|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President's
Message
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
December 2009For the past 6 years and the 12 NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Clinics we have held teaching just under 600 women the safe handling and marksmanship basics is indeed something we should all be proud of. Few sportsmen's organizations have done as much depending almost entirely on our own resources, meaning money and volunteers. The last SAFE WOT Clinic was even video taped and a copy of it is now on our web-site for all to see and was also sent to NRA Headquarters, specifically the women's division and they think the video and what it shows is outstanding. It is certainly something all members of SAFE can be proud of. And speaking about teaching and educating, SAFE recently sponsored and held an NRA Instructors Clinic where we trained 32 new NRA Instructors. The class was held on November 7th and 8th, 2009 with students coming from as far away as Poughkeepsie, NY. Add to this the direct involvement of SAFE as a sponsoring organization for the Boy Scouts Venturing crew in firearms and you have one very active pro gun organization. This does not even take into account the number of legislative and political activities we are involved in on a regular basis protecting your rights and abilities to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes. If re-elected to the SAFE Board of Directors I have every intention of increasing our activism in the legislative arena. Because it will be an election year next year for all state and federal offices now in my opinion would be the time to put the legislators on notice that their jobs may in jeopardy if they fail to give strong support for our constitutional right to own and use firearms lawfully. These things can only happen with you the memberships. SAFE is and will be whatever you the membership, want it to be. Last but not least was SAFE's Firearms Civil Rights Conference. This year was one of our biggest and best attended conferences in the last ten years we are doing them. With over 900 people attending even Newsday could not ignore the pro gun movement taking place in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Newsday acknowledged not only the size of our event (even though they underestimated that) but they were very aware of the energy in the room. They did numerous man in the street interviews with attendees and all had the same issue. We the lawful firearms owners are fed up with being the scapegoat for anyone who uses a firearm wrongfully. We are tired of various public officials and people in the media using any crime committed with a gun as an excuse to irresponsibly lump all lawful gun owners into a class of people who should not have firearms. We are good people and we demand we be treated as such. We gave away almost $4000.00 dollars worth of firearms all perfectly legal and we raised funds through a silent auction specifically for our support of a lawsuit in Nassau County against so called colored guns. The lawsuit is much more than colored guns and we must win this issue. If you want to know more about this issue all you have to do is attend our monthly meeting for clarification. It is one of the most important issues we will face here in New York. And if anyone is interested in donating to SAFE to be used in the lawsuit just send a check payable to SAFE for whatever you can afford and in the note section write "chwick-v-mulvey." At our Annual meeting we take care of all our legal obligations making yearly reports to the members, answering any questions and holding elections for Directors to the Board and to the SAFE Nominating Committee for next year. We try to make this portion of the meeting as quick and painless as possible so that we can move onto more serious business of the organization, such as making plans for coming year. While this meeting is required by law it can be quite informative and enjoyable. Report
of the SAFE Nominating Committee December, 2009 The
elected nominating committee for SAFE Inc. composed of Chairman,
Carol A. Cushman, who only votes to break a tie, SAFE Board
Members, Marilyn Cohen and James D. Kelly, Membership
Elected Non-Board Member, Eric Collins, appointed Non-Board
Members chosen by the membership, Peter Pappas, and Ed
Kapshak for the period of December, 2008 to December, 2009 recommends
the following candidates for election to the SAFE Board of Directors
in the December 2009 elections. The Nominating Committee has met
and selected these candidates after thorough evaluations of their
qualifications, past service to the organization, expressed willingness
and ability to serve the purposes and goals in the future and by
recommendations made to the Nominating Committee. These nominees
are listed in alphabetical order. John L. Cushman, current
SAFE Director, Bill Raab, current SAFE Director and Richie
Snizek, current SAFE Director.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed its much anticipated brief
to the United States Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago,
which challenges the constitutionality of that city's ban on handguns.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Illinois State Rifle Association
(ISRA) and four individual plaintiffs. They are represented by attorney
Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark Heller case before
the high court in 2008, leading to a ruling that the Second Amendment
affirms and protects an individual right to keep and bear arms beyond
the scope of serving in a militia. At the top of this page is the Official SAFE Nominating Committee Report. You should use it as guide in the upcoming SAFE elections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their time and diligent work. What I am about to say may not be politically correct but I wish everyone to have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year. I wish everyone an enjoyable Holiday season with family and friends. I hope everyone gets the gifts you want and deserves the gifts you get. Rest while you can, next year will be a busy one. Back to top |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
November 2009I
have just received this update from NRA Headquarters and I wanted
to share with you a quick update on the status of our participation
in McDonald v. Chicago, concerning the Second Amendment's application
to the states. Here
is something else of significance you won't find in the general news
media. The Congress just passed NRA backed legislation protecting
pocketknife classification this week. The United States Senate passed
crucial legislation that will protect pocketknives used by tens of
millions of Americans. The amendment, actively supported by the National
Rifle Association, was included in the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill and will keep pocketknives from being classified
as illegal switchblades. US Senators John Cornyn, R-Tex, Mark Pryor,
D-Ark. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah authored the amendment and were instrumental
in its passage through Congress. US Congressmen Bob Latta, R-Ohio
and Walt Minnick, D-Idaho also played vital roles in the amendment's
passage in the House. Notice the absence once again of any names from
New York. Now here is a bill we can support because it supports the idea of public shooting ranges for sportsmen and gun owners, something many legislators here in New York seem to be unwilling to push. And keep in mind these are the same legislators who claim to support the Second Amendment but won't or don't help provide public ranges for the public to use in their lawful activities, namely shooting. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) which is the department that administers the Pittman-Robertson monies here in New York has been reluctant to do anything in the way of providing shooting facilities for it's cadre of volunteer Hunter Education Instructors. They just might have more incentive to do something if this bill becomes law. But I can guarantee you they will need convincing, strong convincing by us! Congresswoman Betsy Markey and Congressman Mike Coffman announced the introduction of HR-3782, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which will improve and create more public shooting ranges for gun owners and sportsmen. The bill is co-sponsored by Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act will allow states to allocate a greater proportion of their federal Pittman-Robertson funds for recreational shooting and target practice by providing more flexibility in funding to help construct and maintain safe public shooting ranges, and by limiting the liability exposure to federal land agencies regarding the use of their land for target practice or marksmanship training. "Colorado has a rich tradition of hunting, sporting, and recreational shooting," said Rep. Markey. "But the number of places where sportsmen and gun enthusiasts can go to safely practice has declined in recent years. By giving states more flexibility in how they use their allotment of federal funding, we're supporting Colorado's hunters and sportsmen now and for generations to come." Rep. Coffman commented, "As an ardent advocate of Second Amendment rights, I am proud to support the development and maintenance of public shooting ranges. The changes this bill makes will empower states and provide a greater federal share of funding for wildlife restoration, hunter education, and target ranges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee move this bill through committee to the House floor." Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Act, which established a 10 percent excise tax on firearms, hunting equipment and ammunition, and distributes these funds to states for hunter safety programs and the development and maintenance of shooting ranges, among other things. Rep. Markey's bill will amend the Pittman-Robertson Act by adjusting the funding limitations so that states have more funds available to create and maintain shooting ranges. It also limits the liability exposure to the federal land agencies (the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management) regarding the use of federal land for target practice or marksmanship training. The bill also encourages those agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land so as to encourage their continued use. HR-3782 has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. If and when this bill passes (and we should be all working to get it passed by contacting our Congressmen and both US Senators) then we need to exert pressure on the DEC to use the funds designated for shooting ranges, something they are not doing now! Back to top |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 2009First let me start this months' column with a large "Thank You" to all the people who helped make this years Firearm Civil Rights Conference the huge success it turned out to be. The SAFE Board members and the volunteers who stepped up to help out did an outstanding job of getting the room prepared and organized for the almost 900 people who attended this years' conference. Take my word for it, it takes a lot of work bringing in and distributing all the literature and then signing up and/or renewing memberships for the NRA and SAFE. Each year for the past 10 years it is these volunteers who help out where and when needed that make our conference the success it is.For the record this is the first year our conference was reported in Newsday (see page A-14, October 14th, 2009 issue) even though Newsday reporters and photographers were in attendance at many previous conferences. I have also been recently informed that ownership has changed hands and maybe that is why we have finally seen our conference reported on in the media. While it was not a ringing endorsement of SAFE and what we stand for, nor was it an acknowledgement that we at SAFE have provided the public with the largest single gathering of people regardless of the subject anywhere on Long Island, the article was none the less an objective article. If anything it was refreshing to read an objective article about our conference, instead of the usual highly critical and distorted piece we have grown accustomed to. Gun owners are the most law-abiding group of people in New York State and it was nice to be treated that way for once. There was only one error in the article and that was at the beginning where it said that 700 people were in attendance. It was closer to 900 people as we had 750 chairs out and they were all full and then we had about 150 people standing in the back and along the sides of the room. We have every reason to be proud of the turnout by our members and the quality and of our guest speakers. Our speakers were not only very informative by the content of their speeches but they were at the same time very motivating speakers. While the information provided was significant it was also important to see that with this new information we could and should make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming elections this year and again in future elections when it is time. In order to protect and preserve our Constitutional rights with regard to firearms it is imperative that we be well armed with the necessary information to make the outcome of the elections something we can live with. We need to send a collective message that we firearms owners will not tolerate the taking away or in any way limiting our right and ability to own and use firearms lawfully. No longer will we sit by while those in power suggest that the 99.9% of the firearms in circulation and in safe and sane hands are responsible for the criminal acts of a few criminals. As has been said before, "that dog just don't hunt". In other words we are not and will not accept responsibility for criminals and their criminal acts simply because they use an otherwise lawful product, that being a firearm. We have a right to be treated respectfully as the law-abiding citizens we are and not with disdain or disregard. This was a great conference also because of the number of legislators and want to be legislators that attended. We had quite a few and some have already contacted me looking for support in the upcoming elections. I will bring this issue up at the next regular SAFE meeting and we can go over it and discuss what if anything we can or will do for them. I would imagine it will depend on their strength conviction and support for our Second Amendment. I for one need more than lip service to support a candidate for public office. I need to know quite convincingly that the person running for public office not only understands the firearm issue but is willing to stand up and publicly support it. If they will not do this for us there is no reason why I should support them publicly. Now for a listing of those individuals and gun stores that supported our conference and for which you should support them at every opportunity. Keep in mind we gave away almost $4,000.00 worth of prizes and these folks donated it all. They deserve our full support because they help to support our individual constitutional rights.
Back to top |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sept 2009
Lately
there has resurfaced a subject that I brought to the table almost
20 years ago. That is the possibility of having only one Handgun Licensing
Agent for all of Suffolk County. It has long been an issue that firearms
owners have strongly supported in the past and based on the e-mail,
regular mail and phone calls I have been receiving lately it seems
to be popular again. Because of that let me give you all some background
information and then I'd like to hear from you what you think. SAFE Firearm Civil Rights ConferenceFor those of you who are helpers for the SAFE Firearm Civil Rights Conference you need to be at the Hotel between 9:30 AM and 10:00 AM Sunday morning. If you are later than that you are not a helper but just early for the event. Bring your friends.Back to top |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The
New York State Legislature, specifically the Senate is in turmoil.
But that doesn't mean you can relax your guard. What it is does mean
is that we need to keep the pressure on all NYS Senators and in particular
on those from Long Island. Listed below is the phone number and e-mail
address for each of these people, please use it. Now is not the time
to lean back on what we have done but to keep up the pressure to preserve
our rights to own and use a firearm without unreasonable and unnecessary
limitations or restrictions on lawful people. Any proposal which claims
to prevent criminals from getting and using guns in the commission
of a crime is intentionally trying to mislead you into believing in
fairy tales. It is the same as trying to keep drunk drivers off the
road, it can't be done. The only thing that will keep drunk drivers
off the road and guns out of the hands of criminals is severe prison
sentences. Only when the punishment is so severe will criminals be
persuaded to not use a firearm. Even then there will be those who
believe they will not or cannot be caught and so a gun will be used,
the same as drunk drivers. Making it harder and/or more expensive
for lawful firearms owners to acquire and use a gun for self defense
reasons is not the way to punish the criminal who uses a gun in a
crime, but is a great way to control the general public. Somehow I
think those making these anti-gun proposals already know that and
they hope you don't or won't believe that this is their ultimate purpose,
to control you. Everyone needs to keep in mind that a criminal by
definition is one who breaks laws whenever and wherever they please.
Passing more restrictions or limitations on law abiding people and
firearms does not and will not prevent criminal use. That is why it
is imperative to punish those who use firearms in crimes by guaranteeing
long prison sentences without the ability to plea bargain the charge
away or to do less time in prison. District Attorneys (DAs) have traditionally
used the gun charge as a negotiation tool or bargaining chip with
a criminal to lower the charges and reduce the prison sentences for
the criminal in order to get them to plead guilty to a lesser crime.
This creates a higher conviction rate for these DAs which ultimately
makes them appear that they are looking out for your/the public's
welfare. District Attorneys often get elected by their conviction
rate and the higher this rate the better the record looks when they
run for office. In other words plea bargaining on the part of DAs
is in their own self serving interest and not necessarily in the public's
interest. It is amazing that none of these proposals are creating
stronger and/or longer prison terms for breaking the laws already
in existence. I realize there are only so many ways to say it is against
the law to murder, rape, beat or intentionally hurt someone and because
of that I am positive that none of the victims of any of these crimes
gives a DAMN about what tool was used when they were murdered,
raped beaten or hurt, only that the perpetrator be caught and punished
severely for their crime. Please contact these Senators NOW!!
The
future of the 2nd Amendment depends on our actions regarding the appointment
of the next US Supreme Court Justice. And in this case we must let
your Senators (Schumer, Gillibrand) know that we OPPOSE the appointment
of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. Judge Sonia Sotomayor,
President Barack Obama's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court appears
to hold a very negative view of the Second Amendment, one that contradicts
the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A
heated debate has already begun in the U.S. Senate over her opposition
to the right to keep and bear arms. This subject which has helped
decide the fate of presidential elections and could/should also decide
her nomination. Firearms owners and especially the members of the
National Rifle Association (NRA), the New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association (NYSRPA) and SAFE must aggressively oppose the appointment
of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor's
record clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy on the Second
Amendment, and even some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are
justifiably nervous as we all should be. Last year, the Supreme Court
held in the Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right
of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms, but that ruling
was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. My main concern is the
Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted
differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the
Bill of Rights. The next question the Supreme Court will decide is
whether the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right" which means
does it apply to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting
our firearm civil rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second
Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees. Out
of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor
is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that
the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or
city tries to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already
have in your home for hunting and/or self-defense, such as New York
is trying to do, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can't help
you. As a matter of fact, Judge Sotomayor wrote only a single paragraph
when deciding a New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo where she said the
Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state
or city laws. She offered no explanation, and made no call for Supreme
Court action. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues
concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment
but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout
her career, Judge Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition
to the private ownership of firearms. The Senate will begin hearings
in July on Judge Sotomayor's nomination and she will be given an opportunity
to explain the statements she has made about the Second Amendment
and how they differ with the Supreme Court's statements about the
Second Amendment in Heller. I for one want to know why she thinks
the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. This is important
because next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up the case
of NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment
applies to the states and cities like it does the federal government.
This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact on
our firearms civil rights everywhere in the future. Contact our 2
US Senators from New York and urge/request them to Vote No on Judge
Sonia Sotomayor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
June 2009
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
May 2009
|
April 22, 2009 |
Sportsmen's
Association for Firearms Education, Inc.
P.O. Box 343 Commack, NY 11725
RE: Chwick v. Mulvey Donation
Mr.
John Cushman, the Board of Directors & the SAFE Membership at Large.
This note is to acknowledge my receipt of the $1000.00 donation for
the Chwick v. Mulvey Appeal. I wish to thank all SAFE members for their
help and support in the fight of the ridiculous Nassau County Local
Law #5 & #9, which does affect Suffolk County pistol licensees, as well
as any others who may pass through Nassau County. As you know, Judge
Davis ruled against the petitioners in his ruling of 12/18/2008. A close
examination of the ruling showed a distinct misunderstanding of the
preemption issue at the core of the petition, and therefore, there is
a good chance of overturning this judgment in appeal. Additionally,
the legal cites used by the Respondents, Nassau County, and those added
by Judge Davis, are weak, in that they do not deal with highly regulated
pistols, where there is a strong preemption issue. I look forward to
a fruitful relationship and a win on this appeal. Again, thank you all
for your support.
