President's Message
(Archive Years 2009 - 2005)

HOME CURRENT PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE PAGE

The President's Corner by John Cushman

Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009
Jul-Aug 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009
March 2009 Jan-Feb 2009    
       
Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008
Jul-Aug 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008
March 2008 Jan-Feb 2008    
       
Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007
Jul-Aug 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007
March 2007 Jan-Feb 2007    
       
Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006
Jul-Aug 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006
March 2006 Jan-Feb 2006    
       
Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005
Jul-Aug 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005
March 2005 Jan-Feb 2005    
      

 


December 2009

For 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.

The McDonald case not only challenges the Chicago ban, but also brings up the question of application of the right to keep and bear arms to the states through the 14th Amendment. "Our filing today will help establish that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of American citizenship no city official can violate," Gura said. Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, added, "We brought this case because the Chicago ban has denied law abiding citizens the exercise of a basic civil right for more than 20 years. We are delighted to bring this action with our colleagues in Illinois because this kind of onerous regulation simply cannot go unchallenged."

"The Chicago case presents an opportunity to challenge a local law in a case that has national implications," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "A victory in this case not only restores a fundamental right to Chicago residents, it will prevent other such outright bans all over the country." Oral arguments are scheduled before the Supreme Court in late February 2010 and a ruling on the case is expected sometime in late spring. The case may be followed at: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-ts.pdf. This brief is 91 pages long and informative.



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 2009

I 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.

In the Seventh Circuit, the McDonald case was consolidated with our case, NRA v. Chicago. The Seventh Circuit's decision decided both cases unfavorably, and the Supreme Court initially granted the petition to review only the McDonald case. Due to the relationship between the cases, however, the Clerk of the Supreme Court has now determined that the NRA will now be an official party to the McDonald case. Our posture will be that of respondent in support of petitioner (the petitioner being McDonald).

In practical terms, this means that instead of just filing an amicus brief, the NRA will be filing a much longer, and even more critical, brief on the same schedule as the McDonald plaintiffs. While counsel for McDonald will still be handling the oral argument before the Court, our status as a party means that the Justices will pay very close attention to the arguments in our brief.


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.

"This amendment was necessary to prevent commonly used pocketknives from being branded as illegal switchblades," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "The National Rifle Association is grateful to Senators Cornyn, Pryor and Hatch and Congressmen Latta and Minnick, whose leadership fixed a provision that would have criminalized tens of millions of law-abiding Americans, including millions of hunters and sportsmen."

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposed amending the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 earlier this year, which would have changed the interpretation of the definition of switchblade knives to include assisted opening knives. Assisted opening knives are frequently used by hunters, anglers, farmers, ranchers, firefighters, law enforcement and emergency personnel and others who may need to open a knife with only one hand. The measure, which will prevent this re-classification, now awaits President Obama's signature.



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 2009

First 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.

Special Membership Prize Drawing
Donator = Rohrbaugh Firearms Corp
Rohrbaugh Semi-auto handgun in Two-Tone Stainless in .380 cal,
Lifetime Warrantee
Retail Value=$1,150.00
 
Prizes for 2009 SAFE Firearm Civil Rights Conference Winners
Choice of Prize
Donator = Ruger Mfg
Ruger, SP-101 Revolver, cal .357 Magnum Retail Value=$575.00
 
Donator = Guns & Ammo, Bohemia, NY
Yugoslavian SKS Rifle, cal 7.62x39 Retail Value=$599.99
Mossberg, Pistol Grip Shotgun, 12 gauge With Regular Stock Retail Value=$399.99
 
Donator = American Outdoor Sports, Farmingdale, NY
Marlin, Rifle model #60, semi-auto cal.22, with a black synthetic stock. Retail Value=$200.00
Four (4) $25.00 gift certificates at American Outdoors Retail Value=$100.00
   
Donator = Hunter Sports, Massapequa, NY
Remington Model#770, Hunter Rifle, Cal .270, with a Scope and Black Synthetic Stock Package Retail Value=$500.00
 
All Certificates to be used at the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range, Yaphank NY
4 Certificates, Each 1 for a Round of Sporting Clays Retail Value=$40.00 ea
($160.00 total value)
6 Certificates, Each for 4 Rounds of Trap or Skeet Retail Value=$26.00 ea
($156.00 total value)
Donator = Armed Response Video Training
4 Sets of 3 DVD's Each on Handgun Training Retail Value=$85.00 ea
($340.00 total value)
   
Donator = Ed Kaspshak SAFE Member
3 Pieces of Sterling Silver Jewelry that look like a Flintlock Pistol with Colored Rhinestones in the handle and Numbered 1, 2 and 3. Number 1 given to Wayne LaPierre, number 2 given to Dick Heller and the 3rd was a Silent Auction item, plus other jewelry. Retail Value= $500.00 ea
($1,500.00 total value)
     
We should all thank these folks for stepping up and supporting the firearms community and more particularly the SAFE organization. They helped to make the Conference the success it was and everyone who attended the conference and who is a member of SAFE should make it their business to do your business with them. Thank you all.

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.

Just for the record you should all be aware that we are the only county in the State of New York that has two Handgun Licensing agents. All other counties have a county court of record which issues the actual handgun license with the police authorities doing the background checks and when there are no reasons to deny a handgun license one is issued. Only in Suffolk and Nassau Counties and the City of New York are the background checks done and the firearm license issued by the police department. There are advantages and disadvantages to this process. The advantage is it should be more streamlined because it is a single agency and it should be much quicker but for some reason it isn't.

Some of the reasons it would appear to be better for all concerned in having only one issuing agent in the county is cost. It is a fact the Suffolk County PD are among the highest paid police officers in the state if not the country. Now I don't mind the pay at all, I am sure they deserve every penny they get but with all that training and pay shouldn't it be used more wisely by having these highly paid and highly trained police officers on the street where they can do the most good? The Sheriffs deputies while having an equal amount of police training have salaries that are almost 50% less. If you consider the pay issue only it would appear to be a more effective use of funds (resources) of the County to have the Suffolk Sheriffs Office do the handgun licensing than the Suffolk PD.

