Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

Guest One of Five

New York Sheriffs Respond to New York’s Latest Gun Control Laws

2013 JANUARY 26

 

 

spreddit7.gif

 

sheriff-300x287.jpg

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

Read the full article here:

http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-respons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jfc, K, I'm olde....

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

Read the full article here:

http://www.nysheriff...s’-respons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooler heads there may just prevail anyways, K. Thanx for that story....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Bieber investigated for assault by a Nerf gun

 

 

The unending debate over gun control has spread even to Justin Bieber. It seems that the young heartthrob is being investigated for an assault incident that occurred back in November 2012. Of course, the possible assault happened with a Nerf gun.

 

Bieber's potential problems began when the singer was in Ottawa, Canada for a performance. Apparently, Justin and two of his younger siblings were having a pre-show Nerf war. One of the darts hit a female employee of the concert venue, and she did not appreciate the blow.

 

Whether the woman was hurt, insulted or just looking for a little bit of fame-adjacency, she went to the police and filed charges for assault. The charges do not say whether Justin himself or someone with him fired the offending Nerf dart.

 

While it's easy to shrug this off as a joke, the police have actually questioned people at the concert venue with regard to the incident.

 

There is no word yet as to whether assault with a non-deadly Nerf gun charges are coming.

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/01/m-justin-bieber-investigated-for-assault-by-a-nerf-gun.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda want Pataki back, Spitzer was Ok, Patterson was worse than Andrew...Pataki had a spending problem, but he was well into moderate territory on everything else.

 

Nice responce from the Sherrifs, very good arguements that encompass what this debate should involve. NY is a bit of a mess at the state level, has always been. NYC and LI dominate the assembly and everywhere north comes from what might as well be another state entirely, which holds on to the Senate. With the death of those things referred to as moderate republicans, NY is slipping into Cali territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jfc, K, I'm olde....

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

Read the full article here:

http://www.nysheriff...ade;-respons...

 

Thank you rico, I couldn't find my magnifying glasses anywhere. And my hangover from sailing this weekend wasn't helping either.....

 

Seriously good words from the Sheriffs. Its not like they wouldn't know a thing or twenty seven about what would make their citizens safer or anything. I especially think the red-bolded parts above need to be repeated over and over to the anti-gun nutterz. Its EXACLTY what we have been saying here for months, almost word for word. Especially about the need for extreme caution when deciding to restrict liberty instead of the ram, jam, cram, slam method of Dem legislation. The Sheriffs rightly recognize that the slope is getting greased up as we speak.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jfc, K, I'm olde....

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

Read the full article here:

http://www.nysheriff...ade;-respons...

 

Thank you rico, I couldn't find my magnifying glasses anywhere. And my hangover from sailing this weekend wasn't helping either.....

 

Seriously good words from the Sheriffs. Its not like they wouldn't know a thing or twenty seven about what would make their citizens safer or anything. I especially think the red-bolded parts above need to be repeated over and over to the anti-gun nutterz. Its EXACLTY what we have been saying here for months, almost word for word. Especially about the need for extreme caution when deciding to restrict liberty instead of the ram, jam, cram, slam method of Dem legislation. The Sheriffs rightly recognize that the slope is getting greased up as we speak.....

 

Thanks to you too, JB, for the highlighting the poignant points.

 

The response from sheriffs across the country are an interesting dynamic in the conversation. Big-city cops don't speak for all law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jfc, K, I'm olde....

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

Read the full article here:

http://www.nysheriff...ade;-respons...

 

Thank you rico, I couldn't find my magnifying glasses anywhere. And my hangover from sailing this weekend wasn't helping either.....

 

Seriously good words from the Sheriffs. Its not like they wouldn't know a thing or twenty seven about what would make their citizens safer or anything. I especially think the red-bolded parts above need to be repeated over and over to the anti-gun nutterz. Its EXACLTY what we have been saying here for months, almost word for word. Especially about the need for extreme caution when deciding to restrict liberty instead of the ram, jam, cram, slam method of Dem legislation. The Sheriffs rightly recognize that the slope is getting greased up as we speak.....

 

Thanks to you too, JB, for the highlighting the poignant points.

 

The response from sheriffs across the country are an interesting dynamic in the conversation. Big-city cops don't speak for all law enforcement.

