|
President's
Message
|
| 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. 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. Pro gun legislation passes both houses For
the first time in years both houses of the legislature approved pro-gun
legislation! The Senate just passed S-2742A, provides an exemption
allowing supervised possession and use of a handgun at a range by
persons 14 - 20 (originally it was 18 - 20), by a vote of 56-4. The
Assembly companion A-11864 passed on Tuesday 131-12. You can
go to the following web-sites to see the actual language of the bills.
A-11864 - http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=a11864 S-2742A - http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=s2742 Start contacting the Governor and ask he sign this bill! Governor George E. Pataki, State Capitol, Albany, N.Y. 12224, Phone: 518-474-8390 or you can E-mail the Governor. Judges
Say Insurer Must Defend Homeowner Who Shot Intruder An
insurer has a duty to defend a policyholder who killed an intruder
in self-defense, the Court of Appeals held recently in a unanimous
rejection of an upstate Appellate Division ruling to the contrary.
The Court in Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford v. Cook, 78,
said the shooting falls within the homeowner policy even though
it disclaims coverage for intentional acts. It distinguished between
a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify and noted that the claim
alleges the defendant negligently caused the victim's death. But
this decision does not resolve an issue that has divided cases nationally,
that is whether a homeowner's insurance policy provides coverage
if an insured is sued for wrongful death even though it was the
result from an act of self-defense.
Records showed that the intruder, Richard A. Barber, was three times the size of Mr. Cook, weighing about 360 pounds to Mr. Cook's 120 pounds. When Mr. Barber, who had attacked and injured Mr. Cook in the past, entered Mr. Cook's home without permission and refused to leave, the smaller man threatened the larger man with a gun. Mr. Barber continued to advance on Mr. Cook, ignoring warnings to retreat, and Mr. Cook fired a single shot at point-blank range that struck the intruder in the abdomen. Mr. Barber died from his injuries. Mr. Cook was indicted on intentional and depraved indifference homicide charges, but was acquitted of those counts as well as the lesser-included charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter. At trial, he claimed self-defense. Mr. Cook acknowledges that he intended to shoot Mr. Barber "because I had to stop him" and knew that doing so would injure the intruder. But Mr. Cook said he did not expect to kill Mr. Barber. When the administrator of Mr. Barber's estate lodged a wrongful death action against Mr. Cook, the defendant sought personal liability coverage under his homeowner's policy. But the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford disclaimed coverage, arguing that the incident was not an "occurrence," or accident, as defined by the policy, and also that the injury to Mr. Barber was "expected or intended" and therefore fell outside the limits of the policy. Writing for the Court, Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick referred to a 1976 life insurance case, Miller v. Continental Insurance Co. , 40 NY2d 675, where the tribunal made clear that the term "accident" in an insurance policy "pertain[s] not only to an unintentional or unexpected event...but equally to an intentional or expected event which unintentionally or unexpectedly has" a result different from the intent. Back to top |
|
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? Anti-Gun
Mayors Plot Demise Of Individual Firearms Rights
|
May 2006I 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. 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."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?Senator Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post. She signed on to the bill immediately after Menendez formally filed it, but never touted her support in a press release. So far, Clinton and fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer are the sole Senate co-sponsors. Now aren't these the same people who proclaim loudly they are not anti gun and that they support the Second Amendment? The NRA and firearms manufacturers say that Clinton, Schumer and Bloomberg only want this data so they can sue gun-makers. 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.. I need you all to make the same truthful and valid arguments about the revenue the range will provide to the township both in those who use the facility directly and those whose families go shopping while their spouse is at the range. After all, there are a number of shopping outlets in the area. The fact that these people will be spending money on gasoline and food establishments as well as other things means they are all revenue generators for the county and the town. Even if you don't live in Brookhaven Town or even in Suffolk County you should write and let them know that because there are no similar shooting facilities where you live, this facility would be your first choice in order to enjoy Trap & Skeet shooting. It has also been pointed out that this range has been and will continue to be a place where youth training can take place in a safe manner. Remember, safety training for our youth especially when it comes to firearms is extremely important and having a place like this is necessary. As for the noise levels, previous testimony by experts clearly show that when a garbage truck, a school bus, a UPS delivery van or even an un-tuned car all exceed the new low noise level adopted by the Town of Brookhaven. As a matter of fact anyone who mows his lawn or uses a leaf blower or has a children's party will exceed the noise level of the town. The noise level established by the Town is 65 decibels and that is the same level of noise as an average conversation between a few people. Suffolk County recognized the problem and fixed it by giving an exemption to the Range from the County Noise Ordnance because the range existed long before the law was made. We are seeking to have Brookhaven Town to recognize this issue as the County has and give an exemption to a range that has existed and operated safely for over 50 years. |