Next comes the fact that there would and should be more uniform rules, regulations and procedures having only one agency doing it rather than a couple who might (and usually do) have some strong differences of opinion of how things should get done. This again would be beneficial to the county and the law abiding citizens who go through the process to acquire a firearm license having a single set of procedures. It is also common knowledge that once handgun licenses are issued in the county there are differences between what the Suffolk PD issues and what the Sheriffs Department issues. Again for the sake of uniformity and the uniform application of law for all licenses issued in the county shouldn't all should be the same?

Another important issue for the law abiding gun owners in Suffolk County is the fact that while the Police Commissioner may meet with representatives of organizations who have firearm owning members out of courtesy he is under no obligation to listen or to implement any suggestions we may have for the effective running of the pistol license bureau while at the same time treating even more fairly the gun owning public who have allowed themselves to be scrutinized practically back to the day they were born. Because the Police Commissioner is appointed by the County Executive and approved by the County Legislature he has no obligation or even incentive to be helpful and cooperative to the people. For this reason we have often thought the PD implements rules, regulations and procedures not because they are warranted or needed or justified but simply because they can because there is no requirement to be responsive to the licensees or the applicants. His/her obligation would be to and is the County Executive and the County Legislature. The County Sheriff on the other hand is and would be obligated to the people. That is he/she should be more responsive to the people because we the people would be able to make the difference in the outcome of an elected official. Of course it doesn't guarantee fair and equitable treatment but if we are not treated as we believe we should we should be able to do something about it and any failure to do so would be our failure not anyone else's.

As I mentioned earlier it should be more streamlined if done by a single issuing agent and to that extent lets' take the example of the time period between applying for a handgun license and getting one issued here in Suffolk County. The standard wait for a license has been around 6 months give or take 30 days. We believe that is an inordinately long period of time. I have concealed handgun carry licenses issued by other states and in no case did it take more than 30 days for any of them. The question is; why does it take so long here especially since we provide every scrap of information about ourselves that is humanly possible to give and so it should be considerably easier for you than if I were a criminal. As a criminal I would give you nothing but after you run fingerprints and any other info you can garner from me in about a week to ten days you would probably know quite a bit about me. To make matters worse I pay for the right to get my handgun license (fees and the fact that I am a tax payer) a criminal pays nothing. On a national level the feds give an instantaneous response to a query about me when I buy a shotgun or a rifle and if there is no reason for them to deny the purchase of either of these to me what is it that you need that takes so much longer? In my opinion the entire process should take no more than 30 days. This is just one of the issues we would like to address.

Now that I have briefly described the issue what is the solution? It's really very simple. All that is needed is an amendment to section $400.00 of the New York State Penal Law. This amendment would simply say that the issuing agent for Suffolk County Pistol Licenses is the Suffolk County Sheriff. Once the law is changed then there will be only one agency responsible for handgun licenses in Suffolk County, just like all the other counties in the state. This type of legislation needs to be sponsored in both houses in the State Legislature. That means we need both Senators and Assembly members, preferably from Suffolk County. That is where you all come in. If each of you think this is an important issue then each of you needs to contact your State Senator and your Assembly member describing the issue as I have above and then requesting that they become a sponsor of the legislation that will solve this issue and make Suffolk County like all the other counties in the state, uniform in applying the law. Are there other problems in the pistol licensing laws of New York, you bet there are. But this would make a good first step towards the uniform application of law and then we can attempt to resolve the other problems but this time with a public official who should be more responsive to the public will.


SAFE Firearm Civil Rights Conference

For 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!!

Senator Kenneth LaValle 631-696-6900 lavalle@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Kenneth LaValle 631-361-2154 flanaghan@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Brian Foley 631-360-3356 bfoley@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Owen Johnson 631-669-9200 ojohnson@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Carol Marcellino 516-922-1811 marcelli@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Kemp Hannon 516-739-1700 hannon@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Craig Johnson 516-746-5923 johnson@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Charles Fuschillo Jr. 516-882-0630 fuschill@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Dean Skelos, Majority Leader 516-766-8383 skelos@senate.state.ny.us



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.

Senator Charles E. Schumer 631-753-0978 http://schumer.senate.gov
Kirsten E. Gillibrand 631-249-2825 http://gillibrand.senate.gov

Back to top


June 2009

Congressional Bi-partisan Majority Moves To Restore
Second Amendment Rights in National Parks!

Today, Wednesday, May 20, 2009 NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147, including 105 democrats. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community's anti self-defense agenda. The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule. The NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

"It has been an NRA priority to change the old, outdated rule, and we are pleased that Congress passed this critical legislation," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people's right of self-defense." The National Park Service's recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes. In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators. Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors. Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks - all with safe and satisfactory results.

This bill provides consistency across our nation's federal lands and puts an end to the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Parks and Wildlife Refuges did not. In 1982, only six states allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have some process in place for issuing licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. The NRA and gun owners in general have long held that the regulations needed to be updated to reflect this change. This move restores the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands and makes federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located.

"This common-sense measure, offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), gives law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves in our federal parks and refuges. We appreciate the efforts and leadership of Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) in ensuring a legislative remedy to amend out-of-date regulations and restore the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners," concluded Cox.


Position Paper on Firearms bills before NYS Legislature April 27th, 2009

Many of you may have already seen this document or have heard about it but for those who have not here it is. This should help every single member of SAFE and all the legislators who get our newsletter to more clearly understand our position on various pieces of legislation currently being considered at the state level. I urge all members of SAFE to contact their New York State Senator and urge/request them to vote against the bills listed here for the reasons listed as well as any other reasons you can come up with. If you need help getting the contact information for any of your Senators go to the SAFE web-site at; www.nysafe.org. We cannot afford to fail to contact our State Senators and let them know in strong terms what and why we oppose these and similar types of firearms legislation. But it only works when you do your part. Cick here to read the Position Paper.