 

You're welcome. Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you too, JB, for the highlighting the poignant points.

 

The response from sheriffs across the country are an interesting dynamic in the conversation. Big-city cops don't speak for all law enforcement.

 

Wait ... I'm sure that a good number of those sheriffs do work in or around the big cities. For example, NYC has over a hundred sheriffs working in the city, dealing with county-specific issues like tax enforcement, deadbeat dads, prisoner transport, and evictions.

 

If it seems the sheriffs are a bit more gun-tolerant than the cops it's perhaps because their lives aren't necessarily on the line with criminals as much. In the past hundred years, only three NYC Sheriffs have been killed in gunfights and all three of those were prior to WWII. It's apparently a variation on this theme in other NYS areas like Albany, Buffalo, Westchester, etc..

 

But when you're in the more sparsely populated, unincorporated policeless areas that rely on their county sheriffs protection, their job description is probably closer to the big city cop ... they have to deal with the same stuff cops do; domestic disturbances, meth labs, disorderlies, etc.. Perhaps with those sheriffs we might get an opinion closer to what the big city cops might express.

 

It might be a mistake to immediately jump to the conclusion that most of these sheriffs have Mayberry type jobs in small towns. County enforcement around the big cities can usually only hire Sheriffs, they don't usually have the mechanisms to build a police force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Cuomo is an idiot. Just like his father was an idiot.

 

He's going to be a one termed at this rate. There are an awful lot of people who are culturally Democratic in New York and gun owners and recognize this law for what it is, a gun grab. PA, OH and other swing states have similar demographics. The right of self defense is inviolate, anyone who tries to challenge that is going to have a problem on their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God you're an ass.

 

Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Soccer moms and hormonally challenged politicians determining public policy never turns out right. Talk about Regressive... Guns are so icky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Yea you're right, such a wise and wonderful law driven from through our state government in one day should have complete support especially from our law enforcement community.

Edited to add:

 

We need to make sure burglars and rapists are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea you're right, such a wise and wonderful law driven from through our state government in one day should have complete support especially from our law enforcement community.

Edited to add:

 

We need to make sure burglars and rapists are safe.

 

 

Richard R. Kehoe is the only name for this organization listed on the Gov's site. He's listed as lawyer in the state but with no references about his practice.

 

If he was ever a cop, why didn't he call himself "officer" like all the others? I doubt he was ever a cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

You're right, we need to ignore this group, good lord they have a lawyer in their leadership. Lawyers might understand these things called LAWS, which might preserve the rights of those nasty people who lure others into their homes just to shoot them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kehoe is pretty hard to find anything on, but he did give $250.00 to Sweeny's campaign several years ago. That is the grand total of all his political contributions, so he's not a "player". His occupation was listed was as "Executive Director of the New York Sheriffs Association", that's it.

 

They've been around for awhile, no doubt about that. But they are certainly not in the habit of speaking for the Sheriffs of the State. Until now....

 

Have to wonder who wrote it, why they didn't want to put their name on it, and how they came to the conclusion that they represent the views of NY "Sheriffs" in general. Did they do any polls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

 

What exactly are you trying to say Mark? That this Sheriff's Assoc site isn't legit and doesn't speak for the NYS Sheriff's???

 

It sure looks like a lot more folks are part of that Group than just this Keohoe guy. Click on the leadership tab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kehoe is pretty hard to find anything on, but he did give $250.00 to Sweeny's campaign several years ago. That is the grand total of all his political contributions, so he's not a "player". His occupation was listed was as "Executive Director of the New York Sheriffs Association", that's it.

 

They've been around for awhile, no doubt about that. But they are certainly not in the habit of speaking for the Sheriffs of the State. Until now....

 

Have to wonder who wrote it, why they didn't want to put their name on it, and how they came to the conclusion that they represent the views of NY "Sheriffs" in general. Did they do any polls?

 

More. http://www.nysheriffs.org/messages/executive-committee-chairmans-message

 

And who cares who wrote it. It may have been one of the lawyers or even the secretary for all we know. But it would not have been on the site unless the Sheriffs exec committee themselves (at a min) signed off on the message. Do you think Obama writes all his own speeches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

 

What exactly are you trying to say Mark? That this Sheriff's Assoc site isn't legit and doesn't speak for the NYS Sheriff's???