April 2006US Supreme Court Justice Does the Right thingI think it is great that recently a Supreme Court justice gave a speech stating that the best thing avid outdoorsmen can do for the sport of hunting is to attack the stereotype that guns are only used for evil purposes. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told the National Wild Turkey Federation's this at its annual convention.Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who is an enthusiastic hunter, delivered the keynote address at a banquet recently at Gaylord Opryland Hotel & Convention Center. "The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told a group of about 2,000 at the convention's awards banquet. "I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms" Scalia said. He told the group that, as a child growing up in New York City, he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended. "I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City? "I hope it; the hunting culture can be preserved. The hunting culture, of course, begins with a culture that does not have a hostile attitude toward firearms." Justice Scalia also praised the group for its conservation efforts and advised them to stand united on issues such as conservation that are important to outdoorsmen a message several speakers echoed. Mr. Bill Torhorst, incoming president of the National Wild Turkey Federation, called the principles of hunting and conservation "the cornerstone of family values." He encouraged those in attendance to actively push the government for improved conservation laws. "This is a fight worth fighting," Torhorst, a Wisconsin resident, said. "This is a battle we will win." That message rang true to many in attendance. The convention also heard a taped message from President Bush, who encouraged the group to be good stewards of the land and touched on efforts to open wildlife refuges to sportsmen, restore grasslands and protect wetlands. The National Wild Turkey Federation is a nonprofit group with more than half a million members throughout the world. The group's annual convention was in Nashville Tennessee and has been held there four of the past six years. 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. The Brady Campaign's Latest Annual "Grades" for State Gun Laws Every
year since 1997, the Brady Campaign, previously known as Handgun
Control, Inc., has "graded" the states on their gun laws. It released
its 2005 grades on March 9, 2006.
Brady's premise is simple. It supports gun prohibition and laws that inch closer to gun prohibition, so it naturally believes there are not enough gun laws. In the group's press release announcing its new "grades," its chair, Sarah Brady, says, "we have done almost nothing, at the state or Federal level, to make it harder for either a terrorist, garden variety armed robber, or young person to get their hands on a handgun." This is an incredible statement, given that the Brady Act, for which the group claims credit, requires a criminal background check on anyone who purchases a firearm from a firearm dealer, and given the fact that there are many other federal and state gun laws. The Brady Campaign's approach to its "grades" is equally simple: the fewer a state's restrictions on guns, the lower the grade, and conversely, more state gun control laws equate to a higher grade. This year, Brady gives 32 states an "F" or "D" (10 "Fs" and 22 "Ds") and the average "grade" for the 50 states is a "D+", about the same as in previous years. However, there is no correlation between Brady's grades and violent crime or firearm-related deaths. For example, six of the 10 states Brady gives an "F", and 13 of the 22 states Brady gives a "D", have violent crime rates below the national rate. There is also no correlation between Brady's grades and trends in violent crime or gun-related deaths. Since 1991, violent crime has declined every year, 39% overall, to a 30-year low (and murder has declined to a 39-year low), and since 1993 the firearm-related death rate has decreased 32% among the whole population and decreased 63% among children. Yet, as noted, Brady's grades are essentially unchanged from year to year, mostly "Fs" and Ds". These grades are not only an arrogant position to take but intentionally misleading and dangerous to and for all firearms owners. Again I would refer you all to the simple basic truth of quote above from US Senator Orrin Hatch. There is no basis in fact to justify any of the proposed anti-guns laws. There is a strong need to enforce those laws already on the books and to not allow district attorneys to plea bargain gun charges away so as to get a conviction on other crimes committed by criminals. Lawful gun owners are not now and have never been the problem when crimes are committed with firearms. But most of the anti-gun proposals would only impact the lawful gun owner. And that is neither right nor fair or even a realistic way to address the issue. 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! |
March 2006Listening
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? Following is an excerpt of a television program that surprisingly gave guns and gun ownership a fair discussion on national television. The conclusions are not readily accepted by people like Bloomberg. These facts get in the way of their personal agenda. On
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005 on ABC News: Myths, Lies and Straight Talk
America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control. But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime. The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them. A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but you, another American who might be armed. It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with and on their person and it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Many women say they're comforted by these laws. But some people, including Rev. Al Sharpton, are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws. But the surprise is 36 states already have concealed carry laws; and not one has reported an upsurge in gun crime.