Thanking you at this time.
Sincerely,
Alan J. Chwick
9th Circuit Court of Appeals says Second Amendment
also applies to states!
Last
summer the U.S. Supreme Court recognized what everybody else already
knew, that is that the Second Amendment protects the individual rights
of the people to bear arms. However the courts still had to determine
if the amendment protected individuals against restrictive state laws,
as well as against the federal government. Now, the influential 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals has joined in with a resounding "yes," saying
the Second Amendment has the same status as the First and Fourth Amendments
in protecting Americans' rights. What's at issue here is a concept called
"incorporation" which means everything in the world of constitutional
law. Basically, when the Bill of Rights was originally written, it applied
only to the federal government. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth
Amendment extended the "Bill Of Rights" reach to the individual
states, though some legal scholars still get into debates over just
which part in the 14th amendment does the job, the due process clause
or privileges and immunities clause. Incorporation has been the big
question hanging over last summer's decision in D.C. v. Heller, recognizing
that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, not some sort
of vague communal right.
In a decision just released, Nordyke v. King, the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals takes a big step toward resolving any remaining questions
about the scope of Second Amendment protections. Writing for the court,
Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain first notes that the Heller decision overrules
the appeals court's earlier position that the Second Amendment protected
only a collective right.
Here is a portion of the Ninth Circuit's interpretation:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply
rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries,
the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during
the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental
nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium
of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence,
and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from
abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply
rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize
that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American
conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited."
So, at least for the large region of the country covered by the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals the entire West Coast, plus Idaho, Montana,
Nevada and Arizona incorporation of the Second Amendment is a settled
issue unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. It feels good to have
the Second Amendment incorporated so that it protects us against state
and local governments.
"The historic Heller decision was a major victory for law-abiding gun
owners and recognized that the federal government could not infringe
on our right to keep and bear arms," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.
"Today's decision, which applies to the states in the Ninth Circuit,
ensures that the fundamental freedoms affirmed in Heller are not just
limited to the residents of Washington, D.C." The NRA has been involved
in, and supportive of, this case for the past ten years and has filed
several amicus briefs in the case.
Back
to top
Venturing Crew News…
by Bill Raab
This
month, the Youth of SAFE's own Crew 762 hosted some youth from
Crew 2021 of Lindenhurst, which specializes in Japanese Anime
and customs. They had expressed an interest in learning to shoot,
and our Crew Officers arranged an instruction and shooting night
at the American Legion Post in Smithtown. They were given some
basic safety and marksmanship instruction, and brought out to
the range for some hands on experience. All did well, and the
girls were especially enamored of shooting, remarking on how
much fun it was. They fired some .22 semi-auto rifles, and a
Winchester 94 in .45 Colt. Our District Liaison, Unit Commissioner
Sandi K. also joined in the activity, taking the opportunity
to enjoy some shooting time. She also helped (while not shooting)
to supervise the line (she holds a current NRA Range Safety
Officer certification) while Bill Raab and Chris Baumgartner
backed up the youth that were working the line, teaching the
other Venturers. Everyone had a great time, and we look forward
to more sessions like this. There are already some other Scouting
units that have asked our group to work with them. Since teaching
is a part of Venturing, this fits in nicely.
One of our Venturers has earned a Bronze Award in the Arts and
Hobbies field, the first step in Venturing advancement. He has
also passed his Eagle Scout Board of Review in his Troop, and
is waiting for national certification of his work. This is quite
an achievement and we are proud of him. With the warm weather
coming soon, they will be back outside, and some have signed
up for the Small Arms Firing School next month at Peconic River
Rod and Gun. Two of our youth have submitted applications for
the NRA Youth Education Summit, a week long course held in the
DC area. It exposes them to the workings of government, and
how to be an active citizen. We wish them the best of luck!
Back
to top
Scott L. Bach | D. Cynthia Julien | Wayne Anthony Ross |
Robert K. Brown | Tom Gaines | Ronald L. Schmeits |
John Burt | David Keene | Steven C. Schreiner |
Joseph P. DeBergalis | George K. Kollitides | John Sigler |
Donn C. DiBiasio | Edie Reynolds | Robert L. Viden Jr. |
The Democratic Partys Reaction To The Appointment of Gillibrand
Proves
They are Still the Party Of Gun Control And Not Crime Control!
The
hysteria-laden reaction from members of her own party to the recent
appointment of New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to fill
the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton proves
that Democrats are still the party of gun control. "Kirsten Gillibrand
gets high marks from the ACLU and from the Americans for Democratic
Action," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "She supports abortion
rights, stem cell research and health care protection for children
- all hot button issues for Democrats - but because she supports
gun rights, members of her own party have chosen to excoriate her
and Gov. David Patterson. Well, so much for being the party of tolerance
and inclusion. What this controversy really proves is that too many
Democrats continue to remain devoted to taking away our gun rights,
and they will even go so far as to attacking and demonizing a rising
star of their own party in order to further their agenda. As you
can see by their own actions this is not the party of "change" that
so many Americans supported in November. It is apparently the party
of narrow points of view with no tolerance for different opinions,
especially if those opinions support the rights of millions of law-abiding
American firearms owners.
Gun
Laws Don't Scare Criminals But They do Scare Lawful Citizens
This
is especially true when legislators or other public officials, Federal,
State and local will try to regulate or fix by writing laws concerning
something they know little to nothing about. I am talking about
firearms, the ownership, use and transportation of them. It doesn't
seem to matter at all to these people that those who are willing
to go through an extremely exhaustive background check, both criminal
and mental. It is a fact that these people are the most law abiding
group of people of any group you can think of. There is an old expression
that if the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer than
all things that are broken or need repair can fixed with a hammer.
Of course this is not true, but there are those who believe it is.
So if there are crimes committed with a firearm, be it rifle, shotgun
or handgun the only solution these anti-gun people think of is the
prohibition of ownership, and the restriction of use and transportation.
Unfortunately this is not a solution at all but actually an opportunity
for criminals to do even more harm to the public. We already have
laws at every level of government prohibiting the possession of
any type of firearm by anyone convicted of a serious crime and yet
that doesn't seem to deter criminals from getting all the guns they
want. These same people will try to sell the public the idea that
more prohibitive laws regarding firearms and law abiding citizens
is the way to go towards solving criminals acts with guns. HOGWASH!
It never has and it never will.
Why
Am I So Concerned About Our New Leadership?
Why
am I so worried by this new administration? Because for one thing
this new man is surrounding himself with people at every level of
civil service, from the highest advisors to those who sweep the
floor with people most if not all of whom don't own or use firearms
of any type. How do we know this, because we have a copy of the
questionnaire currently in use by the new administration and in
it they ask if you own any firearms at all and if the gun registration
is in effect? First, this is a highly inappropriate question to
ask and should be considered an invasion of privacy, which we have
every right to expect under the laws of our nation. In many places
this type of question is considered a boundary violation which is
similar to a question by a doctor or nurse when they ask a child
without the parents consent or knowledge if there are any firearms
in their home. It would be like asking when and how often you have
sex with your wife or partner. It really is none of their business
and to demand an answer or you can forget about being hired to work
for this new government is out of the question and downright wrong.
And if that isn't bad enough, should you refuse to answer the question
that in itself is grounds to not hire you because you failed to
fill out an official employment application completely. Or suppose
you fill it out and believe it is none of their business and then
you decide not to tell them about your firearms ownership and previous
lawful use even though it is and has always been perfectly legal.
Then you can be fired after the fact should they find out later
because most applications have a clause at the bottom saying that
you must sign and swear to have told the truth about everything
contained in the employment application. As for the registration
portion of that question, there are many, many places in the USA
that registration is not required for a firearm because in order
to buy the firearm in the first place you had to go through a National
Instant Computer Check (NICS) run by the FBI branch of the federal
government. So, if you have this clearance and been approved by
the government that should be the end of the invasive questioning
because to get this clearance you must have never been in any trouble
with the law. If nothing else this question sets the tone by the
administration of the type of people our President and his top staff
want to be associated with and surrounded by. I don't think it is
fair or reasonable to have no one in attendance who knows about
our side of the issue and who can make a case for our side. Being
surrounded by outright anti-gun fanatics and having no people in
this administration who have any real first hand knowledge of firearms,
how they function or the firearms laws we already have to live with
in this country is not right.
My question is; WHAT ARE THEY AFAID OF?
Firearms Industry Lauds Development of Electronic Form 4473
Next
time someone says there are no laws preventing criminals' access to
firearms tell them about this recently updated requirement which has
been in the law books since 1968. Speaking at a press conference recently
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) announced
the launch of an electronic Form 4473; the Firearms Transaction Record
which must be filled out any time a person buys a firearm from a licensed
firearms dealer. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) the
trade association for the firearms industry hailed the development
of the electronic document. As part of the announcement, the ATF issued
a ruling allowing firearms retailers to choose between a free downloadable
version of the Form 4473 from the ATF Web site or, an alternative
commercial software based version of the Form 4473, provided certain
requirements are met by the vendor.
"The E-4473 will help all firearms retailers, especially small independent
retailers, by giving the federal firearms licensee an opportunity
to reduce costs and further enhance compliance issues by eliminating
or at the very least reducing innocent mistakes caused by human error,"
said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.
The E-4473 will be entirely voluntary, voluntary for the dealer and
voluntary for the customer. Furthermore, the E-4473 is not part of
a government database, and it is not connected to any government computer
or exchange. "Clearly NSSF would never support a database of law abiding
Americans choosing to exercise their second amendment right to keep
and bear arms," continued Keane. "The E-4473 does not infringe upon
this most profound freedom."
For those who did not know, (and that includes many Federal and State
legislators) the Form 4473 is the federal document that must be completed
prior to purchasing a firearm from a licensed firearm retailer. The
document asks for the purchaser's name, address, driver's license
or identification number, National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) transaction number (authorizing and approving the transaction
to the buyer), serial number and the make and model of the firearm.
The Form 4473 includes a federal affidavit to be completed by the
purchaser stating that he or she is eligible to purchase the firearm(s)
under federal law. The purchaser also affirms that he or she is the
actual buyer of the firearm. Lying on this form is a felony and punishable
by up to five years in prison, in addition to fines, even if the firearm
is never transferred. The firearms dealer is required to keep the
Form 4473 for 20 years, and all records are subject to inspection
by the ATF. The licensed dealer must also record information from
the Form 4473 into an "A & D book" a bound book of acquisitions and
dispositions of all firearms sold and acquired by the retailer.
ANTI-GUN GROUPS MAKE OLD CLAIM, BUT NOW WITH A NEW FRIEND
For
your information it is being circulated around the internet that Sarah
Brady is asking President Elect Obama (who they believe is an anti
gun friend), to close the so called deadly loopholes in our current
laws that allow terrorists to buy guns. This is a solution in search
of a problem, since terrorists already can not legally buy guns. This
is nothing more than a back door way to vastly expand the NICS Index
which is the list of prohibited possessors that reportedly includes
more than ten million Americans. Once you're on, it can be next to
impossible to get off, so making it larger serves the goal of the
gun banners wonderfully. Many (but not all) currently in the NICS
index are violent felons who belong there. It's not completely clear
who they'd like to add, but in the past, an effort was made to grant
arbitrary authority to the Attorney General to add names to terrorism
"watch lists. This would prevent those people from air travel and
place other restrictions on civil liberties. Sort of like Guantanamo
detainees except you didn't need to be caught shooting at Americans
on a battlefield. Anyone on that list would be automatically banned
by a NICS check, and those checks would no longer be limited to retail
purchases from dealers.
FYI, if you're placed on the NICS list, it suggests you're a prohibited
person whether you really are or not, so any guns or ammo you already
own or even touch could then constitute a felony. To an overly zealous
cop or judge, a NICS listing might require you to prove your innocence,
which can be a nightmare of legal problems. That list should be scrupulously
accurate and easily corrected… a task the government is known to screw
up regularly. And just for the record, any actual terrorist is already
totally banned from buying or having guns in this country, but they
could care less about lists kept in West Virginia by the FBI. Terrorist
by definition means "We smuggle weapons you can't even get, easier
than you can buy a bag of cocaine in any America city."
Just as a personal aside these "terrorists" (which is generally a
code name for radical Muslims) are determined to kill and blow up
everything they can, and they prove it again and again around the
world, constantly, you needn't take my word for it. They haven't done
it here since 9/11 for one main reason, President Bush, although he
is and has been killing them off as fast as he can, before they can
strike us here and even though he has been hampered with constant
attacks in the media which have now swayed large swaths of the public.
He may take a lot of flack, and be looked down upon by many, but he
just may turn out to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents
we have ever had the luck to have. I'm just noting here that the Muslim
extremists are killing everywhere in the world but here, and President
Bush is the reason. For that he is entitled to a big "Thank you!"
I clearly know that doesn't go along with public perception but just
because it isn't plastered all over the front pages of the news media
doesn't mean its not so! Happy New Year.
Governor Lauds Interior Secretary's Firearm Decision
Unlike
the anti-gun organizations Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin also lauded
the decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior that will allow
an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife
refuges. The new rule only applies if the individual is authorized
to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which
the national park or refuge is located. "The possession and use of
firearms is especially critical to Alaskans," Governor Palin said.
"We will continue to protect gun rights. The ability to carry a firearm
can define a life or death situation, especially for protection against
surprise encounters with wildlife, mainly bears. I appreciate the
Interior Department recognizing this is a step in the right direction."
Within Alaska, most of the national parks and refuge areas are open
to various forms of hunting, so possession and use of firearms is
already widely allowed under both state and federal law. The new rule
will take effect in January.
Back
to top
For
the past 5 years and the 10 NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Clinics
we have held teaching just over 500 women the safe handling and marksmanship
basics is indeed something we should all be proud of. Few organizations
have done as much depending almost entirely on our own resources,
meaning money and volunteers. This last WOT Clinic was even written
up in the October 12th, 2008 edition of Newsday. Considering how anti-gun
Newsday traditionally is, we were quite surprised the article was
not only objective but almost congratulatory. In other words it was
upbeat and positive, two things we are not used to from Newsday.
This month will be our annual meeting which coincides with the New
Year and the beginning of the New 2 year Congress and 2 year NYS Legislatures
business session. That's really not as dull and boring as it sounds.
At our Annual meeting we take care of all our legal obligations making
yearly reports to the members, answering any questions and holding
elections for Directors to the Board and to the SAFE Nominating Committee
for next year. We try to make this portion of the meeting as quick
and painless as possible so that we can move onto more serious business
of the organization. While this meeting is required by law it can
be quite informative and enjoyable.
At
this time last year then Governor Spitzer proposed giving all illegal
aliens a governmental identification (ID) document. What he and
the US Congress should have been doing is finding a way to get all
these ILLEGAL ALIENS out of our country and who by the way
have still done nothing one year later. What bothers me is that the
US Congress (both houses) have been controlled for the past 4 years
by the Democrats and the NYS Legislature, the Assembly and the Executive
branch of government are Democrats for the past year and they too
have done nothing about the illegal alien problem. Why Not?
Thank goodness because of a major outcry by the public that proposal
was withdrawn. My question was and still is; what the hell took so
long to realize the dangerous precedent this would have created? I
never could fathom the idea of any governmental agency giving KNOWN
criminals (illegal aliens are KNOWN criminals) the ability
to conduct business as if they were legal. That includes the ability
to buy firearms and use them in whatever other illegal activities
these people engage in. Normally I would defend the presumption that
any lawful citizen who wants a firearm and has a record of being law
abiding should get one without any prior restraints imposed on them
by any government agency. I firmly believe that with regard to firearms
no citizen should be denied the right to own and use firearms for
any lawful purpose. That includes the ability to be able to acquire
a firearm in a timely manner and carry it anywhere they choose until
proven otherwise, not presumed otherwise. But that is another issue
to be discussed at another time. But in the case of these illegal
aliens they have already proven that they will break any law they
do not like or disagree with. I am as pro-gun, pro-civil rights a
person as you will ever meet but I am not in favor of giving illegal
aliens the ability to purchase a firearm through legal channels.