 

It sure looks like a lot more folks are part of that Group than just this Keohoe guy. Click on the leadership tab

 

I have been commenting on the contents of the leadership tab(s). There isn't a heck of a lot else to look at on the site. Got any ideas why the Executive Director isn't in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

 

What exactly are you trying to say Mark? That this Sheriff's Assoc site isn't legit and doesn't speak for the NYS Sheriff's???

 

It sure looks like a lot more folks are part of that Group than just this Keohoe guy. Click on the leadership tab

 

I have been commenting on the contents of the leadership tab(s). There isn't a heck of a lot else to look at on the site. Got any ideas why the Executive Director isn't in it?

 

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. have you been talking to woofey again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kehoe is pretty hard to find anything on, but he did give $250.00 to Sweeny's campaign several years ago. That is the grand total of all his political contributions, so he's not a "player". His occupation was listed was as "Executive Director of the New York Sheriffs Association", that's it.

 

They've been around for awhile, no doubt about that. But they are certainly not in the habit of speaking for the Sheriffs of the State. Until now....

 

Have to wonder who wrote it, why they didn't want to put their name on it, and how they came to the conclusion that they represent the views of NY "Sheriffs" in general. Did they do any polls?

 

More. http://www.nysheriff...airmans-message

 

And who cares who wrote it. It may have been one of the lawyers or even the secretary for all we know. But it would not have been on the site unless the Sheriffs exec committee themselves (at a min) signed off on the message. Do you think Obama writes all his own speeches?

 

I'd be asking the same questions if Obama had been around since 1934, claimed to speak for NY sheriffs in general, and had a site with only two (very recent) articles on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Oh c'mon he could have bought that uniform, ya know just for show.

 

Let's keep this focused please. We have to protect criminals here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LALALALA phase has arrived.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't know if I want the Niners to win or not. Their fans will be insufferable. I think watching Ray Lewis melt down in joy would probably be a lot more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

 

Yes I do, please.

 

There's an esquire in the name of the leader of that org.

 

Keep the criminals SAFE folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently we are going about this the wrong way...... there may have been too much information contained in that message for the anti-gun side to process all at once. Lets take it 1 paragraph at a time and examine it for goodness or badness.

 

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

 

I actually think this makes sense. I really don't want to advertise to criminals to come rob my house and crack my safe while I'm at work. Plus, I'm pretty sure we all agree that disclosing names of gun owners was purely a punitive measure to attempt to dissuade some people from purchasing guns in the 1st place. Probably, for the same reason that labor unions want names of people who don't vote for them and don't want secret ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you too, JB, for the highlighting the poignant points.

 

The response from sheriffs across the country are an interesting dynamic in the conversation. Big-city cops don't speak for all law enforcement.

 

Wait ... I'm sure that a good number of those sheriffs do work in or around the big cities. For example, NYC has over a hundred sheriffs working in the city, dealing with county-specific issues like tax enforcement, deadbeat dads, prisoner transport, and evictions.

 

If it seems the sheriffs are a bit more gun-tolerant than the cops it's perhaps because their lives aren't necessarily on the line with criminals as much. In the past hundred years, only three NYC Sheriffs have been killed in gunfights and all three of those were prior to WWII. It's apparently a variation on this theme in other NYS areas like Albany, Buffalo, Westchester, etc..

 

But when you're in the more sparsely populated, unincorporated policeless areas that rely on their county sheriffs protection, their job description is probably closer to the big city cop ... they have to deal with the same stuff cops do; domestic disturbances, meth labs, disorderlies, etc.. Perhaps with those sheriffs we might get an opinion closer to what the big city cops might express.

 

It might be a mistake to immediately jump to the conclusion that most of these sheriffs have Mayberry type jobs in small towns. County enforcement around the big cities can usually only hire Sheriffs, they don't usually have the mechanisms to build a police force.

 

The role of sheriff varies from place to place. In Florida, it is the county law enforcement arm just like the county police departments in Maryland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh c'mon he could have bought that uniform, ya know just for show.

 

Let's keep this focused please. We have to protect criminals here....

I am sure he did just that. You can't trust anyone who is for law and order.

 

I want to know when one damn politician is going to stand up and propose that anyone found to be in possession of a firearm when attempting to commit a felony will be subject to mandatory 20 to life in prison?