The
idea was simple enough: Send a few professional football players
to a shooting range and charge football fans to spend the afternoon
with them blasting away at some clay pigeons. And the proceeds
would benefit children. It would be like a celebrity golf tournament,
except with shotguns. However, anti-gun groups and anti-violence
organizations are calling on the Redskins owner Daniel M. Snyder
to cancel the competition, which is scheduled to take place at
a skeet range in Prince George's County. These groups say it is
irresponsible for the Redskins to partner with an organization
that is lobbying to legalize handguns and semiautomatic rifles
in the nation's capital.
Washington Redskins spokesman Karl Swanson said the team does not get involved in the NRA's political activities and considers the competition as a simple fundraiser. "We think it's a valuable event, and we intend to go forward with it," he said. The Redskins Sporting Clay Challenge is modeled on an event offered to corporate sponsors for the past several Super Bowls. Conceived by an association of former NFL players, the target-shooting competition has become one of the Super Bowl's most popular functions, said Remy Mackowski, senior vice president of operations for NFL Alumni. "At first, we were a little leery because it was the NRA," Mackowski said. But none of the Super Bowl events provoked any protest and the shoots are spreading to individual alumni chapters and specific teams. "It's something that's kind of new and interesting and different. And so far, there hasn't been any negative fallout. Back to top |
January-February 2006The
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.
Our Governor, Mr. Pataki, called a special session of the state legislature to consider legislation that is supposed to be for providing additional protection for police officers in response to the recent shootings in New York City against police officers. And while the stated purpose is commendable the truth is the proposed legislation has more to do with gun control than with criminal control. In another part of this legislative report is the letter I faxed to some 50 State Senators and Assembly Members the night before the meeting. Why the night before the meeting? Because the powers that be in the legislature have seen fit to rush something, anything into the legislature and they don't want the people to see what they are really doing. Could it be because they did not want anyone to see the language of the proposals until the very last moment, sneaky huh! Criminals by definition are people who do not obey law, any law, so why would anyone in the state legislature believe that a new law would somehow prevent criminal behavior. No law ever made has truly prevented a criminal act, especially the murder of a police officer. What any new law hopes to do is try to persuade the criminal that the punishment for this act is so severe that they do not want suffer the penalty. It is therefore appropriate to pass laws which will severely punish those who commit the crime killing a police officer. But quite frankly I believe my life or that of any member of my family is just as important and valuable as any member of a police department and I'll bet you do to. The police have the distinct advantage of being armed while the majority of citizens do not. The police have the advantage having the power of being law enforcement and therefore more readily able to use deadly physical force while private citizens do not. They are also highly trained to deal with situations of their job. This is not to say that we shouldn't do anything and everything we can to make their job safer. We should, but we also owe a degree of safety to everyday citizens as well. This means we support more severe penalties for the intentional killing of a police officer! But we also support the idea that our lives are just as important and valuable and are therefore just as deserving of being protected by the law. It is the guaranteed severe and swift punishment for criminals that may act as a deterrent. The ability of the citizens to use deadly physical force including using a firearm to defend themselves just as the police now have will also be a deterrent. However I don't see any language in any of the proposals before the legislature that contain any such provisions. As a matter of fact, a cursory look at the Assembly bill just reinforces the opinion that this is nothing more than gun control disguised as police protection legislation. It is a fraud. Only the criminal behavior should be addressed not the implement used. The issue that upsets me most is the sudden urgency and rush on the part of our elected officials to do something right away. What is wrong with giving deliberate and careful consideration to any proposed new law? In just two weeks the full State Legislature will go back into regular session and then these bills can go through the standard committee process and have the benefit of input on the part of all the people in involved. That includes organizations such as SAFE and the NRA as well as all the citizens of the state. These bills were introduced on Friday December 16th, 2005 are being debated and voted on Wednesday December 21st, 2005 with no opportunity for the public to even see or read what has been proposed and no opportunity for the public to comment on any of the material in the bill in a meaningful way. The immediate question that comes to my mind is; was this intentional? Did those in power propose this last minute legislation so the public will have no chance to give input while at the same time giving the appearance of attempting to do something to remedy a situation? That way they can pass legislation that would never normally be considered appropriate by claiming urgent necessity. What a crock! Well it's over. The legislature has voted on a bill that the Governor says he will sign. The best testimony of our ability to prevent bad firearms law comes