Back to top


May 2009

U.S. Senator Defends American Gun Owners-Again

As previously reported, the attempt to blame America's lawful gun owners and its gun laws for the horrific violent acts of Mexican drug cartels continues, spurred on by Secretary of State Clinton and her foray south of the border. Fortunately, gun owners do have some advocates in congress. Recently during the above-mentioned Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) stepped up to the plate for gun owners, telling Deputy U.S. Attorney General David Ogden, "I want to be clear. Some have used this latest outbreak in Mexico to argue for tighter gun control restrictions in the United States. I don't agree that that's the right answer. I think the right answer is really cooperation at all levels of government, and smarter intelligence-more eyes and ears on the border, getting tougher on criminals that are smuggling weapons and drugs."

Earlier this month, fellow Montana Democrat Senator Max Baucus, joined by Senator Tester, wrote Attorney General Holder informing him, in no uncertain terms, of Montanans' staunch opposition to any attempt to reauthorize the failed Clinton gun ban. In that letter, the Senators wrote, "We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership….We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners…. In the light of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms."



This is a Thank You letter to SAFE from Mr. Alan Chwick which I paraphrased so that it would fit regarding SAFE's involvement in a Firearms Lawsuit described on page 4.

  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


April 2009

The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to self defense. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, "If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self defense. Right to carry a firearm laws respect the right of self defense by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms for their own protection.

75% Believe The US Constitution Guarantees The Right To Own A Gun!

Seventy five percent (75%) of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Of those with a gun owner in the household, 89% say the Constitution guarantees a citizen's right to own a gun. Sixty four percent (64%) of those without a gun owner in the home agree. A whopping 92% of Republicans say the Constitution guarantees their right to own a gun, compared to 64% of Democrats and 71% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms. Remarks by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms only proves Obama knew he was lying to the nation and because his own website touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent.

Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear‚...I think people can take me at my word." "Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all. American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."



Micro-stamping of firearms and or ammunition is unreliable and could put innocent people into a legal system meant for criminals.

America's leading firearms manufacturers, many of whom are based in Connecticut, held a press conference at the Connecticut State Capitol to announce a unified industry stand against legislation that would force them to adopt an unreliable technology to micro-stamp firearms or firearms ammunition. The companies attending the press conference included Connecticut based Colt's Manufacturing Company, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg and Sons, and Sturm, Ruger and Co., as well as, Springfield, Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson. Joining the press conference was the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) the trade association for the firearms industry and the Connecticut Association of Firearms Retailers.

The truth is the only thing this type of technology can do is trace a firearm or the ammunition to its last lawful owner (assuming it works in the first place which many do not believe), not the criminal who used it in a crime. That means innocent and/or law abiding people may find themselves trying to defend against the very system meant to prosecute criminals. NO THANK YOU! The additional cost to manufacture ammunition and firing pins with micro engraving numbers on each one would be cost prohibitive. The average lawful gun owner would be priced out of the market. But that may be the real goal of the anti-gun crowd. This type of legislative proposal does nothing to address criminal behavior but penalizes good honest citizens by assaulting our Second Amendment Rights.



Important Message From NRA/ILA Chief, Chris W. Cox on Attorney General Holder's Recent Remarks on the Failed 1994 Gun and Magazine Ban.

Today, Wednesday, March 18, 2009 in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws. NRA would like to thank Congressman Ross for his leadership on this effort. We will continue to work with Members of Congress from both parties on this important issue. View the letter; http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf.


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


March 2009

Let me start by answering a question that many SAFE members and quite a few NRA members have recently been asking me. For some of you this will be repetitious because I have already sent an e-mail out to a thousand people I have an e-mail address for a couple of weeks ago on this subject. I am asking all who read this here and now to circulate it to all the NRA members you know right away. I have been honored to serve on the NRA Board of Directors for 16 years now, 12 of them on the NRA Executive Committee and I believe I have learned what kind of person it takes to run an effective national organization. And there is no doubt that the NRA is one of the most effective and powerful citizens' rights organizations in the free world. So, for those of you who want some guidance (those of you who don't just ignore this little note) in who I believe are the best qualified to serve on the NRA Board of Directors here are my recommendations. They are in alphabetical order. Keep in mind you are allowed to vote for as few as you like but not more than 25. Voting for just those you particularly like helps them a little more to get elected.
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?

Back to top


January-February 2009

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


December 2008

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.



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. What I am about to say may not be politically correct and I hope no one gets offended 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.

Back to top

November 2008

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


October 2008

The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals. "Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote one person. "I just took the money I had slated to renew my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to renew my NRA membership." Hundreds of similar comments have been posted since the Supreme Court Ruling that the Second Amendment means exactly what we said it means all along, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. They disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized", they said.

The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."

I was really hoping that the ACLU would at the least reconsider its stance, which now has been invalidated by the Supreme Court itself. I had hoped they would come around to the popularly accepted belief and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights, whether it is the First, Second, Third or whichever actually protects an individual's right. I really thought they (ACLU) would change their hypocritical attitude. I actually thought the ACLU's purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court. Am I missing something? I have to say I am thoroughly confused and a little disheartened to think that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and a large amount of members of the ACLU (which is mostly lawyers) don't understand plain and clear language. After all, these are supposedly some of the smartest people we have in this country and they don't know the difference between a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and a privilege. I guess I should be thankful for small favors in that not one of the Supreme Court Justices in the Heller decision endorsed the collective rights' viewpoint. I just wish the ACLU would acknowledge this and get on board with the rest of us who believe in individual rights.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants that law abiding individuals have the unequivocal right to own a gun within their homes for self defense what happens to all those laws that were passed in an effort to get the guns out of the hands of street thugs? What we all need to know now is what impact will it (this decision) have on other laws that targeted gun ownership, such as those requiring gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun or those limiting gun purchases to so many per person per month? Guns are still off limits for convicted felons and the mentally ill which is as it should be.