In order to buy a firearm through any legally licensed firearm dealer
in New York State all that's required is a government issued identification
or a New York State Drivers License. When this ID is given
to the federally licensed dealer he/she calls the Feds for a background
check to see if this person is one of those people who are prohibited
from purchasing or owning a firearm. Guess what happens next? Because
this person is an illegal alien, he/she has no background to
check. According to all of the records this person does not really
exist. So if there is nothing to show that they are a prohibited person
the dealer would be required to sell them a firearm. For all we know
this person could be a mass murderer or a rapist or bank robber or
any other kind of criminal. The issue here is, because they are in
our country illegally, there is in fact no way for anyone in our government
to know whether or not some or all of these people are criminals where
they come from! This required background check by the way is our national
standard for the purchase of firearms for all lawful citizens and
I for one believe this standard should be the very least all immigrants
legal or illegal should be required to comply with. I want to make
it clear that I am in favor of immigration but only the legal kind.
I am not in favor of people breaking into my home (the USA is my home)
and then demanding I treat them as equals. I have no obligation to
provide these people with anything a natural born citizen or legal
immigrant has a right to expect. With the rights & privileges of citizenship
goes the responsibility to abide by and obey all laws, not just those
we like. By definition illegal aliens have already violated
the laws of our land and I have no reason to believe they will change
their ways now. Providing them with any form of legal identification
is a dangerous thing to do.
This brings me to the question of why would a person/s some call intelligent
(and please do not confuse intelligence with wisdom) be willing to
place so many good and lawful citizens in jeopardy? One possibility
would be to get these illegal aliens to feel beholden to that
person/s who was giving them legitimacy and the right to vote because
this governmental ID could also be used to establish residency for
voting purposes. I would hate to think that any Governor or the Congress
is merely pandering for more votes by trying to appeal to an unlawful
group of people instead of strongly representing the will and opinion
of the majority of lawful and honest citizens of this State and the
country. Another possibility could be that if illegal aliens
could get access to guns and then the crime rate goes up here in New
York it would justify the introduction of more restrictive firearms
laws up to and including limited prohibition for all citizens including
the 99% of the firearms owners who do not violate the law. We have
always held the position that criminals should be punished for their
criminal behavior and not the law abiding firearms owners. As a matter
of fact and I have stated this before, I distrust any public official
who does not believe in my constitutional right to own and use firearms
because if they don't trust me in the exercise of my most basic constitutional
rights then there is no reason to trust them. These public officials
have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and are supposed
to make sure these rights remain my rights, to be exercised when ever
I choose and not taken away or limited in any way or under any pretense
what so ever. Remember on December 15, 1791, the new United
States of America adopted the Bill Of Rights and we should celebrate
that day every year, not shun it as some try to do.
THE
FRAUD OF OBAMA
In
battleground states Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, the National
Rifle Association is taking aim at Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., with
this new ad and for good reasons. "Imagine your child screaming in
the middle of the night when a convicted felon breaks into your home,"
the narrator says. "Worse, he comes back a second time. You use a
firearm to defend yourself and your family. Unbelievably, Obama voted
to make you the criminal..." It goes on from there. This ad refers
to a 2003 incident when a Wilmette, Ill., restaurateur named Mr. Hale
DeMar shot and wounded a burglar who broke into his house. DeMar was
prosecuted by the town of Wilmette, which had, at the time, a ban
on the possession of handguns, so some Illinois lawmakers introduced
legislation to offer legal protections to individuals who use firearms
in self-defense. The bill passed the Illinois state House by a vote
of 86-25, and the Illinois State Senate, by a vote of 39-20. What
is generally not known is Mr. Obama voted against this bill which
would have made Mr. Demar, the original victim in this case, has become
the criminal. Does that sound like the act someone who is trying to
protect yours and my civil rights to self protection? I don't think
so!
ELECTION DAY 2008
By
the time you get this issue of the SAFE legislative Report and newsletter
there will be about one week left for campaigning. It is now or never.
From here on out the election is all about the grassroots organization
and hard work, the type of roll up your sleeves, shoe leather politics
that is the strength of our SAFE organization. We are up against a
political and fundraising machine the likes of which we have never
seen before in modern politics. This machine is designed for one purpose:
to aid the Obama-Biden Democrats' power grab. From vicious attack
ads smearing our candidates to pouring thousands of paid operatives
into crucial battleground states, these anti-gun fanatical groups
will spend over $1 billion to elect the most liberal Democrat presidential
ticket in our country's history to the White House and expand the
Democrats' majorities in Congress. Remember the Democratic Party Platform
is one that endorses firearms registration, licensing and ultimately
total confiscation. The really scary part is the liberal mainstream
media is also doing their part. In the daily newspapers and nightly
news programs, they have condoned the misleading distortions and dishonest
attacks against Republican candidates through their slanted reporting
in favor of the opposition. The news media has stopped being an objective
reporting agency and become one that interprets and tells you what
the news means. Just give me all the facts and allow me to decide
for myself what it all means. Our Second Amendment Rights have never
been in so much danger as it will be if Obama becomes President. He
has outright lied during this campaign by saying he supports the Second
Amendment while voting in the US Senate every time against it. If
elected he will be the one appointing the next couple of US Supreme
Court justices and with a Democratic controlled Senate he will appoint
the most radical anti civil rights, anti gun court in our lifetime.
That truly scares me and would be a disservice and betrayal to my
children. I said it at our Right To Carry Conference and it is still
true now, the media is lying and intentionally misleading the public
about the so called lead of Obama over McCain. It is not true and
it should not be trusted. We must fight back if our Second Amendment
Rights are to continue into the next generation.
Right To Carry Conference & Women On Target Shooting Clinic
I
would like to take this opportunity to THANK everyone who helped out
in making the SAFE Right To Carry Conference (RTC) and the Women on
Target (WOT) Shooting Clinic the success they were. Without the full
support of the Board of Directors of SAFE and the membership this
would not only be unsuccessful it wouldn't happen at all. What makes
it run so smoothly is that everyone does a job and they do it extremely
well. From the distribution of literature on each and every seat to
the setting up of and running of all the tables in the back for membership
activities and prize displays and book sales to making sure I am kept
informed when public officials and candidates for public office arrive
so I can announce them to the attendees to the hanging of SAFE's Banner
and other SAFE signs to every other little detail, all this happens
because of the volunteers. And just for the record, each time we do
one of these events we start off by being $3,000.00 in debt. But because
it is such a success it pays off all of our financial obligations
for the RTC Conference and also pays for the 60 women who participated
in the SAFE WOT Shooting Clinic. We also achieved in bringing in 90
renewals and 50 new memberships for SAFE as well as signing up 45
new NRA memberships. All of these are important and you should all
be proud.
SAFE nominating Committee Meeting Nov 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 PM
The
SAFE nominating Committee will be called together 1 hour before our
next regular SAFE meeting on Nov 3rd, at 6:30 PM so they can deliberate
on candidates for the SAFE Board of Directors. Because I am not up
for re-election to the Board I will be acting as Chairman to the Committee
and the rest of the committee members are as follows; Appointed Board
members, Richie Snizek and Bill Raab. Non-Board members
are Eric Collins, elected by the members and Bill Kirchhoff
and Georgia Maas who are appointed by the Board from those
nominated by the membership. So as you can see the Committee is composed
of 2 Board members and 3 Non-Board members with the chair, voting
only in the case of a tie. The 3 current Board members up for re-election
are Richie Fahie, Lou Giordano and James Kelly.
Mr. Fahie and Mr. Giordano are asking to have their names removed
from consideration because of their job requirements that will not
allow them the opportunity to give the necessary time to the position
in SAFE. Everyone should keep in mind that December will be our Annual
Meeting month where SAFE Elections take place.
For those of you who were unable to make last months regular SAFE
meeting and did not get the chance to see the article in the Sunday
edition of Newsday October 12th, 2008 on page 14, you should go to
the following web-site to read it for yourself; http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lijoy5880552oct12,0,4892446.column.
I believe what we did at the SAFE WOT Shooting Clinic should make
the members proud. I was especially pleased because I am told that
this particular reporter is extremely tough on organizations and in
particular gun groups. Knowing that, the published article was exceptionally
good for and about us. And once again I have to thank all off the
volunteer NRA instructors, especially Tony Giammarino the lead classroom
instructor and all of the volunteer assistants in making it run as
smoothly as it did. This is good public relations for the firearms
community in general and in particular for SAFE. The women who participated
in the clinic were all very pleased about their attendance.
Back
to top
You
Won't See This In Your Local Paper
New
York criminal defense law firm Tilem & Campbell announced today that
all charges were dismissed against a client charged with possessing
a loaded firearm in Bronx County, New York. The firm relied on the
largely unknown federal travelers' defense which grants a defense
to state gun charges for those traveling interstate with their firearms.
The client was originally charged with a class "C" violent felony
and was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years
in state prison and up to fifteen years in state prison if convicted;
he was needless to say ecstatic with the outcome.
The Federal Travelers' Defense permits a citizen who is not barred
from possessing guns to legally transport one or more guns from one
state where he legally possesses that gun to another state where he
may lawfully possess that gun, without regard to the gun laws in every
state he passes through on the trip. The defense is only available
if the gun is unloaded, and if neither the gun nor ammunition is accessible
from the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
In 2006, New York State amended its gun laws, increasing the penalties
for possessing a loaded firearm outside a person's home or place of
business to a minimum sentence of three and one-half years and a maximum
sentence of fifteen years.
Back
to top
I
hope all of you have had an enjoyable summer with family and friends.
But now it is time to once again get back to work. I must admit I
have done more traveling this past summer than I have in quite in
quite a few years but I have also attended and been a part of many
more meetings regarding firearms and ownership, use and transportation.
I have also been more active in communicating with legislative candidates
who want to be our elected representatives at all levels of government.
My hope is so have you, because whether we like it or not, it is the
elected officials who govern every aspect of our lives and we must
and should be involved with them as much as possible! To that extent
please read the 3 page letter to Suffolk County Legislator Jack Eddington
with regard to a bill introduced to ban certain colored firearms as
if a color should determine how dangerous a firearm is.
I am going to be looking for some volunteers to work a phone bank
with me to help get elected a strong pro-gun candidate to Congress.
If you are interested let me know and I will fill you in on the details.
It will require a few evenings making phone calls from their office
to voters, including gun owning voters. It is one of the ways that
we at SAFE can and will make the difference in who represents us.
Because there is way more information that I would like to share with
you than can possibly fit in this newsletter I hope you all show up
for the meeting. We are getting down to the wire with final arrangements
for the Right To Carry Conference (RTC) and the Women On Target Shooting
Clinic (WOT) and I am in search of volunteers for each. See me at
the meeting, email me or call me so I can get your name and phone
number so I will know which event you are willing to help out with.
With regard to the WOT, the class is filling up again so if you have
someone who wants in please get them to contact me right away at jcushman@juno.com
and give me full name, address and phone number and which class they
want to be in AM or PM. I will call each and every student 10 days
to 2 weeks before the clinic to confirm their attendance. If they
need any info regarding either event refer them to the enclosed flyer
or send them to our web-site at www.nysafe.org. Normally I use two
pages for my column but this month I am giving one page to Mr. Bill
Raab, one of SAFE's Board members. He is the contact person regarding
a new program that SAFE is sponsoring with the Boy Scouts of America.
So please read his article.
Morton
Grove, Illinois finally sees the light!
In
1981, a quiet northern Chicago suburb made
history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the
possession of handguns. Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove, Illinois
has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June
that affirmed a homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense. Though
Morton Grove's gun ban is five years younger than Washington, DC's,
it's considered the first in the country because the village is a
municipality, whereas D.C. is a federal district. Gun rights advocates
hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals
have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.
Some thing we've been saying all along.
Wilmette, Illinois, another northern Chicago suburb, voted to repeal
its ban also. Officials there said they believe they weren't sued
by the NRA because the village stopped enforcing its 1989 ban after
the high court ruling. "In my mind we had to repeal," said Wilmette
Village President Chris Canning, who is also a lawyer. "I knew that
our ordinance would not survive constitutional scrutiny." Todd Vandermyde,
an NRA lobbyist in Illinois, said communities working to repeal their
gun bans simply see the writing on the wall. "Some communities are
truly seeing what is contained in the Supreme Court decision and they're
reacting appropriately," he said. The pressure that Morton Grove is
feeling is because the NRA and the gun-lobby lawyers are pushing these
issues, basically forcing them to make a decision on where to spend
their taxpayers money.
SAFE's
Youth Group Takes Off
by Bill Raab
For
the past few months, the SAFE Board of Directors has been talking
about the possibility of forming a Youth program. It is a given that
today's youth do not get the necessary exposure to civil rights and
responsibilities they need to prepare for an informed adult life.
Firearms are typically only portrayed in a negative light, and the
thought of individual initiative is almost never discussed. We have
been in contact with the Boy Scouts of America in reference to starting
a Venturing group, known as a Crew.
Venturing is a youth development program of the Boy Scouts of America
for young men and women who are 14 (and have completed the eighth
grade) through 20 years of age. Venturing is based on a unique and
dynamic relationship between youth, adult leaders, and organizations
in their communities. Local community organizations establish a Venturing
crew by matching their people and program resources to the interests
of young people in the community. The result is a program of exciting
and meaningful activities that helps youth pursue their special interests,
grow, develop leadership skills, and become good citizens. This seems
to fall into place with what we do at SAFE and it would give us some
support for the new Unit through printed material, training, and both
volunteer and professional staff to help us.
Venturing's purpose is to provide positive experiences to help young
people mature and to prepare them to become responsible and caring
adults. Our group would be based on the shooting sports, with civil
rights and government study as part of the program. Our group had
several planning meetings, and we have enlisted the support of some
local ranges to help bring a quality experience to the young people
we will be working with.
The Crew has elected their Officers, and recruited more new members.
They are supported by seasoned Adult leaders with more than 200 years
combined shooting experience. We currently have 12 youth, with a varied
degree of abilities. We're sure they will all improve to some degree.
One of the more notable shooters in the Crew, Vice President in charge
of Program Nolan C., has just won both individual and Team Gold Medals
at the Empire State Games. If he improves much more, you may see him
at the 2012 Olympic Games. A tremendous achievement and one that merits
our sincerest congratulations! Should anyone have questions for me
see me at the meeting or contact me through SAFE.
Back
to top
Great
news!!! Today June 26th, 2008, a date that will go into the history
books. The US Supreme Court has given us an opinion and a decision
which basically acknowledges the Second Amendment in the US
Bill of Rights is and always has been a Constitutional "individual"
right. Generally this legal opinion says that the Second Amendment
is clearly a right of individuals, not of states and or militias and
that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional and so is
the requirement to keep guns locked up. As we used to say in the Corps,
OUTSTANDING! I have not finished reading the opinion yet myself but
I wanted to get this out to you as soon as I possibly could.
You can be sure you will hear tons of comments and commentaries by
those in the media and especially those who will try to convince you
this is really not a big deal. But make no mistake about it…it is
a big deal, a very big deal. They will try to put their own personal
slant on the decision and the best way I can think of to make sure
you are not fooled or intentionally mislead is to read the decision
yourself. Once you have armed yourself with the knowledge of the actual
wording of the decision you won't be so easily led astray. To be sure
the major pro gun groups like NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA and more will
all have their own individual interpretations out soon. My advice
is to read them all and add this information to your personal arsenal
of knowledge. By being an informed and educated group of gun owners
you all will be our best defense and offense against anyone who would
try to destroy our Second Amendment Rights.
A word of caution is now in order. I have been raising this issue
since before this case went to the Supreme Court and that is, now
that we have a favorable decision to lean on it is the beginning of
the real fight to overturn or repeal a lot of the bad firearms legislation
currently on the books, not just here in New York but in jurisdictions
all over the country. Now that we are armed with a decision that gives
us a clear right to challenge unconstitutional gun laws at all levels
of government you can sure be no legislative body in the US will admit
they did anything wrong or that their law violates your constitutional
rights.
My advice now is to stay tuned for not only more interpretations of
this decision by everyone and his brother but also for the next steps
that need to be taken by us now that we have the necessary ammunition
to fight. If anything, we need to make sure we are all members of
SAFE, the NRA and other pro-gun organizations and if we are not we
need to join now. We need to get our gun owning friends and relatives
involved in this fight by getting them to join or by giving them a
membership as a gift. Get every gun owner you know involved in our
cause. Keeping ourselves informed of what is going on is the first
step towards winning this battle. For example what do you think of
creating a SAFE Firearms Legal Defense Fund? Would you support it
and get others to do the same? Keep in mind it will only be as effective
as you the supporters are. There is no way to say this other than
directly and that is, in order to make the SAFE Legal Defense Fund
work requires MONEY. We must all dedicate ourselves toward raising
the funds necessary to take these people to court especially in the
Long Island area.