directly from the press release of the Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver himself. He is not happy he didn't get more gun control passed, and that pleases me to no end as it should you. Read the parts of the press release for yourself and see his frustration. "The three way agreement on legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and dramatically increase penalties for gun crimes against law-enforcement officers is critical in our efforts to help protect those who are sworn to protect us. (No problem here) Today's agreement also institutes mandatory life without parole for killing a police officer and dramatically increases penalties for a range of other violent and threatening crimes committed against law enforcement officials. (Again no problem) But, it is only a first step. While we have locked the front door on gun traffickers, the NRA's influence in Albany keeps the back door open. (Just his way of saying the NRA stopped him from getting really bad gun control law passed that would affect lawful people only) Therefore, the Assembly's fight to enact comprehensive, truly effective legislation to safeguard communities across New York State continues. Our job is not finished." (This is a clear threat to start all over again when the legislature goes back into regular session) New York's law-enforcement community still faces a very real threat at the hands of violent criminals. How can we continue to send law-enforcement officers into the path of danger armed with bullet-proof vests, while continuing to allow deadly "cop-killer" bullets on the streets? (This statement is an outright lie) The Assembly will continue to urge the United States Congress to pass legislation to give law-enforcement officers the laws and resources needed to pursue gun traffickers and investigate the sources of all illegal guns." (In other words the Assembly will push the Federal Government to pass more restrictive firearms laws so that everyone in the nation can be brought down to our level of stupidity of not allowing its citizens the ability and means to protect themselves) Back to top |
December 2005Recently
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.
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. For those of you who cannot make our monthly meeting, our last for this year I want to thank you for all your support and activism during this past year. The Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range would not be in the process of refurbishing and reopening early next year without your help. The very successful SAFE Right To Carry Conference and all three Women On Target Firearms Shooting Clinics would not have happened without the support of all the SAFE members. I thoroughly believe this organization is and will continue to be as powerful and effective as its members want and I am honored to be able to lead you in this fight to preserve our heritage and our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I hope you all have a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year. Back to top |
November 2005It
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. Here is an interesting little tidbit of information that comes from a Justice Department report on violent crime. "6% of all Violent Crime Involve Firearms" The headlines all trumpet the fact that violent crime is at 30 year lows. All of the demographic groups including those most at risk are experiencing lower crime, and that is a wonderful thing. But the 6% figure, if reported widely, would remove all justification from the gun grabbers. Why focus on 6% of the problem? Why not look at the other 94%? Looking at it another way, the number of violent crimes involving a firearm was 34 percent lower in 2004 than it was in 2000 and 73 percent lower in 2004 than in 1993. This 6% figure makes it difficult if not impossible for the anti-gun fanatics to demonize an inanimate object such as a firearm, and forces them to look at root causes of crime, and other solutions for violent crime. These other solutions should include getting tough on crime by sending criminals away for a long time, and arming citizens who are then empowered to defend themselves. The anti-gun fanatics complain about the "get tough" policies that have filled prisons, but the results speak for themselves. Violent crime is reduced. Survey after survey report that what criminals fear most is an armed citizen. When citizens are empowered and able to defend ourselves, we become the deterrent factor that ultimately stops crime. The 2005 SAFE Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally was a smashing success according to everyone who attended. All of our guest speakers; Executive Vice President of NRA, Wayne LaPierre, 1st, VP of NRA, John Sigler, Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) Exec Director, James Fotis, NYS Secretary of State and now candidate for Governor of New York, Randy Daniels and gubernatorial candidate Assemblyman (103 AD) Patrick Manning were not only very impressed with the number of people who attended but also with the sophistication of the gun owners present. Over 500 people showed up to participate in our conference in an off election year and that is outstanding. We learned about things going on that no news media outlet has seen fit to share with the public. In addition to that we gave away to attendees a few thousand dollars worth of firearms (all legally) and we also raised $800.00 for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. We enjoyed the company of many pro-gun public office holders such as Assemblywoman Ginny Fields and Suffolk County Legislator Angie Carpenter who is now running for County Treasurer. Suffolk County Clerk, Ed Romaine a long time friend of gun owners who is now running for 1st Legislative District for the Suffolk County Legislature also spent time talking to conference participants. We had the honor of having Kathryn L. Coward Esq. Counsel and Executive