But what about other restrictions such as those placed on handgun licensees? How far can local governments go in limiting or restricting the individual right granted by the Second Amendment and the state? New York for example has long held in its courts that owning a gun in this state was a privilege and not a right. That must change in order to comply with the new US Supreme Court Decision. But the immediate question I have is, changed by who, those in charge at the state level or at the local level? I would suggest we put in a bill at the state level to limit the ability of handgun license issuing agents to impose limitations, conditions and restrictions on licenses or licensees other than those clearly spelled out in state law. That way any of these restrictions would uniformly applied statewide. And this proposal would in no way interfere with the ability of an issuing agent to do a proper background check on any applicant. But it would end local abuse where ever it may be occurring anywhere in the state. Tell me what you think.

One more thing, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was clear. For one, McCain joined more than 300 other members of Congress in signing a "friend of the court" brief, in District of Columbia v. Heller, urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Second Amendment and against D.C.'s handgun ban. Obama refused to sign the Heller brief, and supports reinstituting the Clinton gun and magazine ban. He also supports Ted Kennedy's bill to ban semi-automatic handguns in the guise of "micro-stamping," and supports banning inexpensive handguns as "junk guns." But now that each candidate has chosen his running mate, the difference is even clearer than before. And when it comes to guns, the two prospective vice-presidents are as far apart as the states from which they hail. I love having a clear choice of those who support my rights and those who don't. It makes my job much easier.

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


Sept 2008

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


June 2008

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.



I would like to take this opportunity to Thank everyone who helped in my re-election to the NRA Board of Directors. Without your support I would not be able to continue the fight to Keep & Bear Arms in the same way as I have the past 15 years. Yes you heard that right, I have been serving on the NRA Board of Directors with your help and support for 15 years and now I have 3 more years. Those of you know me know I will never stop fighting for our firearm rights for ourselves and our children and grand children. Thank you again, I truly appreciate it.

Back to top

May 2008

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.



There is no more fundamental right than the right to self defense. While other states seem to clearly understand this principle New York State seems to want to make it even more difficult or bureaucratic for lawful firearms owners. To prove this, Florida lawmakers took another step recently toward recognizing that fundamental right by passing a bill allowing people to carry firearms to work in their vehicles. I say good for them. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has now signed it into law. The only question I have is why it took three years to pass a bill that only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens. As in most cases involving gun rights, you can thank the hysterical scare tactics of the anti-gun fanatics for standing in the way of common sense.

Opponents said the law would lead to disgruntled employees, angry at a co-worker or the boss, heading for the parking lot and returning, gun in hand, to extract vengeance. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and business interests said the law trumped private property rights and would keep them from guaranteeing the safety of employees and customers. These same types of false and misleading claims were made when trying to stop the original shall issue state law regarding concealed carry of firearms. Fortunately the lawmakers saw through this smokescreen.

Prior to passage of the bill, someone who wanted to carry a gun in their car during the work week was at a disadvantage. And if they worked where firearms weren't allowed on the property, it had the effect of keeping them from being able to have the firearm pretty much anywhere except at home. After all, if your end destination is the workplace and you can be fired for having a gun in the car, you have to leave it at home along with all the protection it affords at every stop along the way or from some wacko motorists who suddenly takes exception at your lane change. Don't even suggest that never happens. Marion Hammer, Past President of the National Rifle Association and a lobbyist in Tallahassee, summed it up best: "The people have won a big victory. This is about people," Hammer said. "What you have inside your personal private vehicle, as long as it's legal property and lawfully possessed, is nobody's business no matter where you park your car," Hammer said.

What about those who claim the law tramples on property rights? "Nonsense. Tell me where in the Constitution it says corporations or big businesses have the right to supersede individual and constitutional rights," she said. "I asked opponents to the bill that question and they couldn't tell me," Hammer said. Hammer said the law protects people from having their vehicles illegally searched by an employer and fired for having a firearm.

"If an employer doesn't want guns on their property and you have a concealed permit he has no say. He can't ask you if you have a gun or a concealed carry permit and he can't take action against you based on the word of a third party," Hammer said. There are exceptions. You can't take a gun in your car to school if you work there, nor can employees of jails or prisons, airports or businesses involved in defense contracts. I could make a case for responsible firearms owners being allowed to keep guns in their cars on school grounds, but that's another day. In the end, this was lawmakers doing one of the things the state should do: Protecting the rights people already have.

This law allows people with a concealed weapons permit to keep firearms in their locked vehicles at work. Employers can't search a vehicle for a firearm, ask employees if they have a firearm or concealed weapons permit and can't fire someone for having a firearm in their vehicle at work. Exceptions: Schools, jails or prisons, defense contractors, nuclear power plants.



NRA's American Rifleman Readers may know the background behind the emergence of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), an outfit that shamelessly promotes itself as an "alternative to the NRA." But this claim reminds me of the old adage: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" The AHSA staff and leadership roster reads like a Who's Who of the gun ban lobby. AHSA's introduction was in the 2006 Missouri Senate race, when the AHSA Foundation financed a direct mail attack on NRA with a piece that screamed from its headline, "The NRA Is Selling Us Out!" It falsely alleged that "NRA is supporting politicians who are trying to take away our access to public lands" when in fact NRA is leading the charge to protect hunter access to public lands. Ironically, Missouri is a showcase of NRA's conservation work.