Suffolk
County Legislators Eddington and Horsley Introduce RESOLUTION
NO. 1506-2008, A Local Law To Prohibit Deceptively Colored Handguns
Section
1. Legislative Intent. This Legislature hereby finds and
determines that real guns, when painted with non-traditional handgun
colors, resemble toy guns, and can confuse law enforcement officers
and the public at large. (FALSE, I don't believe that law enforcement
is as stupid or naďve as these legislators claim they are) This
Legislature further finds that deceptively colored handguns pose a
danger to law enforcement personnel. (LIE, inanimate colored objects
don't represent a hazard to anyone) Law enforcement officers
who sometimes must make split second decisions on the use of force
could perceive a deceptively colored handgun to be a toy and, as a
result be seriously injured or killed. (Only if you don't trust
your police officers or they are unsure about what that person is
doing in the alley at 3:00 AM when the store alarm goes off) This
Legislature also finds that a child may mistakenly attempt to play
with a brightly colored handgun and seriously injure themselves or
others. (FALSE, we already have child negligence laws in place)
Therefore, the purpose of this local law is to safeguard the
public from the unreasonable risk of death and injury that may result
when real handguns are mistaken for toys by banning the distribution
and possession of deceptively colored handguns within the County of
Suffolk. (The true purpose of this proposal is to allow anti-gun
fanatic legislators to attempt to misrepresent and lie about guns
and their owners in order justify their perverted real purpose that
is to harass law abiding gun owners because they are legislators and
anti-gun. There is not one documented situation that any of these
unfounded allegations and fears of these legislators is true. They
are attempting to fix a problem that is only in their own head.)
Section 3. Prohibitions. A. It shall be unlawful for any person
to modify, attempt to modify, or offer to modify any handgun so as
to make it a deceptively colored handgun except as authorized by Section
4 of this law. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a
deceptively colored handgun or a deceptive coloring product except
as authorized by Section 4 of this law or for any person to attempt
to possess a deceptively colored handgun or a deceptive coloring product
except as authorized by Section 4 of this law. C. It shall be unlawful
for any person to dispose of a deceptively colored handgun except
as authorized by Section 4 of this law.
Section 4. Exceptions. A. within thirty (30) days after the
law goes into effect such person either: (i) surrenders such deceptively
colored handgun to the Commissioner of Police for disposal in accordance
with the provisions of Section 400.05 of the Penal Law;(destruction)
or (ii) modifies such handgun to be in conformance with this law.
B. This law shall not apply to federal or state agencies or by a peace
officer or police officer, acting within the scope of his or her duties.
Section 5. Penalties. Any person who violates any provision
of this law or of any regulations issued pursuant to it shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more $1,000.00, or
imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. (simple possession
only can fine you and /or put you in jail or both, no crime need be
committed) Everyone of you needs to contact all members of the
Suffolk County Legislature and oppose this proposal.
Back
to top
MY
NEW PRO-GUN HERO IN THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
While
I have never met this man the fact that he is such an outspoken
in your face supporter of our lawful right to own and use firearms
is refreshing to say the least. State Assemblyman Greg Ball from
Carmel, NY made his feelings known recently on a piece of legislation
that would require every semi-automatic firearm in the state capable
of stamping a unique code onto the cartridge case of fired ammunition
known as micro-stamping. These anti-gun fanatics claim it can help
police link the ammunition to the gun it was fired from without
having the gun. Assemblyman Ball showed up at an event at a State
Police HQ firing range, which was hosted by Assemblywoman Michelle
Schimel, D-Great Neck. According to a newspaper article upstate
NY he brought along Jake McGuigan of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation (NSSF) and Greg Costa, a representative of the National
Rifle Association (NRA) and a board member of NYS Rifle and Pistol
Association (NYSRPA). Although the event was held at a public building
and Assemblyman Ball was invited by Ms. Schimel, members of the
manufacturing sector and other second amendment advocates were not
invited. For the record, Ball's guests were actually refused admittance
to the event. Raising this issue to the invited media, and after
his guests were asked to leave, Ball pointed out the hypocrisy
of this event and why this measure infringes on the rights of law-abiding
gun owners.
"If this was an unveiling for a brand new brake technology, one
would certainly invite representatives from the automobile industry.
To think that this was billed as an open event, but then
members of the second amendment and gun manufacturing community
were excluded, is absolutely and undeniably wrong. Sportsmen, hunters
and gun owners throughout New York should know that we busted up
a dog and pony show today, and made sure their voice was heard,"
said Assemblyman Ball. "The Assembly needs to begin focusing on
the real criminals. This plan is just another way for the government
to tax and track law-abiding, registered gun owners." This kind
of secretive activity is standard practice for the anti-gunners,
closed door meetings, not allowing those who know firearms and their
uses best to be a part of anything they do. No real open discussion
on the merits of these types of proposals. As Ball stated, "Sadly,
they tried to only present one side of the story and worse, people
who work in this industry were purposefully excluded from attending
the event."
According to the newspaper, Jake McGuigan of the NSSF echoed Assemblyman
Ball's sentiments, stating "Clearly, there are some politically
and economically motivated groups and individuals who would like
to see the major failures of micro-stamping covered up. It is imperative
that this not be allowed to happen. New Yorkers, and lawmakers,
have a right to know the ease with which micro-stamping can be defeated,
the independent studies calling for further review of the 'flawed'
technology and the views of professional forensics examiners opposing
micro-stamping. I remain gravely concerned that the real cost of
implementing this concept is astronomical compared to any reasonable
public safety benefits that might possibly materialize." "Even the
state police were manipulated today into hosting a purely political
event or they were complicit. Either way, they allowed themselves
to be politicized. Looks like just another example of the politicization
of the New York State Police," stated Greg Costa, a representative
of the NRA and board member of NYSRPA.
Both McGuigan and Costa joined Ball at the event and Costa said
of the micro-stamping legislation, "It is based on unproven technology
at a great public expense and has zero public safety application.
The fact is that this cannot be used as an investigatory or prosecution
tool, the object is simply just to build yet another database of
legal gun owners." Just recently the University of California (UC)
re-released their study on micro-stamping. The researchers concluded,
"At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation
of this technology be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation
is required." The U.C. Davis researchers also cited another study
from the National Research Council (NRC) an arm of the national
academies of engineering and science that said, "Further studies
are needed on the durability of micro-stamping marks under various
conditions and their susceptibility to tampering, as well as on
the cost impact for manufacturers and consumers." The NRC reached
this conclusion after a presentation to the study panel by renowned
John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor and forensic examiner
George Krivosta. Now here is something I'll bet you didn't know.
Professor Krivosta conducted his peer-reviewed micro-stamping study
with the Suffolk County Crime Lab right here in the Empire State.
The results were published in 2006 in the professional scholarly
journal for forensic firearms examiners, (a periodical I am sure
everyone who reads this subscribes to). Professor Krivosta proved
that micro-stamping technology does not function reliably and the
shallow micro laser engraved marks can be removed in mere seconds
using common household tools. Professor Krivosta concluded that,
"Implementing this technology will be much more complicated than
burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms
being manufactured."
Assembly Bill, A-9819-A, sponsored by Ms. Schimel, and which
was reported on in the May issue of the SAFE newsletter, would mandate
that every pistol legally sold in New York State be designed to
micro-stamp ammunition with unique markings. Assemblyman Ball appears
be a leading advocate of Second Amendment Rights in the New York
State Legislature and has taken a vocal stand against bills that
infringe on law abiding gun owners' rights. He led the debate against
the micro-stamping measure when it came to the Assembly floor, raising
such questions as "How many guns used in crimes are used by the
person to whom they are registered" and asked about reloaded ammunition,
often used, which would already have a micro-stamp on it? Ball also
asked about the economic impact of this bill, specifically, if gun
manufacturers would rather do business elsewhere than comply with
this new mandate, if enacted. Despite Ball's vocal opposition leading
the debate on the bill, it was ultimately passed by a vote of 90-43.
The Senate has not addressed this measure and if we have anything
to say about it they never will. We must keep sending in those letters
and cards to all state senators urging them to not allow this and
similar types of bad legislation to become law.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. After looking it up I found out this saying came from Plato who was born on May 21, -428 BC and was known as an ancient Greek philosopher who was considered by many to be the world's most influential philosopher. According to the records he lived from 428 BC to 348 BC, 80 years. This saying seems to be as true today as when it was first said and that was a long time ago. I bring it up now to once again remind everyone to get involved and stay involved to any level you can. The more the involvement the more influence we will have and need in the days ahead. See the legislative analysis of the latest from Albany.
Regardless
of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here
is a sobering (and scary) statistic: There has been a monthly average
of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last
40 months, and a total of 3,567 deaths. That gives a firearm death
rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington
DC is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means
that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S.
Capital than you are in Iraq. The obvious conclusion from these
FACTS is; the U.S. should pull out of Washington DC and save lives,
keeping in mind that even if it means just saving one more life as
the anti-gun fanatics love to say.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in District
of Columbia v. Heller (formerly Parker v. District of Columbia), which
struck down three D.C. gun bans as unconstitutional, many newspapers
are publishing editorials, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor
that read suspiciously like the anti-Parker "essays" that the Brady
Campaign has been posting on its website for the last few months.
In spite of what you will read and hear in the general media over
the coming months, and you will hear plenty, the vast majority of
historians and Constitutional scholars have always believed the Second
Amendment was and is about an individual's right to own firearms.
The concept of a "collective" right of gun ownership is really a recent
idea. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Until the 20th century, a state's militia was considered every able-bodied
male. The framers of the Constitution believed that it was every citizen's
job to defend his home and country. So the first part of the amendment
merely reinforces the idea that citizens, the people's militia, have
the right, the obligation even, to bear arms because we are all ultimately
responsible to protect our freedoms.
That idea has become unpopular in some elite circles today, but it
doesn't change the framers' intent or how the relatively conservative
and a strict interpretation on today's Supreme Court will probably/hopefully
rule to strike down the DC gun ban and uphold a recent lower court's
decision. The average American has always understood the Second Amendment.
Anti-gun positions have cost more than one politician his seat, and
it's the very reason Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and
the presidential race because he advocated more gun control. For many
Americans, how a politician stands on gun control defines his whole
character. If you are for gun control, you probably don't support
all the other important rights of our Constitution. You simply can't
be trusted.
Inner-city violence and rioting, the breakdown of social order after
natural disasters such as New Orleans, and the general fear of crime
have made a whole generation of urbanites recognize that they needed
firearms to protect themselves and their families in times of crisis.
The police weren't going to be there in time, if at all. People understand
that our fore-fathers idea of "militia" still applies in a modern
world. It was and is up to each and every one of us to defend and
protect that which is ours, including our lives. In New Orleans, groups
of neighbors protected clusters of houses from looters and criminals
after Katrina. Store owners defended their shops from rioters in Los
Angeles and Chicago. Home-invasion robberies are thwarted by little
old ladies. The common denominator is that all of these people were
armed.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the D.C. gun ban case, on which
it will probably rule by next June, will make the issue a political
hot potato in upcoming presidential primaries and in the final race
next November after a decision is rendered. The losers will say the
Second Amendment does or should be amended to allow for citizens to
be disarmed, wholly or partially as they do in Washington, D.C. The
winners will realize that Americans whether liberal or conservative
do in fact understand the Constitution is indeed a living document,
but some of its basic tenants shouldn't be trifled with. And the Second
Amendment's guarantee of individual gun ownership is one of those.
MORE BLOOD ON HANDS OF 'GUN FREE ZONES'
EXTREMISTS AT OMAHA MALL
Eight
more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political
correctness at Omaha's Westroads Mall recently, and the citizens everywhere
should feel outrage at this crime because it happened once AGAIN in
a "gun free zone" where the law-abiding private citizens are disarmed
by mall rules and state statute. To add insult to injury the gun control
extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation.
Why don't they understand the prohibition on firearms at Westroads
Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free
environment in which to unleash his rage.
Alan Gottlieb, co-author of the recently released book called "America
Fights Back: Armed Self-defense In A Violent Age", said the common
link between virtually every mass shooting in recent history in this
country is that they all happened in so-called "gun-free zones" such
as shopping malls and college campuses. He and co-author Dave Workman
detail the colossal failure of this "Gun Free Folly" in their new
book.
What happened at the Westroads Mall can happen anywhere and usually
what follows is political hysteria that results in more laws aimed
at victim disarmament. Blaming firearms for this crime is like blaming
cars for drunk driving. To borrow a well used but accurate NRA expression:
"That Dog Won't Hunt". Published reports all suggest that Hawkins
was troubled and had emotional problems, and he reportedly had a felony
drug conviction on his record which prohibited him from owning firearms.
This only proves that restrictive gun laws do not prevent determined
perpetrators from getting their hands on guns, but they do prevent
law-abiding citizens from having the tools necessary to defend themselves.
Remember that a similar shooting at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square
earlier this year was interrupted by an armed, off-duty police officer
from another city. That man was an armed private citizen. In Tacoma,
Washington two years ago, an armed citizen confronted a gunman at
the Tacoma Mall and although he was seriously wounded, his intervention
brought the shooting to a halt. Gun owners, the gun industry, nor
our constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms
are at fault for any of these shootings and the gun control lobby
knows it. Restrictive laws that disarm honest citizens and provide
risk-free environments for criminals and lunatics are at fault, and
so are the people responsible for passing such laws and enforcing
such prohibitions.
Back
to top
First
I would like to apologize for forgetting to mention someone (as I
said I probably would) that was and is a major component of our NRA
"Women On Target" Shooting Clinic. That person is Tony Giammarino,
a past Vice President of SAFE. Tony is and continues to be our main
classroom instructor. Please accept my apologies Tony. And if there
is anyone else I forgot to mention as an instructor or as an assistant,
please let me know. For the past 4 years and the 8 "Women On Target"
Clinics we have held teaching almost 400 women the safe handling and
marksmanship basics is indeed something we should all be proud of.
Few organizations have done as much depending almost entirely on our
own resources, meaning money and volunteers.
This month will be our annual meeting. That's not as dull and boring
as it sounds. We used to have our Annual meeting in June but with
the consent of the membership and at the recommendation of the Board
of Directors (BOD) we made the change to coincide with the New Year
and the beginning of the NYS Legislatures business session. At our
Annual meeting we take care of all our legal obligations making yearly
reports, answering any questions and holding elections for Directors
to the Board and to the SAFE Nominating Committee for next year. We
try to make this portion of the meeting as quick and painless as possible
so that we can move onto more serious business of the organization.
While this meeting is required by law it can be quite informative
and enjoyable.
It seems Governor Spitzer has finally listened to the deafening sound
of objections from all over the state and from outside the state to
his idea of giving illegal aliens a governmental identification
(ID) document because he has now withdrawn his proposal. My question
is; what the hell took so long to realize the dangerous precedent
this would create? I cannot fathom the idea of giving KNOWN
criminals (illegal aliens are KNOWN criminals) the ability
to conduct business as if they were legal. That includes the ability
to buy firearms and use them in whatever other illegal activities
these people engage in. Normally I would defend the presumption that
any lawful citizen who wants a firearm and has a record of being law
abiding should get one without any prior restraints imposed on them
by any government agency. I firmly believe that with regard to firearms
no citizen should be denied the right to own and use firearms for
any lawful purpose. That includes the ability to be able to acquire
a firearm in a timely manner and carry it anywhere they choose until
proven otherwise, not presumed otherwise. But that is another issue
to be discussed at another time. But in the case of these illegal
aliens they have already proven that they will break any law they
do not like or disagree with. I am as pro-gun, pro-civil rights a
person as you will ever meet but I am not in favor of giving illegal
aliens the ability to purchase a firearm through legal channels.
In order to buy a firearm through any legally licensed firearm dealer
in New York State all that's required is a government issued identification
or a New York State Drivers License. When this ID is given
to the federally licensed dealer he/she calls the Feds for a background
check to see if this person is one of those people who are prohibited
from purchasing or owning a firearm. Guess what happens next? Because
this person is an illegal alien, he/she has no background to
check. According to all of the records this person does not really
exist. So if there is nothing to show that they are a prohibited person
the dealer would be required to sell them a firearm. For all we know
this person could be a mass murderer or a rapist or bank robber or
any other kind of criminal. The issue here is, because they are in
our country illegally, there is in fact no way for anyone in our government
to know whether or not some or all of these people are criminals where
they come from! This required background check by the way is our national
standard for the purchase of firearms for all lawful citizens and
I for one believe this standard should be the very least all immigrants
legal or illegal should be required to comply with. I want to make
it clear that I am in favor of immigration but only the legal kind.