Assistant to State Senator Serphin R. Maltese in attendance. All these people came to hear from us what the issues are and why are they important. If you could not attend the SAFE RTC Conference for one reason or another and you want to do something to help the cause, you should make an effort to contact your elected officials Town and County and ask why they were not there. Aren't they interested in knowing what is important to their voting constituents? Aren't they interested in hearing all the facts when it comes to firearms ownership and use? Only you the registered voter can make a (your) public official accountable. And you should! Saturday October 22nd, SAFE will be having another Women On Target Shooting Clinic. This will be our 6th Women Only Shooting clinic and we have 60 women registered for this event. Between having informational conferences that educate our members as well as public officials on firearms issues that are important to us and Basic Shooting Clinics that educate women in the safe and responsible handing of firearms we are indeed doing good work and we are proud of it. Back to top |
October 2005I 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. Once again gun ownership has been proven to be much more of a benefit and a help in protecting law abiding citizens. To prove this you merely have to look at the tragedy in New Orleans caused by a hurricane. Even Pat Buchanan said: "In New Orleans, those who relied on government, such as the New Orleans police, the mayor, Gov. Blanco, and FEMA, suffered most. Those who relied on themselves for food, water and safety from marauding mobs of rapists and looters, with guns in their homes, fared best. Ultimately, the U.S. and Guard troops had to provide the security before government agencies and volunteers could do their rescue work. " The following short excerpt is reprinted verbatim from a lengthy article in the New York Times of September 8th, 2005. "No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said. But that order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons". Keep in mind now that this has begun: the police know exactly where to go to disarm "only" law abiding citizens because the guns they are collecting are the "legally registered firearms". Whether it is simple "registration" of firearms or applications for "permits" or "licenses" to carry concealed, the results are always the same. Misguided but well intentioned law enforcement officers, following the orders of a self serving bureaucrat cannot find and don't know where the criminal element is or where they keep their guns. There is something is wrong with the idea that government knows only the law abiding citizens to target to disarm, thus making them potential victims of the criminals who should be the real targets of all law enforcement efforts. Now, does this make sense to you? It certainly makes no sense to me to make law-abiding citizens totally and completely helpless if at the same time you cannot make all CRIMINALS turn in their firearms. And lets be realistic and truthful, no one in public office anywhere has ever been able to make a criminal obey the law simply because they were told to. In my opinion it is downright CRIMINAL to allow any public official to be able to make such a dangerous edict. It is more likely to cause a good and lawful citizen to become a victim of crime than it is to protect one. I have spoken of this type of irresponsible and reckless action of a public official before and I would hold them personally and legally responsible to anyone who becomes a victim because of such a potentially dangerous edict. If this sounds as if I am angry, you're right, I am! What really bothers me is why more people aren't angry about this state of affairs? In another part of this newsletter is a story about a homeowner who confronts a group of criminal looters who had a machete. The homeowner armed only with a flashlight and a handgun because there were no police authorities to protect him and his family was successful in making these criminals leave without firing a shot. It seems once they realized they were facing an armed homeowner who was able to defend his loved ones they simply turned around and left. I have sympathy for the individual or family these criminals go after next, especially if they are/were unarmed and unable to defend themselves because of this edict. Did you know the United Nations wants your guns? Your Second Amendment rights are under siege. The United Nations World Constitution says the age of individual nations must end. The governments of many nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender all of their arms. The UN constitution is in conflict with the (my) US Constitution which says, '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'. Obviously, the UN is not interested in the concept of a 'free state', but only in totalitarian control of the citizenry of the world. Those of you who attend SAFE's Right To Carry Conference and Second Amendment Rally will get some the latest and most startling information not seen anywhere in the news media. What you have to ask yourself is why haven't I seen this information in the regular news? The latest natural catastrophe, the Katrina Hurricane, has once again driven home the necessity of the average citizen being armed and able to defend themselves as opposed to disarmed and unable. I have come to the conclusion that our founding fathers never intended us to be without firearms to protect our homes, family and the US Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said, 'No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms'. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. It is said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty… it is also the price we must pay to keep and bear arms. TOP HOME BURNING ISSUES INDEX |
Sept 2005"Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"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.