So is it mere coincidence that recently yet another group has formed to promote itself as an "alternative to NRA?" A recent article in The Washington Post announced the formation of the Union Sportsmen's Alliance (USA). A joint effort of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and some 20-odd labor unions, the USA is intended to lure the political allegiance of gun owning union members away from the NRA and its political agenda. The NRA has been accused by this new group of communicating anti union sentiment to rank and file members to support anti-union candidates. There is not one instance of an "anti-union message" from NRA. As for supporting anti-union candidates, that is purely the result of political reality. The truth is that the vast majority of union political support goes to candidates who actively work against our personal freedoms. We should continue to oppose all candidates who would diminish our Second Amendment rights and continue to speak the truth to all union members.

Here's the issue, the unions conducted a poll and told the Post: "The poll found that about a quarter of the union members said they belonged to the NRA, an affiliation that displeases some Democratic union leaders." The substantial support that NRA enjoys from America's working families is not something that is a problem. What is our problem is the growing field of entities, even if they exist just on paper, who claim the support of gun owners and hunters, while quietly admitting their true agenda of working against our Second Amendment mission. Stay alert!

Back to top

APRIL 2008

On March 18, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, (07-290), a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

Most in attendance in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.

This is and will be a landmark case because it will be the first time in the Supreme Court's history that they have ever had the benefit of the volume of information and wisdom available on the Second Amendment, including most if not all of the scholarly works written in law school journals in the past 10 years. No other previous Second Amendment case has ever had so much factual information available.

You may read some or all of the 68 Amicus Curiae Briefs (friend of the court) filed in this case and/or read the actual transcript of the case before the Court or/and you can listen to the roughly one and a half hour presentations by the attorneys from all sides of this case. Please take advantage of this opportunity. All of this information is available by going to; http://www.nraila.org/heller/ and then going to the individual links. There are 19 Amicus briefs plus the brief by Washington DC itself in support of their ban on handguns and extreme limitations on rifles and shotguns ownership and use and their claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual one. There are 47 Amicus Briefs plus the brief from Mr. Heller's attorney in support of the individual right point of view. If you get the opportunity, and you should all really try, you will get one of the most thorough educations on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment that has ever been assembled. Something I might add that is barely touched on currently at law schools throughout the country but because of this case may become a much larger part of the law school curriculum.

At the very least you should read the list of who has filed a brief and on whose side the various players really are. For example, did you know that our very own New York State Attorney General (AG) has filed an Amicus Brief in support of the collective rights theory and of the right to ban and or severely restrict firearms ownership and use? My immediate question is; who asked him to do that? Was there a request by the Governor or of either the Assembly or the Senate in our legislative branch of government? Was there a referendum that I missed asking the citizen residents of New York State to authorize the AG to insert him-self and indirectly all of us into this case? I for one did not want him spend the time and my tax money putting together a legal brief and taking a position in opposition to our opinion that we have an individual right in the Second Amendment. Now that it is done is there anyone in the state who will make him accountable for his actions. I personally believe he, the AG has, is and will continue using his position as the Attorney General of New York State to further his personal agenda of firearms prohibition and failing that, severe firearms restrictions. Unfortunately we will all pay the price for any such stupidity because as anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows, only the law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals will merely take advantage of our defenselessness. We the law abiding will become the victims of bad public policy once again.

I am both excited and concerned over this Supreme Court case. Like most of you who read this I am looking forward to a once and for all clear decision that the Second Amendment is exactly what I and millions of other rational and reasonable people believe it to be. That is, an individual right that cannot be messed with and by that I mean limited or restricted by wrong headed legislators and or administrators such as pistol licensing authorities. That it is a right that predates the US Constitution and the reason it was put into the Bill of Rights was because the citizens at the time of creation of the US Constitution insisted that the newly formed government acknowledge this right and that they could not limit or restrict the American citizens right to firearms ownership and use. Everyone clearly acknowledges that this right does not in any way protect criminal misuse. And only criminal misuse should be addressed by legislative bodies, not crystal ball assumptions about future firearms ownership by the trustworthy people.

While excited about the potential positive outcome of this case I am also very concerned the court will write a decision that may be very narrow in scope and limit themselves to just answering the question of whether or not the Washington DC law oversteps the Second Amendment boundaries, which it does. I am concerned that without a clear, all encompassing and unambiguous decision by this Court we will win only part of the battle. I am afraid we will have to continue the daily fight with legislators, state and local courts, bureaucrats and other administrative people who are anti-gun and don't believe, won't believe in the Second Amendment. To be sure we will continue this fight, we will not go away. It would just be nice if we could get some reinforcement in our battle to preserve the rights for the next generation.


I wish to Thank Mr. Lee Zeldin, candidate for the 1st Congressional district for taking the time to appear before us and answer all the questions put to him on his knowledge and understanding of the controversy regarding the Second Amendment. Normally we get a brief 5 minute speech and out the door to another meeting by legislative candidates, so it was very refreshing to have someone spend over an hour and a half answering questions. What made this meeting even more effective and meaningful is the room was packed with SAFE members who could benefit from the dialogue with the candidate. If you didn't make it you missed a good speaker.



The SAFE Women On Target Shooting Clinic on May 3rd, 2008 will be here before you know it and as Clinic Director I need to know exactly who I can count on as NRA instructors, range personnel and clinic assistants. Anyone wishing to be a part of this clinic in one of those categories mentioned I need to hear from you in person at the next meeting or by phone at 631-475-8125 or by email right away at; jcushman@juno.com. Please don't assume I have this info already.

Back to top

March 2008

Someone once asked, is property worth taking a life? Well, throughout history, it has been. When one seeks to take what is yours unwarranted, by force, or through coercion, or subterfuge, they are breaking the law. Throughout the history of our country we have had the ability to stop anyone from doing so, and even to hold them, at gunpoint, for the police when necessary. Where the perpetrator does something menacing or threatening to the owner of the property being stolen, we have always determined that it was the perps fault, for if he/she hadn't been trying to take what was not theirs, they would not have been shot at, or injured. Just something to think about. The Nassau and Suffolk Police issue handgun licenses for those who carry large amounts of cash or valuables so property is worth taking a life if necessary.