There seems to be a whole hell of a lot of laws being written or proposed to restrict access to guns for the law biding citizens. When will we write laws that serve to deter the use of guns in crime and then severely punish those that do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

State troopers don't want to enforce this tripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know when one damn politician is going to stand up and propose that anyone found to be in possession of a firearm when attempting to commit a felony will be subject to mandatory 20 to life in prison?

There seems to be a whole hell of a lot of laws being written or proposed to restrict access to guns for the law biding citizens. When will we write laws that serve to deter the use of guns in crime and then severely punish those that do?

 

We have to protect the criminals. You can brutally rape and murder a child and be eligible for parole, but if you get caught with a dime bag the 3rd time you're going to prison for life. Does anyone aside from me think this is crazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the AMA came out in support of Obamacare. Some said the AMA didn't represent the majority of doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the AMA came out in support of Obamacare. Some said the AMA didn't represent the majority of doctors.

 

Do you have any specific comments about what was written, or are you just attacking the messenger too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Look cut Him some slack, criminals need protecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

 

You won't like it.

 

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the AMA came out in support of Obamacare. Some said the AMA didn't represent the majority of doctors.

 

Do you have any specific comments about what was written, or are you just attacking the messenger too?

Just find it funny when one professional organization supports your stuff, you consider it speaking for the majority. But when they don't support your stuff, you dismiss the organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

 

You won't like it.

 

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384

 

I am sorry does the California Association represent New York?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am sorry does the California Association represent New York?

Did you miss the part that said International Association of Chiefs of Police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

No you must have missed the point about the NY Sheriffs association speaking about a NY law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NY Sheriff’s association published the following response to New York’s latest gun control laws which strengthen New York’s existing assault weapons band, limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and puts more restrictions for gun ownership/purchasing in place.

While the sheriffs did point out some things they don’t like about the bill, they agreed with a large portion of it.

It sounds like the NY sheriffs have not take then hardline approach to not enforcing new gun control laws as sheriffs in other parts of the country.

We are glad they are taking a stand on certain items, but would have liked to have seen a more hardline approach in trying to help protect their constituents rights.

Here is their press release:

• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of crickets so far from the other side......

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

 

You won't like it.

 

http://www.policechi...&article_id=384

 

I am sorry does the California Association represent New York?

 

Well, he didn't say the comments were limited to people who represent NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you must have missed the point about the NY Sheriffs association speaking about a NY law.

See post #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuomo is an idiot. Just like his father was an idiot.

 

He's going to be a one termed at this rate. There are an awful lot of people who are culturally Democratic in New York and gun owners and recognize this law for what it is, a gun grab. PA, OH and other swing states have similar demographics. The right of self defense is inviolate, anyone who tries to challenge that is going to have a problem on their hands.

 

And the snow-billies were adamant Mario (Sr.) was a one-termer, because of his stand on the death penalty. Three terms. Sorry, Kev, when it comes to guns, you are squarely in the nutter's corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

No you must have missed the point about the NY Sheriffs association speaking about a NY law.

See post #42

 

That has nothing to do with New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Cuomo is an idiot. Just like his father was an idiot.

 

He's going to be a one termed at this rate. There are an awful lot of people who are culturally Democratic in New York and gun owners and recognize this law for what it is, a gun grab. PA, OH and other swing states have similar demographics. The right of self defense is inviolate, anyone who tries to challenge that is going to have a problem on their hands.

 

And the snow-billies were adamant Mario (Sr.) was a one-termer, because of his stand on the death penalty. Three terms. Sorry, Kev, when it comes to guns, you are squarely in the nutter's corner.

 

I am glad you disagree with me, increases my confidence level I am right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God you're an ass.

 

Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control.

I don't think he understands the difference between Sheriff and Sheriff Deputy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be three articles on that site, the first one was a previous, shorter whine about the new gun law passing. It was also unsigned, but had a picture next to it that looked a lot like Kehoe. At least, it resembled him a great deal more than it resembled any of the officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you must have missed the point about the NY Sheriffs association speaking about a NY law.

See post #42

 

That has nothing to do with New York.

Let me make a wild guess here, had the IACP come out against an assault weapon ban law, you would gladly say it had everything to do with NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the AMA came out in support of Obamacare. Some said the AMA didn't represent the majority of doctors.

 

 

What Do Actual Doctors Think About Obamacare Now?