I am not in favor of people breaking into my home (the USA is my home)
and then demanding I treat them as equals. I have no obligation to
provide these people with anything a natural born citizen or legal
immigrant has a right to expect. With the rights & privileges of citizenship
goes the responsibility to abide by and obey all laws, not just those
we like. By definition illegal aliens have already violated
the laws of our land and I have no reason to believe they will change
their ways now. Providing them with any form of legal identification
is a dangerous thing to do.
This brings me to the question of why would a person some call intelligent
(and please do not confuse intelligence with wisdom) be willing to
place so many good and lawful citizens in jeopardy? One possibility
would be to get these illegal aliens to feel beholden to that
person who was giving them legitimacy and the right to vote because
this governmental ID could also be used to establish residency for
voting purposes. I would hate to think the Governor is merely pandering
for more votes by trying to appeal to an unlawful group of people
instead of strongly representing the will and opinion of the majority
of lawful and honest citizens of this State.
Another possibility could be that Governor Spitzer is of the opinion
that if illegal aliens get access to guns and then the crime
rate goes up it in New York it would justify the introduction of more
restrictive firearms laws up to and maybe including limited prohibition
for all citizens including the 99% of the firearms owners who do not
violate the law. We have always held the position that criminals should
be punished for their criminal acts and not the law abiding firearms
owners. He has stated publicly that he does support our unfettered
right to own and use firearms and so I have a natural distrust of
him. As a matter of fact and I have stated this before, I distrust
any public official who does not believe in my constitutional right
to own and use firearms because if they don't trust me in the exercise
of my most basic constitutional rights then there is no reason to
trust them. These public officials have sworn an oath to uphold and
defend the constitution and are supposed to make sure these rights
remain my rights, to be exercised when ever I choose and not taken
away or limited in any way or under any pretense what so ever. Remember
on December 15, 1791, the new United States of America adopted
the Bill Of Rights and we should celebrate that day every year, not
shun it as some try to do.
On the next page is the Official SAFE Nominating Committee Report. You should use it as guide in the upcoming SAFE elections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their time and diligent work.
Proposed
Changes to OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1910.109
Recently
the Internet circulated numerous stories on proposed Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that could have
had the subtle side effect of closing all federally licensed firearms
dealers in America. It is hard for some to imagine a more brazen and
outrageous attempt to delete the right to keep and bear arms from
the people. It is even harder to imagine that any bureaucrat or politician
doesn't know that. For those of you who have not heard OSHA proposed
treating any workplace that contained even a handful of small-arms
cartridges, for any reason, a facility containing explosives. Under
that designation, no one could carry a firearm or even just ammunition,
or any similar articles, with very narrow exceptions (like for security
guards). You would need demolition certifications for any or all personnel,
searches of customers coming in and closures during thunderstorms
that would have forced any normal gun store, shooting range or gunsmith
shop to close down.
What you don't know is it came within a hair's breadth of slipping
by everyone and passing into law. National shooting Sports Foundation,
(NSSF) Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI)
and the NRA-ILA, with an outpouring of support from grassroots activists,
have fortunately succeeded in temporarily delaying the proposed OSHA
gun ban. What I think we need to examine is how OSHA got on this track
in the first place. These things don't happen by accident. Someone
was behind this incredibly sneaky, underhanded and enormously novel
tactic for banning guns in America. Someone out there feels pretty
good that their attempt to achieve this backdoor firearms confiscation
almost became a reality. And even if it has been stopped for now,
I have no doubt such minds will continue to dream up future attacks.
Imposing impossible to meet and completely irrelevant explosive regulations
on firearms dealers and their staffers was a brilliant and unexpected
attack on gun owners and we should remain even more vigilant than
we have in the past.
What I would like to know is; who are the instigators of this scheme?
How do we bring them to justice or at least get them into the light?
How do we expose and humiliate their, "I know what's best for you"
attitude and sneaky attempt to limit our civil rights? How should
we treat the people who wrote this nonsense and who are going to claim
they were just following orders, that they had no idea this would
affect gun ownership, and saw nothing wrong in the proposal? You've
got to hand it to the anti-rights mob that dreamed this up. This was
a sneak attack that almost succeeded. It was stopped within mere hours
of execution. No one saw it coming. It's a whole new fresh approach
to banning guns the antis have not used before. Wouldn't it be nice
if we could sneak through a regulation of our own in some bland dull
policy rewrite and we could say that any elected, appointed or hired
individual who attempts to deny any person's civil rights (firearms
ownership is a civil right) without a full and open debate would be
subject to fines and imprisonment? Why would any honest government
official object to something like this?
Parking
Lot Gun Laws and the Individual Right to Transport Firearms
Should
people who lawfully possess firearms be able to leave them locked
in their motor vehicles, on business property? Common sense would
say yes. All 50 states allow the transportation of firearms in motor
vehicles for all lawful purposes and 48 states allow the carrying
of firearms in vehicles for personal protection. One out of every
four of America's 65-80 million gun owners carries a firearm in his
or her vehicle for protection. The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions
of 46 states protect the right to arms and/or self-defense. And since
1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in
vehicles interstate.
However, over the last few years disagreements over the right of people
to leave their legally owned firearms locked in their vehicles on
business property have arisen. As a result, five state legislatures
have passed laws to protect that right. The issue began in 2002 in
Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser Corporation fired employees for having
guns in their personal vehicles on company property. The Oklahoma
Legislature responded, unanimously in the House and by a vote of 92-4
in the Senate, by prohibiting "any policy or rule" prohibiting law-abiding
people "from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle."
Arguments being used against the right of people, particularly employees,
to leave their legally owned firearms in locked vehicles on business
property are unconvincing:
1-Business owner's private property rights are not affected
by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of
a person's privately-owned automobile. Moreover, an employer's private
property interests do not trump a person's right to have a firearm
available for self-defense, if needed, during the daily commute to
and from work. As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial
property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable
accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
2-A commercial landowner is subject to numerous limits, imposed
by the federal, state and local governments, on what may and may not
occur on its property. 3-Employees have a legitimate private
property interest where their automobiles and their contents are concerned.
In our legal system, property rights extend to property other than
land. 4-Most gun-related violent crimes in workplaces are committed
by non-employees. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 84%
of all workplace murders are committed by strangers; 7% are committed
by current or former employees. Naturally, strangers and former employees
are not bound by any company policy pertaining to employees. 5-Anyone
determined to commit a violent crime will not be prevented from doing
so by a mere company policy against having guns in cars. This should
go without saying, since criminals are already willing to break laws
against murder, rape, robbery and assault. 6-Laws protecting
the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles do not authorize
a person to have a firearm outside his or her vehicle. 7-Laws
protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles on
business property specifically protect the property owner from liability
for any related injuries or damages. Also, if a business prohibits
people from possessing the means to defend themselves in their vehicles,
it is potentially liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure
to provide adequate security. 8-The problem of workplace crimes
has been exaggerated. The nation's violent crime rate has declined
every year since 1991 and is now at a 30-year low, the murder rate
is at a 39-year low, and workplace violent crime has decreased more
than violent crime generally. The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health says, "The circumstances of workplace homicides
differ substantially from those portrayed by the media and from homicides
in the general population."
Back to top
While there are no regular SAFE meetings during the months of July and August that doesn't mean the SAFE board of directors have nothing to do. On the contrary, we have a number of projects we are developing and working on including assessing the damage caused by the New York State Legislature with regard to firearms ownership and use legislation. While the state legislature is now out of session and many of us feel a little safer it is also the time to touch base with these state legislators now that they are in their district offices and get our message across to them about our rights regarding firearms. It is because many of our members are now or will be enjoying the summer vacations with their families we suspend our more formal meetings unless something out of the ordinary comes up. And if it does you will know about it. Just keep in mind that we must have your current address, phone number and or e-mail address to make sure we can contact you as soon as something happens. If you want to make sure you are on my e-mail contact list just send me yours at jcushman@juno.com along with your name of course. I do not use e-mail unless there is an issue and time is of importance.
Gun-Free-School-Zones-Are-Really-Nothing-More-Than-Killing-Zones
Another
armed murderer has used the so called Gun-Free-School-Zones
law to simply walk onto school grounds and with impunity begin killing
innocent people. These dangerous criminals rely on the fact that
no one on campus will be able to offer any resistance. Congress
passed the law in 1990 and then renewed it in 1995, 18 USC 922(q),
after the famous "Lopez" case that declared it unconstitutional.
Though it cannot stop murderers it has in fact enabled many. Many
States and a number of schools themselves have copied the law for
a false sense of security with disastrous effect.
Gun-Free-School-Zone laws are nothing more than a cruel hoax
on the public that costs lives. Time and time again, psychotic killers
are using these types of laws to provide a safe haven, where they
are the only people with guns. It really should come as no surprise
these madmen never attack gun stores, police stations, military
facilities or other places where people are either known to or might
be armed and news reporters intentionally or conveniently overlook
this point.
Gun fearing or gun hating teacher's unions, school administrators
and far too many legislators project their personal and unjustified
fears onto the system and disarm the honest people, instead of taking
needed steps to protect all the people from a known menace. Hoplophobia
is a poorly understood morbid fear of weapons that afflicts many
people. It is in fact one of the greatest undiagnosed and untreated
sources of mental disability that causes great harm throughout the
country many experts believe. People who are terrified of guns give
themselves a good feeling and a false sense of security by passing
such dangerous laws when in reality all they have done is create
target rich, no risk of being caught environments. These monsters
have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator,
or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the
building. The latest Virginia attack follows the same precise model
of murderers in other states. Some observers go so far as to suggest
that the constant media replays of these atrocities actually inspire
copycats.
Gun control fanatics will use this latest incident to once again
claim we have not done enough to safeguard the students. The truth
is the harm caused by these gun-free-zone laws has only lead
to more calls of the same. This is totally and completely irrational
behavior. The truth is they have disarmed the wrong people and left
our schools, and the men and women inside them vulnerable to this
kind of atrocity.
What we ought to be doing is to not only empower these very people
with the right to self defense but also with the ability to have
the means of self defense. That means the ability to carry your
own self defense device with you throughout the campus and not looking
for a place to hide.
It is a fact that thousands of FBI-certified individuals, who routinely
use personal firearms for crime deterrence and safety, but are kept
out of the news, are also banned from school grounds under many
states' laws. They provide little help against the criminals who
simply ignore the words in some distant law book. Virginia lawmakers
recently voted down an effort to allow the FBI-certified civilians
to carry firearms on a campus.
As our nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies
like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last
month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime
and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. In March
1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia in response
to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois unanimously passed an
ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a
gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns
and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has
been involved in a fatal shooting as a victim, attacker or defender.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just
5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000)
than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics
available for the year 2005 show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000.
Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in
Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers,
has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to
2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate
increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though
the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today,
by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
This was not what some predicted. In a column titled "Gun Town USA,"
Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where
routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts.
The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city …
soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Reuters, the European
news service recently revisited the Kennesaw, GA controversy following
the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed
in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained
a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the
lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north
of Atlanta. The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia
Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected
attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing
that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone
might have been able to shoot the killer." Virginia Tech, like many
of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free
zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites violence with
a gun especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many
victims as possible.
Theodore
Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907
"In
the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to
us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else,
for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because
of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon
the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but
an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who
says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American
at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have
room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty
to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907.
Back
to top
A
federal appeals court has recently held that the Second Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to own firearms
and that the District of Columbia's restrictive gun control laws violate
that right. Something we've been saying all along. When the Supreme
Court takes up this issue and it will, it should recognize that the
appeals court got it right, not because it judged correctly whether
gun control laws are, or are not, desirable in modern cities, but because
it correctly interpreted and remained faithful to, the original meaning
of the Constitution.
The text of the Second Amendment, though brief, has for a long time
provoked intense debate. It reads: "A Well Regulated Militia, Being
Necessary To The Security Of A Free State, The Right Of The People To
Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed." The debate is about
whether the amendment protects the states from having their citizen
militias absorbed into a national army or whether it protects the rights
of individuals to own guns.
This appeals court has rejected the States rights version for two principal
reasons, first, because it would require a strained reading of the text
of the Second Amendment and second, because it is inconsistent with
the other laws enacted at the same time when this amendment was adopted.
Consider the text of the First Amendment, which protects "the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances." And that of the Fourth Amendment, which
provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated."
The rights of "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments have always
been understood to protect the rights of individuals against infringement
by the government. Consistency demands that the right of "the people"
in the Second Amendment be read the same way. Moreover, the use of the
definite article in the phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms," suggests
that the drafters of the amendment were referring to an individual right,
like "the freedom of speech" or "the right to trial by jury," that was
already recognized and enjoyed prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
Although it may be possible to read the right to "bear arms" as the
right to serve in an organized militia, the right "to keep" arms cannot
be limited to just this issue, and naturally supports the view that
the Second Amendment protects the right of private individuals to own
weapons. Early legislation tells us that, during the founding era, the
militia included not only those forces actually organized by the state
governments, but also embraced the vast bulk of the male citizens, who
were required by law to provide their own arms and to notify the state
of their ability to serve, regardless of whether they were assigned
to specific military units by the state.
This early legislation indicates that the prefatory part of the Second
Amendment does not simply reference the state organized militias, but
rather expresses the founders" belief that freedom was best preserved
in a state where every citizen possessed his own arms, which explains
the reason why they included the individual right to keep and bear arms
in the Bill of Rights.
Many people no longer believe that an armed citizenry is the best way
to protect freedom. I just happen to be one of those who does believe
it. If we are to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land,
as it claims to be than we must demand that our judges enforce the law
as it is and was intended, not transform it by some twisted or self
serving interpretation into the law they might wish it to be.
BLOOMBERG IS LYING ABOUT GUN TRACE DATA ACCESS!
Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder
I
hope you will all share with your friends and all elected officials
at all levels of government the following information. These items
are things we have been saying all along and now they are being
confirmed by the courts and by governmental entities that clearly
show we knew what we were talking about in the first place. These
are a tremendous victory for all firearms civil rights activists
throughout the country.
Washington
D.C. Circuit Court Hands Down Significant Victory for
the
Individual Second Amendment Rights!
City
of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin Once Again Found In Contempt Of
Court
District
Court Judge to City Attorney: Conduct "wholly unprofessional"
Firearm
Related Fatalities at Record Lows and Accidents Among Youths
Are
Down Significantly
The
news media usually ignores anything that is or might be positive
with regard to firearms or firearms owners. If it is a negative
story about guns or gun owners then of course it will be in the
news. For very long time I wrongfully believed that the news media,
newspapers, radio and the television were genuinely interested in
the truth and in honest objective reporting of what happened in
any given situation. The truth is they could less about honesty
in reporting the news and more interested in molding the opinions
of their readers to coincide with their own opinions and beliefs.
Why else would they refuse to show how effective education and training
with and about firearms can be to a generally peaceful society!
Take for example the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program.
The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, NRA's groundbreaking
gun accident prevention program for children in pre-K through the
third grades, has now reached 20 million children since the program's
inception in 1988. Created by past NRA President Marion P. Hammer,
in consultation with child psychologists, elementary schoolteachers,
and law enforcement officers, the program gives children a simple,
effective action to take should they encounter a firearm in an unsupervised
situation: "If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult."
"Firearm accident deaths are at all time annual low, nationally
and among children," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
"We believe that the most effective gun safety device is education,
and NRA does more about it than anybody. We've invested millions
upon millions of dollars in the Eddie Eagle Program, and
we thank the thousands of volunteers who teach it to children."
Volunteers for the Eddie Eagle Program come from diverse
backgrounds but share a common commitment to protecting children
from gun accidents. They include NRA members and other private citizens
who advocate that the program be used in their communities, schoolteachers,
law enforcement officers and community activists who teach the program,
plus private donors and Friends of NRA participants who raise funds
that pay for the program's educational materials.
Over 25,000 educators, law enforcement agencies, and civic organizations,
have taught the program since 1988. Commenting on the program, Dr.
Linda Rieger, Counselor at Ascot Avenue Elementary School in Los
Angeles, said, "I would like to express my gratitude for the wonderful
program you have provided for my students for the past 10 years."