For those of you wondering about the effectiveness and clout of the NRA and the pro firearms community, read the following. On December, 13-17, 2007, an interactive poll was conducted and surveyed 6,072 likely voters nationwide. The poll asked the following question of voters: Q. Considering the presidential election and messages that may be sent to you from the following people or groups, how important are those messages to you when considering for whom to vote? Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, National Council of LaRaza, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association, National Right-to-Life, Oprah Winfrey or Barbra Streisand? Twenty-seven percent of all likely voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association. The NRA topped other prominent political figures, organizations and celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey who recently gave her backing to Barack Obama. In fact, voters were three times more likely to support a candidate backed by the NRA than Ms. Winfrey. In terms of potential voters, an NRA endorsement could translate into 56 million eligible voters (those who are capable) or 40 million potential voters (those who do vote) vs. 19 million eligible and 13 million registered voters for Ms. Winfrey. I wonder if the candidates know this stuff.

Because of all the recent shootings at/on college campuses, otherwise known as "gun free zones" you know, the place where only the bad guy has a gun, the students themselves have decided to take action. To Whom It May Concern: During the week of April 21-25, the students across the nation will be peacefully protesting against state laws and college campus policies which prohibit concealed handgun license holders from carrying their concealed firearms on college campuses. They believe as I do that licensed individuals legally permitted to carry concealed handguns should be allowed the same measure of personal security on the college campuses. This will be a peaceful protest. The significance of the empty holsters is to symbolize that students, faculty, and guests are left defenseless on college campuses; therefore, no protestor will carry anything resembling a firearm in his or her holster. Protestors will not carry signs or banners, and nobody will make any attempt to disturb the peace. Protestors will simply go about their daily routines while wearing holsters which, in both appearance and function, differ only slightly from cell phone holsters. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are the organizers and you may learn more about this protest by visiting www.ConcealedCampus.com.

Students who are already concealed carry license holders in many states are forced to disarm when coming to school, even though they are allowed to go nearly anywhere else in the state while armed. They want to extend their ability to protect themselves and those around them on campus, where they spend a majority of their time. By wearing an empty holster to class all week they will demonstrate that they are just one more approved individual that is being forced to disarm and showing that there is one less person to defend on campus. Even those who do not have a license but support the cause are strongly encouraged to participate. Power in numbers, and a nation of students concerned about their safety is a strong message from a lot of people. PLEASE NOTE: THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO PUT A GUN IN EVERY STUDENT'S HANDS!!! They are simply saying that those who are already legally licensed should have the right to defend themselves where they spend the majority of their time, on campus. Concealed Handgun License holders have a proven track record of being some of the most peaceful members of society, and they've also been cleared of any mental instabilities or dependencies on any drug/alcohol in addition to passing one of the harshest background checks a civilian will ever encounter. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO KILL OTHERS, they are the people preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best. A holster has never killed any one. You don't need to have a concealed handgun license in order to support the fundamental right of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders. You don't even have to own a gun or be old enough to have a CHL. If you believe that the people who go about their daily lives and should be able to carry in shopping malls, movie theaters, supermarkets and on college campuses, then please show your support and wear an empty holster.

The fight over private firearm ownership is a long campaign. The anti-gun fanatics are as frustrated as we are, because they try and try and still we still have our guns. The wave of permissive concealed carry laws over the past few years has and is a huge defeat for the gun banners. The NRA is doing what a good general should do by managing the overall campaign in order to win as many battles as it can while minimizing any losses that are unavoidable. No one wins every battle and the NRA has extremely limited resources. A "never compromise" attitude or position is simply unrealistic. If you never compromise, you are not going to have the flexibility you need to stay in the fight. The way you retreat when you cannot win a particular battle is just as important as the way you attack when you can win. An orderly retreat denies the enemy an opportunity to score a decisive victory and minimizes the casualties that you suffer. A compromise bill when you know the votes are stacked against you is vastly preferable to a really bad bill that we fight a losing battle to stop. Our rights are preserved, and we can continue. For example, putting a sunset provision in the assault weapons ban. Whoever thought of that was a genius. It showed everyone that when the sunset passed, crime was unaffected. That was an orderly retreat from a losing battle, which paid dividends later. Too bad New York has its own Assault Weapons Ban. The same with the McCarthy/Schumer NICS bill following Virginia Tech shooting. Congress wanted to pass a bill, so the NRA worked hard to not only to minimize it but in this case to completely hijack the bill and get improvements in current law that had been denied to us in the recent past. The fact is a bill was going to be passed no matter what. In life you win some, you lose some, but you keep your mind on the big picture, think long term, and try to win more than you lose. I think we've improved our rights in many areas. 10 years ago you couldn't carry a concealed firearm in most of the US outside of Vermont and a few other states, now you can carry almost anywhere with a simple license. That is a huge win. We have more rights now than we did then and we are doing very well against the gun banners, it's just unfortunate that many people don't see it. The anti-gun fanatics of the world are frustrated as hell. And properly so. I say let's keep it that way.

Back to top

January-February 2008

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


December 2007

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.



What I am about to say may not be politically correct and I hope no one gets offended 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.