 

 

“What’s most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very medical professionals who know the health care system best.” Barack Obama, October 5, 2009.

We all remember the highly publicized Rose Garden ceremony of smiling doctors in their white coats standing alongside a glowing President Obama (“you look very spiffy in your coats,” he approvingly noted) in his attempt to validate his Affordability Care Act to the public before its details were even exposed to public scrutiny.

 

And we also recall when the AMA endorsed ObamaCare at its inception, an endorsement that led many Americans to believe America’s doctors supported the dramatic changes to the U.S. health care system.

The problem is that, unbeknownst to the public and the press, the AMA represents only about one fourth of the nation’s doctors.

Meanwhile, contrary to those doctors selected to legitimize ObamaCare in the staged media event (where the White House actually handed out white lab coats to generate the image of official credibility), an overwhelming 70 percent of doctors said, even back in 2011, that they disagreedwith the AMA’s position on health reform, while only 13 percent agreed with it. In fact, almost half of doctors in that survey even went so far as to say that the AMA stance on ObamaCare was the factor causing them to drop AMA membership.

What has happened to the opinion of doctors, now that ObamaCare has been examined in detail?

Moving the clock forward to this year,

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any specific comments about what was written, or are you just attacking the messenger too?

Just find it funny when one professional organization supports your stuff, you consider it speaking for the majority. But when they don't support your stuff, you dismiss the organization.

 

Really, when did I dismiss the AMA? In fact, I was/am pretty ambivilent about obamacare. What other lame argument are you going to come up with now. Still not interested in discussing the actual content of that message? Didn't think so......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's entitled to his opinion, whoever he is.

 

Constitutional? That's the Supreme Courts job.

 

Mag capacity? Most cops would prefer their opponents had as little of that as possible. I think it's obvious that very few crimes are committed with these weapons. That part of the law is about those statistically insignificant mass murder cases. Saying it won't reduce crime significantly is true, but misses the point.

 

Don't recall anything else worth mentioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets continue on with the attempt to actually discuss and debate the content of the Sheriff's Association statement. Point #2:

 

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

 

I honestly can't see how anyone could have a problem with this? Anyone who shoots a cop or firefighter should be executed on the spot. But since we can't do that, this is the next best thing.

 

NEXT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's entitled to his opinion, whoever he is.

 

Constitutional? That's the Supreme Courts job.

 

Mag capacity? Most cops would prefer their opponents had as little of that as possible. I think it's obvious that very few crimes are committed with these weapons. That part of the law is about those statistically insignificant mass murder cases. Saying it won't reduce crime significantly is true, but misses the point.

 

Don't recall anything else worth mentioning.

 

Ahhh, we'll get to that in a minute. But I think know you're being obtuse. Whoever "he" is is likely writing for the group of sheriff's represented by this org. Trying to ascribe it to an individual is specious at best. nice try, but no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

 

I actually agree with this, despite the fact that I also agree it will likely affect only those that would follow the law anyway. But if it scares a few gun-owners who might not be as ethical as we would like into NOT selling a weapon to a shady charactor, then the minor inconvienence this would cause is fine with me.

 

Anyone have any comments? OK, next......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

 

Yeah, this is really a tricky one. Despite calling for tougher means to keep guns out of the mentally unstable's hands rather than punishing those who follow the law.... this one really needs a lot more thought than NY's legislature put into it in their rush to ram, cram, slam, and jam this thing down NY'ers throats. Sounds like there are ALL kinds of constitutional arguments and red flags going on here. As someone who values my 2A rights, I also value my OTHER Connie rights and liberties. The slope is getting slicker by the minute.....

 

However, if there is a common sense way to look at mental issues and keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them without punishing every swinging dick who might be taking prozac because he has a bitchy wife and a loser kid.... then I'm all in favor of it.

 

I say we keep this one on the table for further discussion......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

 

Yeah, this is really a tricky one. Despite calling for tougher means to keep guns out of the mentally unstable's hands rather than punishing those who follow the law.... this one really needs a lot more thought than NY's legislature put into it in their rush to ram, cram, slam, and jam this thing down NY'ers throats. Sounds like there are ALL kinds of constitutional arguments and red flags going on here. As someone who values my 2A rights, I also value my OTHER Connie rights and liberties. The slope is getting slicker by the minute.....