Chief Deputy Tom Spangler of the Knox Co., Tennessee, Sheriff's
Dept., added, "We started the program in 1992. We have completed
over 1,800 presentations to over 80,000 students, and we would encourage
any agency to become a partner with this program." Indeed, the partnership
between law enforcement and Eddie Eagle has proved to be
very effective. Last June, in preparation for the back to school
season, the NRA offered free Eddie Eagle materials to law
enforcement agencies. To date, more than 1,100 agencies have
taken advantage of the offer, requesting enough materials to reach
720,000 children. Over the years, the program has been praised
by numerous groups and elected officials, including the Association
of American Educators, the Youth Activities Division of the National
Safety Council, the National Sheriffs' Association, the U.S. Department
of Justice (through its Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency),
and 26 state governors.
The NRA encourages citizens nationwide to participate in heightening
gun accident prevention awareness within their local communities.
Schools, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, and others interested
in more information about The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program,
or anyone who wishes to see if free materials are available in their
communities, should call the Eddie Eagle® Department at (800)
231-0752 or visit the NRA Web site at http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie.
American Hunters & Shooters Association (AHSA) is a FRAUD!!!
AHSA
is not and does not have a membership base like most Shooting &
Hunting organizations. You cannot JOIN them. You can however give
them MONEY. You can check this out for yourself at http://www.huntersandshooters.org.
This means they do not have elections from any kind of membership
and their ideas and opinions do not come from any kind of membership
nor are they accountable to any type of membership. Positions they
take are not subject to review by a membership at any annual election,
where they might loose their seats. They don't have any type of
programs for hunting, shooting, safety or education regarding responsible
firearms ownership and or handling that serve a membership. Yet,
they are being treated by the press as an organization with the
same standing and recognition as the NRA! Exactly HOW can
they make a claim to support the views of even a fraction of the
Hunters or Shooters in this country? They CANNOT. They're nothing
more than a spin group that exists only to act as a mouthpiece for
the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups.
Back
to top
The
beginning of a new year and it's time to get back to work. I know,
who wants to hear that. But whether we like it or not we have the
obligation and responsibility to do everything in our power to protect,
preserve and pass on to the next generation the US Bill of Rights,
including a true Second Amendment. For example, did you know that
a couple of anti-gun bills have already been pre-filed and will be
formally introduced at the first regular meeting of the New York State
Legislature?
Consider the newly elected officials at the state level and those
reelected at the federal level, many have a proven track record as
being opposed to our right to own and use firearms. They regularly
make public statements and assumptions that all firearms are dangerous
because all firearms are owned and used by criminals. Of course you
and I know better as should they but they conveniently disregard the
facts such as 99.9% of all firearms in circulation are not now and
have never been involved in any crime whatsoever. Why do I say they
disregard the facts? Because they have access to the same information
you and I do and still they refuse to recognize the legitimate right
of you and I to own and use firearms without being made to overcome
a whole bunch of unnecessary and cumbersome rules or procedures that
criminals totally disregard. They claim to be interested in protecting
the public but I am at a complete loss to understand how disarming
legitimate, lawful people or making it more difficult for an honest
citizen to get and use a firearm for self defense achieves that claimed
purpose.
I guess it is up to us to educate as best we can those who hold public
office that we citizens are not interested in sound bites that have
little to no real value in protecting or allowing the people to protect
themselves. We must insist at every level of government that our right
to self protection and/or the right to come to the aid of family members
or just others in need is in fact a right we have always had and a
right we wish to preserve. Everyone of us should take every opportunity
to talk to our legislative officials and to make sure they understand
what we believe in and that we believe in the unfettered right to
use a firearm for self defense as well as for any recreational use
we choose.
Some have asked how we can accomplish this task. That's easy. Stay
involved as a member of SAFE or the NRA and you will get all the information
there is on any piece of legislation that would in any way interfere
with your right to own and use a firearm lawfully. Of course you must
do something with the information you get, like contacting your elected
officials with your opinions. Keep in mind we are not protecting the
criminals right to use firearm wrongfully regardless of what any/some
public official might try to suggest. The fact is that when it is
easier for lawful people to acquire, own and use firearms, the more
safe the general public is and the lower the crime rate in the area.
This fact has been proven time after time in every state (which now
numbers over 40) that has changed its' law to make it mandatory for
government officials to issue licenses to the public to carry concealed
firearms. In these states everyone who applies for a concealed handgun
license goes through a very thorough background check and if they
have never been involved in any criminal activities and have always
acted rationally and reasonably the issuing authority MUST issue a
concealed firearms carry license. This system has now proven itself
as being extremely reliable when it comes to issuing concealed handgun
licenses and you can tell by the extremely low number of rejections
or cancellations of license applicants. It just stands to reason that
if a person has acted rationally and reasonably all their life why
would anyone believe for even a moment now that a concealed handgun
license has been issued they would act unreasonably!
Also like most informed Second Amendment supporters, I don't trust
any politician who claims to support for the Second amendment and
then goes on to relate how much he/she stands up for the rights of
hunters as if the rights of hunters is what the Second Amendment is
all about. We know why the Second Amendment was put into the Bill
of Rights. The Founders left us a clear paper trail. The Second Amendment
isn't about hunting although it is an additional reason to maintain
the right to have them, it's about keeping our government in line
when all else has failed to do so. It's the teeth of the Bill of Rights.
And it is my belief there are still many Americans who take seriously
the right to defend themselves against a government gone bad. This
type of patriot worries the advocates of social engineering and those
who attempt to work through the courts with judicial activism and
the increasing intrusiveness of our government.
Unfortunately there are also those who believe the Second Amendment
only protects the National Guard. This idea is no longer routinely
accepted in the mainstream legal community. To believe this claim
that the amendment only protects the National Guard, one would have
to believe that the people in the amendment somehow refers
to the Federal Government (since the National Guard can be federalized
with one stroke of the president's pen) while the people in
all the other amendments refers to an individual right. We would also
have to conclude that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give
the government "rights" when the founders saw rights as the province
of individuals.
This is why so few reputable legal scholars even argue this states
rights position any longer. To do so would be to claim that only
one of the 10 amendments comprising the Bill of Rights exists to delegate
government power from one government agency (federal) to another government
agency (state) rather than recognize the individual citizens' rights
as intended.
Secondly, while it is true that some courts still cling to this interpretation
because of previous court precedent, the origin of this legal interpretation
was based in racism and xenophobia. I have read that in the early
part of the 20th century, politicians and the upper class became very
concerned with blacks and immigrants being able to possess handguns.
Later, it was the Irish and Italian gangsters during Prohibition.
Courts must have realized they had to intentionally misinterpret the
Second Amendment in order to justify the laws that disarmed these
groups and for them to remain in force and effect. These interpretations
and Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration's expansion of the commerce
clause was needed to create the necessary federal power to regulate
guns thus basically destroying the original intent of the Second Amendment.
Finally, even if this incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment
continues to be occasionally followed by some of the more activists'
courts, the 9th Amendment and 10th Amendments (powers that are reserved
to the States or the people) if interpreted honestly and correctly
should prevent gun bans on a federal level. I don't believe anyone
can honestly point to any language in the Constitution that actually
grants powers to the government that delegates the regulation of arms
to the Congress. Further it is my opinion that if the Second Amendment
is incorporated under the 14th Amendment like the other 9 Amendments
of the Bill of Rights it would also prevent State Governments from
being able to ban the ownership and use of firearms. But I am just
an average person not an attorney or a Judge. Welcome to the New Year.
Back
to top
Self-defense
is a privilege that only governments may choose to grant or withdraw.
You as an individual have no human right to self-defense. If a government
does not impose restrictions on gun ownership more severe than even
the laws in New York City or Washington, D.C. (which has total prohibition)
then that government is guilty of violating international human rights.
This is the garbage the United Nations is trying to sell in its latest
assault on the Second Amendment. What BULL!!!
Late this fall, the General Assembly of the United Nations will be
considering a new Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty is endorsed by a number
of governments, as well as by the world's leading gun prohibition
group, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). Once the
final language of the treaty is approved by the General Assembly,
the treaty will be open for signature and ratification by all nations.
This Arms Trade Treaty is based on the so called reasonable idea of
prohibiting the sale of arms to countries that use them to violate
human rights. It would be a better idea, for example, if all nations
simply refused to sell arms to the dictatorships in Burma, Zimbabwe
or Cuba, all of which have an atrocious record of human rights violations.
However, like other modern nations that are extreme violators of human
rights, these countries have extreme laws against citizen gun ownership.
The fact is any nation that has a conscience can already ban arms
exports to such evil governments.
The U.N. has appointed University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara
Frey as its "Special Rapporteur" on the prevention of human rights
violations committed with small arms and light weapons." A "Special
Rapporteur" is a U.N. designated expert and researcher on a subject.
It should be noted that the title the U.N. gave to Ms. Frey requires
her to look only at how small arms are used to violate human rights
and to ignore how small arms are used to protect human rights,
such as when used to resist genocide. For the record Ms. Frey is a
member of IANSA and worked to get Brazil to support the gun prohibition
referendum in that nation.
Ms. Frey has issued her final report, declaring that there is no human
right to self-defense and that insufficient gun control is a violation
of human rights. What a crock. It's important to note that the U.N.
Human Rights Council, (HRC) despite its name, is composed of some
of the worst human rights violators in the world, such as Cuba and
Saudi Arabia. The UN in fact has rejected efforts by the United States
to join the HRC, and instead allowed dictatorships such as China and
Pakistan to join. It is all but certain that the Human Rights Council
will follow the lead of its sub commission and adopt the Frey Report
as an official statement of HRC policy on human rights. At that point,
the global and American gun prohibition lobbies can then begin to
attack American gun laws because they "violate human rights."
If ever there was a reason to have a strong person representing the
United States of America and its' people at the UN, now is that time.
Those men would be President George Bush and US State Department representative
John Bolton. After the last defeat of the UN at attempting to get
the USA to sign an international treaty that would completely take
away all Americans right to own and use firearms including for self
defense, we need men and women in government that are more interested
in representing the American citizens rights than in being liked by
the members of the UN. I for one am very concerned that the newly
elected leadership in Congress is not looking out for our best interests,
but for their own interests. I hope I'm wrong.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms
industry's trade association, said it was outraged, as you and I should
be, to learn that Brooklyn, NY based federal court (ANTI-GUN) judge
Jack B. Weinstein had appointed a lawyer handpicked by New York City
Mayor Bloomberg to monitor several small out of state "mom and pop"
gun stores that had been sued by Bloomberg earlier this year.
The lawyer, Andrew Weissman, is a partner with the Chicago based law
firm of Jenner and Block and coincidently this firm also represents
the Violence Policy Center (VPC), one of the most fanatical anti-gun
groups in the country. They are known for their extremist positions
including advocating a total ban on civilian ownership of handguns.
In a series of rulings, Judge Weinstein ruled the City of New York
could and should use privileged gun trace data in its civil suit against
gun makers. That case, originally filed in June 2000 by then mayor
Rudy Giuliani and continued by Bloomberg, is now before a federal
appeals court in New York. Gun makers have long been concerned with
Judge Weinstein's bias and have even asked Judge Weinstein to remove
himself in the city's suit against the manufacturers. Weinstein refused
to step aside. What a surprise.
The actions of Bloomberg's private investigators, done without the
knowledge of either ATF or the New York City police department, interfered
with as many as 18 ongoing criminal investigations and are now being
investigated by ATF. In settling the dealers did not admit to any
wrongdoing and had to agree to a monitor. The monitor's oversight
will be largely redundant to that of the ATF but includes new powers,
including videotaping firearm purchasers without their permission.
The monitor will also be able to fine the dealers for violations of
the settlement agreement. I doubt any of these gun store owners had
any prior knowledge of Weissman and his firm's ties to the radically
anti-gun Violence Policy Center. They clearly have a basis to go back
to court and demand that a truly neutral party be appointed as a special
monitor.
ANTI-GUN MAYOR CONVICTED ON GUN CHARGES . . . Frank Melton,
mayor of Jackson, Miss., and member of New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" coalition, was convicted
recently on two misdemeanor charges for carrying a weapon into a church
and a park. In a third charge, reduced from what had previously been
a felony count, the mayor pleaded no contest to carrying a gun on
a university campus. Melton excused his criminal acts by stating,
"I'm not another citizen. "I am the mayor of Jackson, he said." This
is just another case of a politician who arrogantly believes he's
above the law and the people he serves. If he had a shred of decency
or common sense he would resign from Bloomberg's anti-gun group.
I
would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone who gets this
newsletter a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy
New Year. Together we have gone through a lot of battles and controversies
this past year. And it never ceases to amaze me how resilient we the
gun owing public are and of necessity must be. We fight for a cause
that is bigger and more complex than most people can even comprehend.
And still we continue to fight for the right to exercise the very
freedoms that our military people are willing to risk their lives
for and to give to others around the world. The right to own and use
firearms is a freedom of choice issue that is truly worth fighting
for and defending. We owe that to the generations that follow. For
now take a break and enjoy being with family and friends. I will.
Back
to top
NRA's
Lawsuit Against the City of New Orleans
In
a landmark victory for NRA and law abiding gun owners, Judge Carl
J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied the City of New Orleans' motion to dismiss NRA's
lawsuit against the city and held that the Second Amendment applies
to law abiding residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of
New Orleans. Straining the bounds of credibility and reflecting the
true sentiment of anti-gunners, the City of New Orleans contemptuously
argued that the Second Amendment does not apply to residents in the
State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. The NRA first filed
suit after reports surfaced indicating that, following Hurricane Katrina,
firearms were confiscated from law abiding New Orleans residents.
Former New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass issued orders to confiscate
firearms from all citizens, under a flawed state emergency powers
law. With that one order, the one means of self protection innocent
victims had during a time of widespread civil disorder was stripped
away.
The NRA filed suit in federal court and won a preliminary injunction
ending all the illegal gun confiscations. After the City of New Orleans
failed to comply with the court's ruling and dishonestly claimed that
the gun confiscations never occurred, NRA filed a motion for contempt
that included an order directing all seized firearms be returned to
their rightful owners. After denying the illegal confiscations for
months, on March 15, 2006, Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans Police
Department finally conceded in federal court that the seized firearms
were stored in two trailers. The city then agreed in court to a process
by which law-abiding citizens would be able to file a claim to receive
their confiscated firearms. However, few firearms were returned because
the NOPD never notified gun owners how to claim their guns, and turned
many away citing impossible standards for proof of ownership.
This recent ruling sets the stage for a continued legal fight in which
NRA will be forced to expend additional resources to fight back the
anti-gunner's blatant and shameful attempts to ignore the Second Amendment.
The case will now move to discovery and pre-trial preparation.
SAFE/NRA
Women On Target Clinic
You will notice that the flyer for the SAFE/NRA Women On Target Clinic scheduled for October 14th, 2006 at the Nassau County Indoor Rifle & Pistol Range is missing from this issue of the SAFE Legislative reports. That is because the class is full to overflowing and I have standby's, ladies I cannot get into the class. I will be contacting each registered participant by telephone as a reminder of the class and to make sure that if any participant has a change of plans and cannot make the clinic I can get one of the ladies on standby to fill in the vacancy. This program seems to be an extremely popular one and rarely do we have a problem filling the class. Keep that in mind in the future.
United Nations Is Trying To Do Away With Our Second Amendment Rights
With
an absurdly long title that tells you all you need to know, the "U.N.
Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme
of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms
and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects", was begun Monday, June
26. This meeting is a follow up to the "U.N. Conference on the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons" meeting that was reported on
in the summer of 2001. At that time, you were told that the Bush Administration
made it perfectly clear that the United States would not support any
proposal that threatened our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
This issue is fueled and financed by the likes of Rebecca Peters and
George Soros, is at it again, and with a vengeance. NRA Executive
Vice President Wayne LaPierre has aptly noted that the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms in defense of self, family, and country is self evident.
In essence, our Second Amendment shows profound respect for human
freedom, worth, and self-destiny.
But now two centuries after it was codified into our Bill of Rights,
the U.N. is trying to declare that this civil liberty is a cause of
the world's violence. Not only is this claim totally absurd it, the
UN, is trying to claim jurisdiction over all sovereign American citizens
by crafting a global treaty that calls on us to surrender our firearm
freedom and accept whatever lesser standard of freedom if any, the
U.N. deems appropriate.
The United States is the last truly free nation standing, offering
every law-abiding human the greatest measure of freedom mankind has
ever experienced, and neither the United Nations nor any other foreign
influence may claim to have the right or jurisdiction to meddle with
the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.
Judge Rules San Francisco handgun ban is illegal
An
initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning
residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court
judge ruled today. Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority,
would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except
law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional
purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution
of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.