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.
|
| 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. Every product made anywhere in the world has the potential for illegitimate uses and undesirable consequences. In 2002 in the U.S., car accidents killed 45,380 people and injured another 3 million, 838 children under the age of 15 drowned, 474 children died from residential fires, and 130 children died in bicycle accidents. Fortunately for us, local governments and individuals of families who have suffered from such fatalities haven't started trying to recoup the medical costs or police salaries by suing automobile manufacturers or bicycle companies, pool builders or makers of home heaters. I don't know how many victims of knife violence there are but no one is suing knife manufacturers either. All sorts of products, including cars and computers, are also used in the commission of crimes. But again, no one yet seriously proposes that these companies be sued for the losses from these crimes. People clearly understand what makes a car useful for everyday life but also what makes it useful to escape a crime and that you can't hold a car company liable for a product that's working exactly as it was intended. They understand that the penalty should be on the person who uses the product improperly. Suing the manufacturers for costs cities incur from gun injuries and deaths is exactly the theory behind some local government lawsuits by cities against gun makers and is thoroughly deceitful. Last year the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" that would rein in these lawsuits was defeated when Democrats added a couple of poison pill amendments to the bill in the US Senate. Don't let that happen this year. Make every effort to get HR-800, S-397 passed this year. Generally, suits against gun makers haven't had any more legal success than if similar suits had been brought against car companies. They have however been extremely expensive for legitimate firearms companies to fight. But it is commonly accepted that these frivolous lawsuits were really intended to bankrupt the firearms industry in general. Obviously, bad things happen with guns. But these lawsuits ignore that guns also prevent bad things from happening by making it easier for potential victims to defend themselves. Unlike the tobacco lawsuits, gun makers have powerful arguments about the benefits of gun ownership. Americans used guns defensively more than 2 million times yearly, and more than 90 percent of the time merely brandishing the weapon was sufficient to stop an attack. A 2004 survey found that 94% of 22,600 chiefs and sheriffs questioned thought that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy guns for self-defense. Women benefit most and also find it easier to use smaller, lightweight guns. As a matter of fact poor victims benefit even more than wealthier ones from the ability to protect themselves simply because they are more likely to be victims. Back to top |
|
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. |
May 2005First off I would like to "Thank" everyone who helped me get re-elected to the NRA Board of Directors for another 3 years. Without your help and support I could not have done it. I can only promise that I will continue to be the strongest possible advocate for all lawful firearms owners, and especially here on Long Island and in New York State.We are opposed to; A-2466/S-2445 which is a new bill in the NYS Legislature that wants to heap insult and further injury on all LAWFUL FIREARMS OWNERS that live in this state. It seeks to make additions to the types of firearms included in the definition of an assault weapon that have nothing to do with crime, but have to do with looks. If it looks evil or military then they want it banned from civilian ownership. Keep in mind looks have nothing to do with how it is used. As a matter of fact military style firearms are the most sturdy and reliable firearms available to the public. Anyone who would want one for self defense, hunting or for competitive or fun target shooting could not do any better. It is a fact that all military style firearms had to be built to very high reliability specifications so they could be used by the US military in combat. That same reliability is carried over into the civilian market. The only difference is civilian versions of these firearms are not selective fire capable. That means they cannot be fired in automatic mode, only in semi-automatic mode which is one shot fired for each separate pull of the trigger. The current Assault Weapons ban here in New York State which passed a few years ago is not only a farce and a fraud, it has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the people in this state although that is exactly what it claims to do. How do we know this, just look at the federal Assault Weapon Law that New York State patterned its law after and recently went out of existence? It too claimed to be intended for public safety but it was proven to be a lie and a hoax perpetrated on the general public by anti-gun fanatics in Congress. It is simply a first step by anti-gun fanatics towards ultimately including all firearms that they believe the public should not be allowed to own. We know this to be true because there were in fact no large numbers (or small numbers for that matter) of semi-automatic firearms being used in crimes and we said so before the law was passed. Now ten years later we have been found to right on the money with proof that criminals will use whatever they can to commit a crime and that semi automatic firearms are not any more dangerous than a sharp knife or a baseball bat. When will those who hold public office realize that "assault" and "weapon" are two different things? A "weap |