 

However, if there is a common sense way to look at mental issues and keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them without punishing every swinging dick who might be taking prozac because he has a bitchy wife and a loser kid.... then I'm all in favor of it.

 

I say we keep this one on the table for further discussion......

This one needs a LOT of discussion and set boundaries.

 

It would be too simple to define virtually anything as a mental 'disorder'. You know like ADD, ADHD or as seems to be the case with so many, the simple desire to own a gun makes you a "Gun Nut".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Sarosa. Lots of discussion needed. Certainly more than NY was willing to give it. But what do constitutional rights matter, though, when SOMETHING anything needs to be done?

 

Next subject:

 

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

 

I agree with the safe storage. I would further define it though as safe storage (safes, trigger locks, etc) when the owner is not physically present. I don't want to repeat the D.C. lunacy of mandating that a gun ALWAYS be locked away in the home and rendered useless. Kinda defeats the point.

 

I would have gone further though and put some language in about liability and responsibility if for some reason the gun was negligently left out for someone to steal and use in a crime or a kid gets hurt with it for example. Put some teeth into the law so it makes people know that not only is there a slap on the wrist if the gun is unsecured, but that there are serious penalties if that responsibility is misued. With great power comes great responsibility..... and as a sensible gun-owner, I take that responsibility seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

 

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

 

Good! This is what we've been asking for: Enforce the existing laws and strengthen the punishment for violations. No issue here for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put this in perspective, keep in mind that the the demographic (law enforcement) probably has the highest concentration of gun advocates of any. Frankly, I'm encouraged that they back as much of the law's provisions as they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

 

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

 

Good! This is what we've been asking for: Enforce the existing laws and strengthen the punishment for violations. No issue here for me.

 

In this context, I believe the gun would need to actually be used in the crime and not just around when it happened. For example, two guys get into a fistfight and one is hospitalized. If the defendant were carrying a weapon but did not brandish or use it, it should not be considered a gun crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God you're an ass.

 

Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control.

I don't think he understands the difference between Sheriff and Sheriff Deputy.

 

Just reread. You, KM and Jeff. And Jeff ... if you can't understand something, please ask for clarification, why do you continue to take the route of just throwing the book on the floor crying "you're all so stupid!".

 

I responded to the statement that these sheriffs don't necessarily represent the opinion of "big city cops."

 

Many of those sheriffs ARE big city "cops" except that they're big city Sheriffs. NYC (which is a pretty big city last time I lived there) has about 150 of them on the payrolls, similar for just about every other major city in the state and the large bedroom communities in Westchester and those places on the Metro North line.

 

The difference between them and "big city cops" is that they enforce issues typically relating to the county, (remember, big cities are IN counties) including tax enforcement, prisoner transport, courtrooms, evictions, etc.. They may have a different opinion on guns than the "big city cops" (cue: this is where you might consider reading the post to which I originally responded). They might have this different opinion because statistically they have much safer jobs. They don't have to interact as much with armed criminals, and the statistics bear this out ... in the history of the NYC Sheriffs, only three have ever been fatally shot, all three were before WWII.

 

Now, there are other sheriffs obviously, as sheriffs are the main enforcement in unincorporated areas of counties that do not have police departments. But unlike the big city sheriffs, these men and women DO interact with armed criminals, domestic disturbances, drug dealers, drunks, etc.. The small town sheriffs have jobs that have much more in common with "big city cops" than they have in common with big city sheriffs.

 

As to Jeff's statements of the message of the Sheriffs, I have no comment for or against. That's their opinion, they've chosen it by consensus, it represents the direction they apparently have chosen for their organization. Since I am no longer a NY State resident, why does my input even matter? As far as I know, the only New Yorker in this thread is Regatta Dog.

 

I've just pointed out the likely error in reading "sheriff" and instantly assuming they're poking around country roads like Andy Griffith.

 

And Kevin, I mean this is the most loving way possible ... go fuck yourself you imbecile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God you're an ass.

 

Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control.

I don't think he understands the difference between Sheriff and Sheriff Deputy.

 

Just reread. You, KM and Jeff. And Jeff ... if you can't understand something, please ask for clarification, why do you continue to take the route of just throwing the book on the floor crying "you're all so stupid!".

 

I responded to the statement that these sheriffs don't necessarily represent the opinion of "big city cops."