The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates
and dealers the day after the measure passed. The NRA argued that
Prop. H overstepped local government authority and intruded into an
area regulated by the state. In today's ruling, Judge James Warren
said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun
permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun
possession by law-abiding adults. That law "demonstrates the Legislature's
intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and
commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government
entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.
Pro gun legislation passes both houses
Judges
Say Insurer Must Defend Homeowner Who Shot Intruder
New
York Law Journal, June 9, 2006
While
this Annual Report is customarily given verbally at the Annual Meeting
of Members I have decided to put it in the SAFE newsletter so that
all members, including those who cannot make the Annual Meeting may
know its contents. It would be impossible to touch on every activity
I as President have been involved in or attended this past year. This
report is meant to be an overview of some of the more important issues
and activities I have been involved with this past year. SAFE is basically
a reactionary or reactive organization. That means we typically respond
after something happens, like legislation being introduced (good or
bad) at the state or local level or some adverse rule making or procedure
change that impacts on firearm owners by some regulatory agency in
the county, state or federal government. However, that is not all
we do. We respond to problems and issues when they come up but we
also initiate positive pro gun educational programs as well. As I
said earlier we provide reliable and accurate information, which actually
does more to prevent bad proposed laws from being brought up in the
first place in a public forum. That should be considered extremely
proactive. Second, because as you have seen in our monthly newsletter/legislative
reports we respond regularly to letters of inquiry from many legislators
and public officials. This allows us to answer questions regarding
firearms ownership and use not just to be people who don't know any
better but also to provide useful and meaningful information to gun
owners within our own ranks. This is a testimonial to the reliability
and trustworthiness of SAFE as an organization and can also be considered
very proactive. Why else would a public official seek out our opinion
and position on a subject unless they can rely on it to be truthful
and accurate?
One of the other ways in which we are and have been very proactive
the past couple of years has been in our sponsorship, promotion and
the carrying out our NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Shooting
Clinics. It is SAFE who has provided all of the instructors, shooting
safety equipment, ammunition, rifles, targets and literature and even
snacks and refreshments for almost 100 women and volunteers at two
separate events this year alone. Most of the attendees in these clinics
were between 13 years of age and 80 have either never fired a gun
before or have had very limited exposure to firearms. We have successfully
run two clinics about 6 months apart and have easily filled each class
with women eager to learn about the proper safe handling of firearms.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Medford Indoor Shooting Range
located at 2215 Route 112 Medford, NY 11763, Tel; 631-363-7000
and the Nassau County Indoor Rifle & Pistol Range located in Mitchell
Park across from the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Earl Ovington Blvd,
Uniondale NY, Tel; 516-572-0421. These ranges donated the use
of rooms for the class portion of the NRA/SAFE Women On Target
Clinic and 6 shooting points. The next time you are in the area
stop in and say "Thank You" for your help and support in furthering
the understanding and safe use of firearms. The following people were
the instructors and volunteers in alphabetical order at these WOT
programs; Andrew Balistreri, Chris Baumgartner, Marilyn Cohen,
Carol A. Cushman, John L. Cushman, Mario Geddes, Anthony Giammarino,
Dominic Golio, James D. Kelly, Bill Kirchoff, Bill Kirchoff II, Patricia
McEntee, Bill Raab and Heather Raab.
SAFE is also proactive in that we sponsor and put on the only Right
Carry Conference (RTC) and Second Amendment Rally in New
York State, or in the Northeastern United States for that matter.
Our Conference is not only loaded with the most up to date information
on issues, it has the greatest speakers who are also national leaders
and serve as a source of motivation for many in the firearms community
who would otherwise never have had the opportunity to meet them. The
one item we must constantly guard against is firearms owner apathy.
We can never afford to get lazy or complacent when it comes to our
Constitutional Rights. When people believe there are no more battles
to be fought or that there is no use fighting for what is important
to them, then we all lose, including and especially our children and
grandchildren. They cannot fight for themselves. It is our duty and
responsibility to make sure they have the same rights that were given
to us by our parents. I will do everything in my power to make sure
that happens. We must of necessity always be vigilant and always be
ready to respond whenever a threat appears that would in any way diminish
our God given and Constitutional Rights to own, use or transport firearms.
I promise I will be, will you?
New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not relenting in his anti-gun
crusade. Like most anti-gun politicians, Bloomberg blames violence
in his city on guns from other jurisdictions, and thus, is campaigning
to enact additional federal gun control laws. Rather than acknowledging
the reams of evidence that no gun control law anywhere has ever reduced
crime and that enforcing existing law against criminals does, Bloomberg
prefers to score cheap political points by attempting to blame law-abiding
gun owners for the acts of criminals. Now if that is not stupid I
don't know what is. Moreover the anti-gun movement and anti-gun elected
officials won't let the facts, or logic, get in the way of their intention
to vilify and demonize all guns. Even if it means an increase in hardship
for all the lawful people they are sworn to protect. Bloomberg's ignorance
of the damage that gun control has truly caused for the safety and
security of New Yorkers is really nothing more than arrogance and
stands in stark contrast to the facts about more restrictive gun laws.
However, while Mayor Bloomberg and other anti-gun Mayors are working
to erode our rights, the NRA and other pro-gun, pro-civil rights organizations
are concentrating on strengthening them. There are a number of pro-gun
bills pending in Congress that require your support. Please review
these legislative initiatives and be sure to contact your U.S. Representative
at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and urge
him or her to cosponsor and support these measures.
S-1082/HR-1288- Legislation to repeal the draconian Washington
D.C. gun ban and restore the right of lawful District residents to
own firearms to defend themselves and their families. HR-4547-Federal
legislation that requires recognition of out-of-state Right-to-Carry
permits. HR-5013/S-2599-Legislation to prohibit the confiscation
of lawfully owned firearms during states of emergency. This proposal
would guarantee legal recourse for victims of illegal gun seizures.
HR-5092-This bill would improve BATFE's process for punishing
FFLs and establish guidelines for BATFE investigations. This bill
was drafted in large part to address recent BATFE abuses at Richmond,
Va.-area gun shows highlighted in hearings before the U.S. House Judiciary
Committee's Sub-committee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
HR-5005-This measure will codify congressional policies, roll
back restrictions, and correct errors in federal firearm laws.
Back
to top
I was recently sent this from a friend and if true and I have no reason to believe it is not, than it is a statement that clearly expresses my personal opinion on this subject.
Senator Hillary Clinton Comes Out of the Closet
According to an article in the New York Post Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for more gun control by signing on to a new proposal to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales. Her background on gun control includes a call for a total ban on assault weapons and so called armor piercing bullets yet she hasn't taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress publicly. Could that be because she does not want the public to know her true intentions?Mayor Bloomberg Shows His Cards
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has left no doubt about whom he is courting alliances with on gun issues. Brady Center lawyer Dennis Henigan refers to Mayor Bloomberg as "our hero" in the New York Times and the paper also reports the mayor giving a speech to the Brady Campaign just days after his tirade at a US House Judiciary Subcommittee where he opposed good legislation that would permanently prohibit making traced gun data available to the public. Releasing such information to the public would only jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and could endanger law enforcement officers, informants and witnesses, says a 2005 congressional appropriations committee report. Furthermore, the mayor's own police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, expressed similar concerns in a 2002 letter. Nevertheless, the mayor is pushing Congress to allow sharing of the gun trace data so that civil frivolous lawsuits can be launched against firearms retailers simply because they have sold guns later recovered by police and traced by ATF. That is simply not true, as ATF has repeatedly cautioned.
Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range Needs Help Now!
Just when we thought that everything was/is going along smoothly regarding the upgrade and renovations of this range we find out there is a fly in the ointment. Brookhaven Town has not given its blessing to the Trap & Skeet Range by giving an exemption to the noise level law of the Town like Suffolk County has and thus making it clear it has no intention of applying its low new noise standard to a facility that has been in continuous and safe operation for over 50 years. It has recently come to my attention that a few of the local residents are now showing up at and communicating with the Brookhaven Town Board. I, like most of you, thought that after 4˝ years of attending many long and tedious meetings and hearings with hundreds of supporters giving testimony in support of the range that this would be a settled issue. Obviously it is still an issue and I am asking you all once again to get involved and help finish this issue. We need to communicate clearly and concisely our support for the quick reopening of this range and we need to do it in large numbers. The new Brookhaven Town Supervisor, Mr. Brian Foley was a county legislator during the entire debate on the Suffolk Trap & Skeet Range issue and so he should be completely knowledgeable about strong support. Unfortunately the rest of the Town Board has only been hearing from those who want it closed. And unfortunately Mr. Foley has not made any attempt to persuade the rest of the Town Board on the wisdom of reopening this range. So I need you all to write to the Brookhaven Town Supervisor, Mr. Brian Foley, One Independence Hill, Farmingville, NY 11738, telephone 631-451-9100, fax 631-451-6677 and ask him to do so.Read this quote a couple of times!
On
another topic I thought you all would appreciate the following quote
especially in light of the anti gun legislation introduced in the
New York State Assembly. It seems many uneducated (in firearms issues)
Assembly members are hell bent on appearing to do something about
criminal misuse of firearms but in reality are only aiming their legislative
proposals at Lawful New York State Citizens.
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a
century and a half of trying...establishes the repeated, complete,
and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." -- Senator
Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Sub-committee on the Constitution
(The Making of America, p.695)
The Brady Campaign's Latest Annual "Grades" for State Gun Laws
SAFE/NRA Women On Target Shooting Clinic needs help!
Our
next Women On Target Shooting clinic as advertised on the last
page of this newsletter could use a few more NRA Certified instructors.
I would like to have at least seven instructors available and
ready to spend the day teaching and reinforcing the women who
attend the proper safety and handling of firearms. We guarantee
all instructors will be fed (all the donuts they can eat) and
have coffee. Should you be interested I need to know as soon
as possible, so call me and confirm your availability. I don't
believe in waiting until the last minute so please let me know
right away. Thanks!
Back
to top
Listening
to local radio stations and reading the local newspapers over the
past month or so I've heard what sounds like the newest approach
by the anti-gun movement. Specifically, in Massachusetts, the officials
are blaming lax gun laws in VT, NH and ME for so called gun violence
in Boston. In New Jersey, Governor Corzine's administration is blaming
lax gun laws in Pennsylvania for so called gun violence in New Jersey.
In Washington, D.C. officials are blaming the lax gun laws in Virginia
and other southern states for the high rates of so called gun violence
in their jurisdictions. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg is making the
same outrageous bogus claim. This is a new tactic on the part of
the anti-gun fanatics. They claim to be trying to get everyone else
to make more restrictive gun laws in the neighboring states (which
by the way have lower rates of criminal behavior with firearms)
so as to reduce crime in their own states?
This kind of logic defies all sense of reason. I do not understand
how making the gun laws in Vermont more restrictive will have any
effect on reducing crime in Boston. New York has had some of the
most restrictive gun laws in this country for more years than I
am breathing and all it has done is create an endless supply of
potential victims. It has effectively disarmed the entire lawful
citizenry of this state and made them helpless victims. It is my
belief that criminal behavior is in the minds of the perpetrators
and not in the instruments they choose to wreak mayhem. In other
words, there is no such thing as "gun violence" it is a matter of
human behavior and a lack of fear on the part of criminals of the
possible consequences of their behavior which results in their criminal
actions. The solution to the problem is not to enact new gun laws
and restrictions on well-behaved gun owners, but to address the
issues of criminal behavior.
I seriously doubt that politicians will ever truly understand this
and take appropriate action! So the question is, can we educate
our legislators about this? We have no choice, we must take every
opportunity to educate and inform all legislators so that they know
the facts. And if they choose to ignore these facts we must remove
them from office. It is that simple! It will be difficult because
it is so much easier from a legislative point of view to simply
enact a new gun law than it is to try an address the real causes
of crime, that being individual criminal behavior. Laws need to
be passed and enforced that severely punish CRIMINAL misuse of a
firearm by criminals. These laws should clearly prohibit District
Attorneys from being able to plea bargain the gun charge away in
order to get a conviction on another charge. Guaranteed severe punishment
for using a firearm wrongfully is the only way of addressing criminal
behavior. Making more restrictive gun laws for honest law-abiding
people is a fraud and down right dangerous to the people. Leave
it up to an arrogant billionaire to believe because he is rich he
has the solution to a criminal problem.
On
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005 on ABC News: Myths, Lies and Straight Talk
By JOHN STOSSEL
Anti-gun
Fanatics Object to Washington Redskins and the NRA working
together for the benefit of Children
The
holidays are over and it is time to get back into the thick of things.
I hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas and the beginning of a Happy
New Year. This newsletter is being written just before Christmas so
that it can be in your hands as soon as possible after the holidays.
Recently
there has begun a push by the anti gun fanatics that want to forbid
legitimate, lawful citizens from bringing their lawful firearms to
work and leaving them in their cars in the company parking lot while
they are working. Because the anti gun organizations have not been
very successful the past few years in getting their anti gun agenda
approved or their anti gun legislators elected they have now turned
to the courts in an attempt to get employers to decide for every worker
just when it is OK to exercise your civil rights and when it's not.
These anti gun groups are supporting companies who are challenging
state firearms laws that allow its citizens to legally keep firearms
in their locked vehicles. Specifically they want private employers
to be able to make company rules that prohibit employees from leaving
any firearms in their locked cars even though state law in many cases
says they can. In my opinion this is the same as federal and state
labor laws that are created to protect employees from potential abusive
employers, the federal and state laws on firearms ownership, possession
and transportation are meant to create a uniform and fair treatment
of firearms owners where ever they go. If this latest attempt by anti
gun fanatics is successful this will mean that your employer will
become the final and possible sole authority on your civil right to
own and transport firearms and when you can exercise this right, not
your elected representatives.
I have never really understood what it is about law abiding citizens
owning and using firearms lawfully that scares the antigun fanatics
so much. What is it that makes it so difficult for them to understand
that a criminal, by definition doesn't obey any law much less a firearm
law? What, for example is so difficult to understand about the fact
that 99.9% of all gun owners are law abiding citizens and they are
not the ones who will go into their place of employment and just begin
shooting? A criminal on the other hand will not seek any ones permission
nor will they apply for a concealed carry permit, nor will any law
or company rule against keeping a gun in a car keep a wacko from obtaining
a gun and shooting up his place of employment or anywhere else for
that matter if they so choose. Why is it so difficult for these antigun
folks to understand that a gun, in and of itself doesn't turn a law
abiding citizen into a criminal because if that were true every police
officer and deputy sheriff are potential criminals.
Like many of you I am sick and tired of listening to these folks who
predicted blood running like rivers in the streets when Florida passed
its right to carry legislation in 1987. The truth is just the opposite
has happened. Crime is lower now than it ever has been with more gun
owners than ever in the state. How many more lies do we need to hear
from these anti gun fanatics? They conveniently forget to mention
that it was a teacher with a gun in his car that stopped the school
shooting in Pearl, Miss. and saved countless lives. It was two students
and a teacher with concealed carry permits that stopped the shooter
at the law school in Virginia and saved countless other lives. It
was a law-abiding permit holder that stopped the dirt bag in Acworth,
Ga. last month after abducting and killing a mother of three. These
are the true stories of law abiding people stopping criminals from
doing more harm. There are countless thousands of these stories all
across the nation each day. The anti gun fanatics need to stop putting
the actions of criminals on the backs of law-abiding people.
FLORIDA
REPRESENTATIVE FILES LEGISLATION TO PRESERVE CITIZENS
RIGHTS
DURING EMERGENCIES
Representative
Mitch Needelman (R-Melbourne) announced the filing House Bill, HB
285 to preserve the right of citizens to lawfully possess weapons
during an officially declared state of emergency.
Recent events in the New Orleans area during the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina demonstrate that citizens' right to keep and bear arms are
especially important during a state of emergency, said Representative
Needelman, a retired State Law Enforcement Officer. The very basis
for the Second Amendment is to empower citizens with the right to
self-protection-and when is self-protection more critical than in
a time of disaster?
HB 285 clarifies the authority of the governor during a declared
emergency by asserting that nothing contained in this chapter shall
be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of
firearms that are lawfully possessed.
The New York Times reported in early September that legally possessed
firearms were being confiscated from law abiding citizens, quoting
the superintendent of police that "only law enforcement are allowed
to have weapons." A Louisiana state statute allows the chief law
enforcement officer to "regulate possession" of firearms during
declared emergencies.
HB 285 will ensure that the unconstitutional stripping of citizens
rights does not occur during emergencies in Florida, said Representative
Needelman. We have an opportunity to reassert the right to bear
arms and avoid the clear violation that occurred in Louisiana. HB
285 has been filed for consideration in the 2006 Session of the
Florida Legislature. The Legislature is slated to convene on March
7, 2006. Now if only we could get a New York State Legislator
to do the same!
