rich. The rich have some reason to fear an eventual uprising by the people they often oppress. It would seem logical that the 1% would wish to pass laws that only the military, the police, the rich and the well connected could legally own firearms.

I often warn gun owners that Republicans will sell them out in a heartbeat if they sense there is a political advantage in doing so. For example Nixon supported extremely strong gun control laws.

Richard Nixon Gun Control: Former President Wanted Total Ban On Handguns, Records Show
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER 03/11/13 09:10 AM ET EDT

WASHINGTON -- Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.

Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby then as now, even as his aides worried about the political ramifications.

"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house," Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. "The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth." He asked why "can't we go after handguns, period?"

Nixon went on: "I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it." But "people should not have handguns." He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/richard-nixon-gun-control_n_2851660.html

Bush the Senior used an executive order to promote gun control.

In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act and used it to ban the shipment of what could be considered “assault weapons” unless they were used for sporting purposes. (Question: Did the free republic cease to exist then?)
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/01/15/presidents-bush-clinton-executive-orders-reform-gun-laws.html

Bush the Younger might have signed an extension to the assault weapons ban had it landed on his dest.

Assault weapons ban due to expire Monday
By Bill Schneider
CNN Political Unit
Friday, September 10, 2004 Posted: 4:46 PM EDT (2046 GMT)

(CNN) -- Can you get away with defying public opinion? Sometimes. Sometimes you can even get the political Play of the Week.

President Bush says he will sign a bill renewing the assault weapons ban if Congress passes it. How likely is that?

"There are not the votes to pass the bill," explained House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, on Wednesday. "If the president asked me, I would tell him the same thing."

Democrats blame President Bush.

"George W. Bush says 'I'm for that.' Never asked the Congress to pass it. Never stood up. Caves in to the NRA," said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/assault.weapons.ban/

If I was a strong gun control advocate, I might actually consider voting for a Republican as President. I would bet the Mitt Romney would have supported a new assault weapons ban after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and might have had a better chance of getting it passed than Obama did.

Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on gun control?

***snip***

Romney’s views on an assault-weapons ban as governor

In 2004, in the middle of his single four-year term as governor, Romney signed a permanent ban on assault weapons -- reportedly the first such state law in the country. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," the Globe quoted Romney as saying. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Despite that provision -- usually a deal-breaker for gun-rights groups -- the measure received support from pro-gun groups because other provisions lengthened the terms of firearm ID cards and licenses to carry firearms. The Globe reported that during the 2008 campaign, Romney described the bill as a "consensus measure" and a "positive step."

Not long after Romney signed the bill, Romney appeared on the Aug. 4, 2004, edition of the Fox News program Hannity and Colmes. Guest co-host Pat Halpin asked Romney about the existing federal assault weapons ban, which was then on a path to expiring due to intentional Republican inaction. "So are you in favor of that ban being extended or do you want to see it lapse?"

Romney responded, "I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal. … In my state I just signed a piece of legislation extending the ban on certain assault weapons in our state."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-exhibits-marked-change-gun-rhetoric/

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Romney "holds" whatever belief he thinks will help him at the time...

...and has no shame whatsoever about reversing himself.

[spin]

15. I totally agree. I also feel there is an excellent chance he will try to run for president ...

one more time and might win the Republican nomination.

If he ends up running against Hillary, he will most likely lose one more time. I'm not all that fond of Hillary but I definitely feel she would be the better choice of the two.

I also feel that Hillary might have been a better President than Obama. Obama is a great campaigner and can give inspiring speeches but he seems to lack leadership skills. Of course the Republicans have done their best to make sure Obama has an almost impossible time succeeding in passing any legislation, but the mark of a good leader is the ability to overcome strong opposition.

As a gun owner I feel both Romney and Hillary would push for strong gun control. Romney would probably be able to get enough support from the Republicans in Congress to actually pass laws such as another assault weapons ban. Hillary would have little or no support from the Republicans for her gun control ideas.