 

Many of those sheriffs ARE big city "cops" except that they're big city Sheriffs. NYC (which is a pretty big city last time I lived there) has about 150 of them on the payrolls, similar for just about every other major city in the state and the large bedroom communities in Westchester and those places on the Metro North line.

 

The difference between them and "big city cops" is that they enforce issues typically relating to the county, (remember, big cities are IN counties) including tax enforcement, prisoner transport, courtrooms, evictions, etc.. They may have a different opinion on guns than the "big city cops" (cue: this is where you might consider reading the post to which I originally responded). They might have this different opinion because statistically they have much safer jobs. They don't have to interact as much with armed criminals, and the statistics bear this out ... in the history of the NYC Sheriffs, only three have ever been fatally shot, all three were before WWII.

 

Now, there are other sheriffs obviously, as sheriffs are the main enforcement in unincorporated areas of counties that do not have police departments. But unlike the big city sheriffs, these men and women DO interact with armed criminals, domestic disturbances, drug dealers, drunks, etc.. The small town sheriffs have jobs that have much more in common with "big city cops" than they have in common with big city sheriffs.

 

As to Jeff's statements of the message of the Sheriffs, I have no comment for or against. That's their opinion, they've chosen it by consensus, it represents the direction they apparently have chosen for their organization. Since I am no longer a NY State resident, why does my input even matter? As far as I know, the only New Yorker in this thread is Regatta Dog.

 

I've just pointed out the likely error in reading "sheriff" and instantly assuming they're poking around country roads like Andy Griffith.

 

And Kevin, I mean this is the most loving way possible ... go fuck yourself you imbecile.

Again.... I don't think you understand the difference between THE Sheriff and A Sheriff Deputy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the lawful firearm owners of Gnu Yawk have a few more balls than Andy-Poo gave them credit for. Here's a great thread from THR that outlines what the polis are in for....

 

 

 

http://www.thehighro...d.php?p=8691968

 

 

I like that they blanked out "California" in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again.... I don't think you understand the difference between THE Sheriff and A Sheriff Deputy.

 

Apparently you think that distinction changes the concept that these sheriffs are not all small town, elected sheriffs. It doesn't change it. And in at least one large sheriff's office in NY, THE sheriff was appointed just like his deputues, he wasn't elected.

 

And the group mentioned here contains both big city and small town sheriffs that choose program direction for the need of their constituents AND their appointed employees. As I wrote, I suspect that the concerns of a Sheriff in an as unincorporated section of a county do not necessarily match that of a sheriff in the big city. The latter (along with his or her deputies) has a statistically unlikely chance of running into gun violence.

 

I used to live in NY State, both daughters were born there, my sisters still live there and we own property there. Are you going to teach me something I don't know about my former state? Please do, I like to learn new things.

 

As an aside, I used to be sorta friends with a sheriff's deputy in NYC, Black man, raised in bad section of New Jersey. Whenever I saw him downtown I would say "howdy sheriff!" Like in the Old West. And he always said "Howdy!" In on the little joke. He told me the NYC Sheriffs had a rough job, basically interacting with people all day who hate them, without the public interaction, pay or hero pussy of the NYC police. But man, that Howdy was perfect, like he just got off the train from West Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?

| 21 December, 2012 | Anthony Gregory

 

Posted on 1/2/2013 8:33:34 AM by marktwain

Somehow, left-liberals have associated the cause of gun rights with white racism, when if anything it is gun control that has a racist legacy. In the United States, early gun laws targeted recently freed blacks, and open carry first became banned in California under Governor Ronald Reagan to disarm groups like the Black Panthers. Today, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately subjected to humiliating stop-and-frisk searches in the name of gun control.

Perhaps the most telling data concerns the racial makeup of who goes to prison for gun violations. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, for Fiscal Year 2011, 49.6% of those sentenced to federal incarceration with a primary offense of firearms violations were black, 20.6% were Hispanic, and only 27.5% were white.

This is how gun laws actually work—those caught violating them go to prison. For the mere act of owning an illegal weapon—not necessarily for using it, not for threatening anyone with it, not for being irresponsible with it—people who have harmed no one are locked up in prison for years at a time. As with the rest of the criminal justice system, particularly the war on drugs, these laws disproportionately harm the poor and minorities. That is the inescapable reality of gun control.