Back to top

November 2007

The past month has turned out to be one of the busiest months so far this year. First we had what one could only say was one of our most successful Right To Carry Conferences (RTC) and Second Amendment Rally's. The turnout of 650+ people was outstanding. Normally we expect less of a turnout because this is a local election year and that had been the trend, but we actually got more than we hoped for and expected. That to me is a positive testament of the interest and support for firearms ownership and use here on Long Island. It is the people who can make or break an issue and by their showing up for this conference the people spoke loud and clear. Maybe it was just the door prizes we gave away such as 2 SKS rifles, one Benneli shotgun and one handgun donated by Mr. Brian Anderson of Guns & Ammo located at 4762 Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, NY 11716, 631-244-0915. A Knight in line black powder rifle and 2 $25.00 gift certificates donated by Angelo at American Outdoor Sports located at 2040 Route 110, Farmingdale, NY 11735, tel;631-249-1832. 8 gift certificates for free Trap & Skeet and Sporting Clays Shooting at the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range on 165 Gerad Road in Yaphank, NY, 631-924-5600. All of these gentlemen and their businesses are worthy of your patronage and support and our thanks for their contribution in support of our cause. You should patronize these supporters whenever you need something and when you do say thank you for their continued support of our rights.

This conference like any endeavor we undertake requires many people to make it happen. Long before the doors open at our RTC we had many volunteers in the room to get everything ready so that when the doors open everything is in place and ready to go. Things such as distributing all of the literature on every seat in the house, selling memberships for NRA and SAFE, selling door prize tickets, escorting visiting legislators and guests to their seats and keeping me informed of who has come into the room so that I can announce them. Things that just make the event run smoother. Here is a partial list of these who volunteered to make our RTC the success it turned to be; Chris Baumgartner, Carol Cushman, Jim Kelly, Bill Raab, Lou Giordano, Nancy Carrero (my daughter), Ken Surprise, Greg Mirsky, Bob Kelly, Charlie Sheridan, Craig Courounis, Ed Kaspshak, Richie Snizek, Michael Houze, Charlie and Georgia Maas, Marilyn Cohen, Richie Fahie. All of the people deserve our thanks and appreciation for a job well done. If I have forgotten anyone I sincerely apologize.



Now on to the subject of the elections and who we think will help to protect our civil right to own and use firearms here on Long Island and anywhere in the country in general we might want to travel. A good indication of who is a believer of and in our rights are those who took the time to show up and be seen and mingle with our members and get the necessary feedback from their constituents on firearms issues. From the following list you may draw the conclusion that these people support your constitutional rights to and with firearms for self defense as well as recreational sports. It is my opinion that it is wise to vote for and support any legislator who supports my right to own and use firearms lawfully. After all, if they don't support my most basic human and constitutional rights such as firearms ownership and use, on what issue may I trust a public official? I am also talking about how some candidates say they are supportive of my right to own and use firearms while at the same time supporting legislation that would make it even more difficult or impossible for a lawful person get a handgun license or to exercise their absolute right to self defense. I personally don't have the desire to work for these types of frauds and neither should you. On the County level Brian Egan is running in the 7th LD in Suffolk and is clearly a better choice than Eddington. Ms. Betty Manzella in the 3rd LD is running against Browning (the legislator who wanted to permanently close the existing Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range) claims to be supportive of our fundamental rights including keeping open the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range we fought so hard for. And don't forget a long time supporter of our firearms rights Ed Romaine running in the 1st LD who was in attendance at our RTC. Also at the county level and proven past supporters of our firearms civil rights are; Thomas Barraga, Cameron Alden, Daniel Losquadro, Ellie Mystal. The rest of the sitting county legislators have sometimes supported us and at other times been opposed but at this time I have no personal knowledge about their positions with regard to firearms issues or that of their opponents. If they don't communicate with us or show up at our events we have little in the way of reliable information for making a decision about them. So before you vote you should call your elected county official and ask them to go on record with regard to their support or opposition for the private ownership and use of firearms! With regard to the Brookhaven Town Bob Di Carlo showed up at our RTC and spent quite a bit of time speaking to our 650 members about his strong support for our rights with firearm use. His opponent Brain Foley was at one time a supporter but as of late does not communicate with us or publicly take positions showing support for the firearms rights of the Brookhaven citizens. As a matter of fact the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range is in court because of Brookhaven Town. Now does that sound like we have the support of the current town and it's leaders? One last office to briefly talk about and that is the Brookhaven Highway Supervisors position. While the Brookhaven Town Department of Highways is not a legislative position, one of the candidates, Martin Haley, is a long time strong supporter of our firearms rights and he has kept in constant contact with us about all issues political, we have faith he can and will do a fine job once you elect him to run the Brookhaven Town Highway department. The main issue is; you must VOTE! We cannot possibly win these debates if we don't have legislators who will listen and support us.

It is said all elections are local regardless of the position anyone is running for and that is true. And because it is true it is even more important for us to be involved, for a couple of reasons. First, because this is in all probability the first election the person is involved in and it is absolutely imperative that we establish our credentials and credibility on the subject of firearms issues. Once we have proven that our knowledge and input on any and all firearms issues is to be trusted then these legislators and or candidates will consult with us on a regular basis. Secondly, many of these lower level positions are merely stepping stones for those legislative candidates who aspire to higher office. Historically, running for a County or Town position is but the first step in getting noticed by party leaders when a vacancy occurs in the higher offices. Running for the NYS Assembly or the NYS Senate and eventually for a Congressional or a US Senatorial seat begins with and at the local level. Lastly, at the lower level of elected offices the numbers needed to make the difference are smaller and so we the gun owning sportsmen can and should make the difference in the outcome of most local elections. That is as it should be!!! VOTE!

Back to top

October 2007

My friends, we gun owners are not extremists; in fact we are the core of what is good in modern America. Our Second Amendment is unique in the world and it is the basis of our constitutional freedoms. It recognizes a God given right and guarantees a Constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms for any and all lawful purposes. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers. Unfortunately the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who would punish legal and lawful firearms owners and those who make and sell a perfectly legitimate product, firearms, for the unlawful actions of criminals. One particularly devious effort is to use my tax dollars to pursue frivolous and baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt our legitimate firearms manufacturers.