It
is election time and if you don't do anything else this month the one
thing you must do is VOTE! The following is a quote from
a strong and outspoken supporter of individual firearms ownership and
use. "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how
he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive
citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over,
controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Texas
State Rep.
I personally believe these are good words to live by and so should you.
I bring this up now because it is that time of the year when we get
to pick who should and who shouldn't be representing us and our families
in local government. Keep in mind these are the people who usually move
on and up into state legislatures and then into congressional offices.
Now is the time to make their acquaintance and make an impression on
them about how important your right and those of your family are regarding
firearms ownership and use. After all, if you can't trust an elected
official with your right to firearms ownership and use, then what Constitutional
Right can you trust them with?
The aftermath of the hurricane Katrina has featured many prominent stories
of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies
on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers
is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors
in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and
an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need
for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and
guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a
gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a
shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's
top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.
We saw an awful truth in New Orleans! A disaster can and often does
bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that
they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth. There
is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey
illegal orders and threaten otherwise lawful and peaceful citizens
at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.
I was supposed to have informed all SAFE members of the results of the elections of our annual meeting in June but as usual I was slightly sidetracked with what I thought were more important issues. For this I apologize and here are the results. The membership re-elected Richard Fahie, Lou Giordano and James Kelly for another three (3) year term as directors of SAFE Inc. The membership nominated and elected Ms. Georgia Maas for the 2005-2006 Nominating Committee, and also nominated Bill Kirchoff and John Van Wagner whom the Board of Directors appointed to the Nominating Committee as non-board members. The Board of Directors then appointed from their own, James Kelly and Marilyn Cohen. In as much as I am up for re-election next year Vice President Lou Giordano will be the chairman of the nominating committee.
Thanks
to the great efforts of everyone, the U.S. Senate passed S-397,
the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act", by a strong
bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a major first step
toward ending the anti-gun lobby's extreme and fanatical attempts
to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits,
and was a ground breaking step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers,
retailers and gun owners in this country.
There has been some concern about two amendments to S-397.
The first, by Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), which requires all
federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety
device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply
to long guns). This amendment, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does
not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private
transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners
who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns
today are already sold with some type of secure storage or safety
device.
The other amendment, by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a
margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in
a successful attempt to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing"
ammunition amendment that would have banned all center fire rifle
ammunition. By providing an alternative to Senator Kennedy's amendment,
pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy
amendment.
Here's what this amendment actually does:
Here's what this amendment does not do:
If you're interested in a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of S-397, you can go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how our New York Senators voted. One suggestion is to attend your US Representative's Town Hall Meeting while they are home in the district which is from August 1st, to September 5th and bring your friends along. You can find out when and where they will be held by calling your Representative's office. You should encourage him/her in private conversation to bring up and pass S-397 as soon as possible.
Anti-gun Judge Attempts To Circumvent The Will of the US Senate!
In
an attempt to ignore the intent of what the U.S. Senate recently passed,
S-397 the fanatical anti-gun federal court Judge, Jack B. Weinstein
recently ordered firearms industry members to trial on September 6 in
the City of New York's "junk" lawsuit despite pre-trial proceedings
being nowhere near complete. Judge Weinstein ignored complaints from
attorneys representing gun companies in the case that their clients
could not get a fair trial. It is clear that judge Weinstein is rushing
the case to trial before the House of Representatives can pass the Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act when it returns from its August recess.
His blatant attempt to beat the clock is just the latest move by an
unelected judge with a decade-long track record of being sympathetic
to anti-gun plaintiffs. Senator Larry Craig specifically mentioned the
City of New York's case as an example of the kind of "junk" lawsuits
this legislation is intended to stop. You all should contact the Speaker
of the House, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, at; 202-225-2976 and
urge him to have the House of Representatives immediately take up the
Senate-passed bill, S-397 upon returning from its August recess.
TOP
HOME
BURNING
ISSUES INDEX
The
US Supreme Court says foreign felonies don't count. According to this
recent US Supreme Court ruling, docket # 03-750, conviction of a felony
in a foreign court no longer disqualifies a person from purchasing,
owning, or possessing a firearm in the United States.
The Court is split, 5 to 3 over the question of exactly what the phrase
"any court" means in the context of Section 922(g) of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code which says that "a person is not allowed to ship, transport,
possess or receive firearms or ammunition that affects interstate
or foreign commerce if he has been convicted in any court of a crime
that is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."
The specifics of this case were as follows. Mr. Gary Small was convicted
in Japan of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year. After returning to the U.S., Mr. Small purchased a handgun
from a Pennsylvania dealer and answered "No" on the 4473 Federal Firearms
form. Somehow the Japanese conviction and the gun purchase came to
the attention of the Feds and Mr. Small was indicted for lying (a
federal offense) on the 4473 Federal Firearms form by being a felon
in possession of a firearm.
Mr. Small claimed that the question of being convicted in "any court"
meant any court in the United States. The US Justice Department held
that "any court" meant any court anywhere in the world.
The interesting part of this decision is that while it will be celebrated
by firearms rights supporters, the split of the court was completely
unexpected. Along with the Attorney General's Office, Justices
Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (often considered by
firearms enthusiasts as supporters of firearms ownership rights) held
that "any court" meant any court anywhere, while Justices Ginsburg,
O'Connor, Stevens, Souter and Breyer (often
associated with anti gun zealots) contended that foreign courts hold
to different standards than U.S. courts and often don't offer the
protections for the rights of the accused afforded by the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Justice Rehnquist did not take part in this decision.
In the majority opinion, Justice Breyer opined that if Congress wanted
foreign convictions to apply, they could rewrite the law to specifically
say so. The real issue will be how to build into any proposed legislation
protections for U.S. citizens caught in confusing and sometimes unfair
foreign laws and courts. While violent criminals convicted in any
court should probably be treated like the criminals they are, a US
citizen convicted in Mexico or Canada because of a couple of shotgun
shells or some .22 cal ammo in the trunk of his car deserves some
consideration. Any proposed federal legislation that might follow
as result of this Supreme Court ruling must be watched very carefully
by all of us.
2004 Annual Meeting Presidents Report
While
this Annual Report is customarily given verbally at the Annual Meeting
of Members I have decided to put it in the SAFE newsletter so that
all members, including those who cannot make the Annual Meeting may
know its contents. It would be impossible to touch on every activity
I as President have been involved in or attended this past year. This
report is meant to be an overview of some of the more important issues
and activities I have been involved with this past year.
This has been another full year of activity. But then I don't know
a year that has gone by that has not been busy. Just as a reminder
the primary goal of SAFE is to represent the civil rights of all citizens
who want to own and use firearms for self-defense as well as recreation.
Safe has been and still is clearly recognized as a leader amongst
pro gun, pro civil rights organizations in southern New York State.
We have established our credentials, expertise and knowledge by providing
accurate and reliable information to all. We not only supply our membership
with good, reliable information, which helps them become more knowledgeable,
confident and effective in their dealings with the general public
and public officials but we routinely supply every legislative official
at every level of government with the same trustworthy and accurate
information. And that makes SAFE a much needed source of reference
on the firearms issue.
A battle of significance and one that is still ongoing is the closing
of the Suffolk County Trap and Skeet Range. I have attended the committee
hearings as well as full County legislative meetings to give testimony
and information that will ultimately re-open this range. Many of you
have also attended these hearings and I want to publicly "Thank" all
of you for your support. Without you and that support none of the
things we do would be successful. The fact that SAFE is the most significant
player in these proceedings is obvious to all. We showed up to these
meetings with large numbers of articulate people that clearly impressed
and in some cases over whelmed the legislators and any opposition
to the range re-opening. While I am not happy with the time it has
taken so far, I truly believe this range will re-open and we will
have played a major role in that result. I am currently concerned
about the lack of action on the part of the Brookhaven Town Board.
They need to give the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range an exemption
to the Brookhaven Noise Law. Because the current Town Board is not
being cooperative I would like to see all members of SAFE regardless
of where you live to contact the Suffolk County Republican Party
Chair Woman, Assemblywoman Patricia Acampora, at 631-580-1482,
Republican Party Headquarters, and urge she do whatever she can to
persuade the town board to make it happen.
SAFE is basically a reactionary or reactive organization. That means
we typically respond after something happens, like legislation being
introduced (good or bad) at the state or local level or some adverse
rule making or procedure change that impacts on firearm owners by
some regulatory agency in the county, state or federal government.
However, that is not all we do. We respond to problems and issues
when they come up but we also initiate positive pro gun educational
programs as well. As I said earlier we provide reliable and accurate
information, which actually does more to prevent bad proposed laws
from being brought up in the first place in a public forum. That should
be considered extremely proactive. Second, because as you have seen
in our monthly newsletter/legislative reports we respond regularly
to letters of inquiry from many legislators and public officials.
This allows us to answer questions regarding firearms ownership and
use not just to be people who don't know any better but also to provide
useful and meaningful information to gun owners within our own ranks.
This is a testimonial to the reliability and trustworthiness of SAFE
as an organization and can also be considered very proactive. Why
else would a public official seek out our opinion and position on
a subject unless they can rely on it to be truthful and accurate?
One of the other ways in which we are and have been very proactive
the past couple of years has been in our sponsorship, promotion and
the carrying out our NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Shooting
Clinics. It is SAFE who has provided all of the instructors, shooting
safety equipment, ammunition, rifles, targets and literature and even
snacks and refreshments for almost 100 women and volunteers at two
separate events this year alone. Most of the attendees in these clinics
were between 13 years of age and 80 have either never fired a gun
before or have had very limited exposure to firearms. We have successfully
run two clinics about 6 months apart and have easily filled each class
with women eager to learn about the proper safe handling of firearms.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Medford Indoor Shooting Range
located at 2215 Route 112 Medford, NY 11763, Tel; 631-363-7000
and the Nassau County Indoor Rifle & Pistol Range located in Mitchell
Park across from the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Earl Ovington Blvd,
Uniondale NY, Tel; 516-572-0421. These ranges donated the use
of rooms for the class portion of the NRA/SAFE Women On Target Clinic
and 6 shooting points. They are deserving of SAFE's and the entire
shooting community's gratitude for helping make this program a huge
success. The next time you are in the area stop in and say "Thank
You" for your help and support in furthering the understanding and
safe use of firearms. The following people were the instructors and
volunteers in alphabetical order at these WOT programs; Andrew
Balistreri, Marilyn Cohen, Carol A. Cushman, John L. Cushman, Mario
Geddes, Anthony Giammarino, James D. Kelly, Bill Kirchoff, Howard
Last, Lisa Last, Patricia McEntee, Bill Raab and Heather Raab.
SAFE is also very proactive in that we sponsor and put on the only
Right Carry Conference (RTC) and Second Amendment Rally
in New York State, or in the Northeastern United States for that matter.
Our Conference is not only loaded with the most up to date information
on issues, it has the greatest speakers who are also national leaders
and serve as a source of motivation for many in the firearms community
who would otherwise never have had the opportunity to meet them. The
one item we must constantly guard against is firearms owner apathy.
We can never afford to get lazy or complacent when it comes to our
Constitutional Rights. When people believe there are no more battles
to be fought or that there is no use fighting for what is important
to them, then we all lose, including and especially our children and
grandchildren. They cannot fight for themselves. It is our duty and
responsibility to make sure they have the same rights that were given
to us by our parents. I will do everything in my power to make sure
that happens. We must of necessity always be vigilant and always be
ready to respond whenever a threat appears that would in any way diminish
our God given and Constitutional Rights to own, use or transport firearms.
I promise I will be, will you?
Back
to top
If
you read last months newsletter you found out that the Suffolk County
Legislature approved the spending of $450,000.00 for renovations and
upgrades to the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range so that it may be
opened in what we hope will be the near future. The release of these
funds was at the request of Suffolk County Executive, Steve Levy
who we thank for taking some positive action on. This is money that
was originally set aside in an appropriation bill by former County
Legislator now Assemblywoman, Ginny Fields. While this project
is moving along, never fast enough to suit me, we may have hit a snag.
It seems the Brookhaven Town Board has not seen fit to give an exemption
on the noise level issue to the County. Because of this, it will delay
the reopening of the range and may require much more money to meet
this ridiculous low noise level standard. While I personally don't
believe that a Town has jurisdiction over County property or its uses,
there are those in government who feel this is the case. The fact
that the offending noise level is only occasional and not regular
also concerns me. We are now being required to go to great lengths
to overcome this problem in order to do what we have been doing for
over 40 years without any problem what so ever.
To that extent we now need to get active and mobilize and inform the
Brookhaven Town Board that just like the County exemption on the noise
issue, we are requesting the same exemption to the Brookhaven ordinance
for the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range. The fact that thousands
of people come from in and outside of Suffolk County to use this range
should clearly show it is the best interests of the majority of Brookhaven
tax payers that this range be re-opened as soon as possible. Because
there are no such facilities in Nassau County or New York City, tax
revenues are generated by people who come from these areas who use
this facility and who also buy gas, buy food and go shopping at stores
in Suffolk County and Brookhaven Town. This is just another form of
tourism which benefits Suffolk County and Brookhaven Town. As a town
resident I want it and I want the Brookhaven Town Board to give an
exemption to the noise ordinance for the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet
Range. All of you should contact the Town Supervisor and carbon copy
each of the Town Board members with your request for an exemption
for the Trap & Skeet facility to the Brookhaven noise ordinance. Here
is a list of members. Other than the Town Supervisor who has his own
number they all have the same address and switchboard number which
is; 631-451-6640, 631-451-6677 fax.
Town Supervisor | 1st Town District | 4th Town District |
John Jay LaValle | Steve Fiore-Rosenfeld | James M. Tullo |
Independence Hill | ||
Farmingville, NY 11738 | 2nd Town District | 5th Town District |
631-451-9100 | Kevin T. McCarrick | Timothy P. Mazzei |
3rd Town District | 6th Town District | |
Geraldine Esposito | Edward J. Hennessey |
Just
recently I attended the Suffolk County Parks and Cultural Affairs
Committee which oversees the operation of the Suffolk County Trap
& Skeet Range. A part of the agenda on December 15th, 2004 was a budget
request by County Executive Steve Levy for $450,000.00 through the
Presiding Officer of the County Legislature, Legislator Joseph T.
Caracappa number IR-2244A for the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet
Range. I was surprised to see no other sportsmen's organizations present
to make sure this proposal was moved out of committee favorably to
the full legislature. No matter, I was able to speak to most of the
legislators on the committee, the Parks Department Commissioner, Mr.
Ronald F. Foley and Deputy County Executive, Mr. Zwirn. We were all
on the same page, anxious to get this money appropriated for the range
remediation and upgrade so it could be opened quickly.
The reason it was important to get this appropriation now was because
if it was not acted on before the end of this year we would need to
start the budget process all over again delaying the opening of the
range for another year or two. I am glad to report this budget item
was reported out of committee favorably with 5 in favor, none opposed
and one abstention, that being Legislator O'Leary.
On December 21st, 2004 the full Suffolk Legislature took up the bill
IR-2244A and after much discussion it was passed, 17 in
favor, none opposed and one abstention, that being Legislator
O'Leary, who is the legislator for the district in which the range
is located. Again I was surprised no other sportsmen's organizations
were in attendance to help advance this bill. However, Bill Raab and
James Kelly, members of the SAFE Board of Directors and me, made a
number of comments on the record and in private conversations with
the various legislators so they would know all the reasons why this
project needs to move forward. By the vote you could say we were successful.
It only remains to be seen how quickly the Parks Department gets out
a Request For Proposal (RFP) to possible vendors to take over the
daily operation of the range. Any one interested should contact the
Suffolk County Parks Department at; Suffolk County Department of
Parks and Recreation and Conservation, P.O. Box 144 Montauk Highway,
Oakdale NY 11796, phone number; 631-854-4949, fax number; 631-854-4978.
We continue the need to be vigilant on this issue and regular phone
calls and letters to the Suffolk County Parks Department requesting
update information on the progress of the re-opening of the Suffolk
County Trap & Skeet Range is perfectly in order and acceptable. Even
those of you who do not live in Suffolk County but use the range are
entitled to an answer of how soon will I be able to resume my shooting
sport at this range? Also, a thank you letter or phone call to the
County Executive's office and the County Legislators would be appreciated.
You can find all the names and addresses and phone numbers here.