It makes sense that blacks and others living in the inner city would rely more on private, illegal guns for self-defense. The police are unreliable at best in many of these communities. It also makes sense that minorities would be disproportionately hurt by these laws, because so many of the dynamics in play are the same as with the drug war—people are being punished for what they own, rather than what they have done to others; it is easier for police to go after those in poor neighborhoods than to search middle-class folks in nice neighborhoods; jurors approved by prosecutors tend to believe police testimony over the word of minority defendants; prosecutors tend to use discretion in possession crime cases that fall more painfully on the disenfranchised; public defenders offer inadequate services for those loads of court-appointed clients, and so forth.

Left-liberals will respond that the racist implementation of gun laws is a problem independent of firearms policy, that we need stricter laws against guns and we’ll deal with inequity in prosecution and sentencing separately. But rarely do they make the same point with drug policy. Progressives know that in origin and in practice, drug policy is unmistakably racist. There is no way to easily purge the system of its racist elements—the problems are too entrenched. Yet these people somehow don’t fully grasp that this is just as unavoidably true as it concerns gun control policy.

When it comes to restricting firearms, liberals have an amazing ability to ignore the hard truth of what they are advocating—putting more people in cages. That is what gun control is. Sometimes it almost seems like progressives are completely blind to this obvious reality—that they understand the problems with drug laws, that they see laws like Three Strikes unfairly punish people for minor property crimes, that they detect a problem with the death penalty even for convicted murderers, that they know that for the whole range of criminal offenses, the state tends to go overboard in dealing with the accused. Except for gun control! On this, we can expect equity, fairness, and efficiency! In truth, putting people in cages won’t make a dent in criminal gun ownership, just as having a half million people behind bars for drug offenses has hardly stemmed the availability of illicit drugs. But that’s a whole other set of questions.

There are a hundred reasons why I oppose gun control. But here is one that lefties, if they are to be consistent at all, need to take to heart: More gun laws mean more peaceful people, disproportionately young black and brown men, who have committed no violence against anyone, being locked up in cells. That might make you feel safer. But it makes me feel like I live in a mockery of a free, humane society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the lawful firearm owners of Gnu Yawk have a few more balls than Andy-Poo gave them credit for. Here's a great thread from THR that outlines what the polis are in for....

 

 

 

http://www.thehighro...d.php?p=8691968

 

 

I like that they blanked out "California" in your post.

 

'Cuz I initially spelled it with a 'K'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again.... I don't think you understand the difference between THE Sheriff and A Sheriff Deputy.

 

Apparently you think that distinction changes the concept that these sheriffs are not all small town, elected sheriffs. It doesn't change it. And in at least one large sheriff's office in NY, THE sheriffs was appointed just like his deputues, he wasn't elected.

 

And the group mentioned here contains both big city and small town sheriffs that choose program direction for the need of their constituents AND their appointed employees.

 

I used to live in NY State, both daughters were born there, my sisters still live there and we own property there. Are you going to teach me something I don't know about my former state? Please do, I like to learn new things.

Maybe someday you'll get it. Maybe you won't.

 

Sheriff = appointed or elected boss. They rarely participate in actual day to day law enforcement. Deputy = hired professional law enforcement officer. Deputies are not appointed or elected. They are hired. These are the people who actually respond to calls, fight crime, and get shot at.

 

In NYC there is a central Sheriff, who has oversight over Under-sheriff's. There are 5 under-sheriffs, each representing one of the 5 burroughs (counties). There is a large number of sheriff deputys who actually patrol and enforce the laws.

 

Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Sheriff%27s_Office

 

Let me know when this all starts to sink in for ya. Or you could just pull some more made up facts out of your ass like "NYC has over a hundred sheriffs working in the city". NYC has ONE Sheriff. The Deputies are paid local law enforcement. They do not lobby policy, wear a suit, or impact politics like the SHERIFF does.

 

You are known far and wide for spouting opinion as fact and then stomping around like a toddler shouting about your degree or time spent in NYC as if it somehow turns your false opinions into fact. Might want to work on that.

 

Just in case you were actually interested in learning, here's a link to all of the NY State Sheriffs, who make up the NY Sheriffs association: http://www.nysheriffs.org/find-sheriffs-county

 

Notice that only 6 of them are tied to NYC. But hey, you lived there so you must know everything, right?

<