A number of big city mayors have decided it was more important to blame the makers of a perfectly legal product than it is to control the crime in their own cities. Ironically, as SAFE prepares to have our annual Right To Carry Conference and Second Amendment Rally the federal court in New York City will hear arguments Friday, September 21st, on the lawsuit that former Mayor Giuliani filed against the firearms makers and distributors. It is also ironic that Giuliani said he doesn't want to comment on pending lawsuits. Or did he mean only on those lawsuits he initiated? It must be just coincidental that Friday the 21st of September is also the day Mr. Giuliani will be with the NRA in Washington DC seeking their support. For those of you who cannot remember back to the time Mr. Giuliani was Mayor of New York City here is a sample of his feelings and thoughts at the time on the Second Amendment. Mr. Giuliani has said the right to bear arms applies only to state militias and he described the NRA as "extremists" in a 1995 interview with PBS' Charlie Rose: "The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. It's almost what the extremists on the other side do. I think the extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic, the slippery slope theory. 'If you give one point, then your entire argument is going to fall apart,' and we kind of get destroyed by that," Giuliani said. I would ask all of you to also keep in mind he has never said he made a mistake or was wrong on this subject or that that he will work to correct his past actions. You all need to ask yourself whether or not you want a man in the White House that does not truly believe that you and I have a right to own and use firearms for self defense and/or for recreation. I certainly don't!

I recently found this article and I think it is an appropriate response to use for those who don't believe in having or using a personal firearm for self protection. And while I personally subscribe to this opinion I do not condemn those who for whatever reason do not have what it takes to take a life if necessary to survive. As an NRA Certified Instructor in a number of firearm disciplines I have raised this issue with my students many times and I do object to anyone who would ridicule me or those like me because I would be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the life of myself or any of my family members. Here is the article. An observation from the Virginia Citizen Defense League: When you call 911, you summon a man with a gun to use force on your behalf. The fact that you don't personally own the weapon in question doesn't make you morally superior. On the contrary, it makes you a hypocrite of the first order. You absolve yourself from having to use force by shifting that responsibility to another person, and then you congratulate yourself on your civilized attitude.

The proper reply to anyone who claims that "a gun's purpose is to kill people" is that "a gun's purpose is to protect people." In point of fact the primary legal purpose of a gun is to protect and not to kill. Killing, as implied by anti-gun fanatics is already against the law, and since guns are legal products, this distorted view is false on its face. The fact that guns have and are used for recreational activities such as hunting, target shooting both formal and informal is meaningful and adds directly to the argument of firearms for self defense. The message that is often lost or is frequently and inaccurately portrayed in the news media is this: Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns prevent crime. Guns are good. Guns protect us. Guns are for safety. And of course, guns are why America is still free today. I encourage all of you to seriously consider responding to the bogus guns-kill-people statement with the guns-save-peoples lives argument much more often.

People bent on aggression or on preying upon their fellow citizens or on bringing death and destruction against their neighbors usually seek the best means at their disposal to accomplish their evil goals. They may be mean, angry, greedy, wicked, deranged or just evil, but they are not stupid. It is in their best interests to use the most effective, powerful and lethal tools they can obtain to accomplish their illegal ends. That is why they arm themselves accordingly, and have throughout history. Knowing this, is it not in our own best interest to do likewise and arm ourselves with the most deadly and effective tools that can be used to defend us from such an attack? Whatever weapons are used by criminals the other side (our side) must quickly adapt to. Gunfire operates in both directions.

In his classic short book, The Principles of Personal Defense, Col. Jeff Cooper begins by observing that, "Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life... the peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists everywhere and at all times." Wish as we may there is no end in sight to this unhappy condition, the Cooper Conundrum, the main reason lasting peace is so elusive. For this reason, the innocent must, if they are to be spared the injustice of homicide, theft or enslavement, be prepared to defend themselves against other people who would take what is not theirs to take, including innocent life. Preserving your personal peace and freedom sometimes requires the use of force. People have a right and can do it themselves, or organize or hire others to do it for them, but it is necessary at this point in human history.

We should one and all keep these ideas in mind when dealing with or listening to those who are in office or who are seeking our support in the upcoming elections. These are valid and legitimate questions to be asking all candidates running for public office and we should demand an answer to them. We have a right to know before, not after the elections what their knowledge and/or position is on this issue. And if any should not understand the issue we can and will explain it to them. In my opinion anyone who is willing to take away or in any way limit my (our) absolute right to self defense or that of my family does not deserve to be in any public office. As a matter of fact these questions are more important than most other issues we all have to face such as taxes, medical care, illegal aliens or the issue of our being in Iraq. It is my opinion that those who hold public office are required as their oath of office says, and that is to Faithfully defend our Constitution including the right to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes. Anyone who does not cannot and should not be trusted by the people.

Back to top

Sept 2007

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.



You should all mark your calendars now for Sunday, September 23rd, 2007 as our Annual SAFE/NRA Right To Carry Conference and Second Amendment Rally. Like last year it will be held at the Sheraton Long Island located at; 110 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, Smithtown, NY 11788. The phone number for directions is 631-231-1100. The doors will open at 12:00 Noon and the program will start at 1:00 PM.

We have always been fortunate to have outstanding and very high profile pro gun rights speakers and this year will not be any different. This year we are particularly honored and proud to announce as one of our guest speakers; the famous Ms. Susan Howard, star of the long running television program Dallas and star of many movies. Ms. Howard is not only an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment she is a NRA Life member and Member of the NRA Board of Directors. She has been featured in many of NRA's public service ads on firearms issues as well as the "Eddie Eagle" child safety video and the "Refuse to be a Victim" program. Ms. Howard is also well known for using her popularity and fame to promote firearms safety, education and training in the State of Texas where she served as Commissioner of Parks and Wildlife. In addition to be nominated for a number of Emmy and Golden Globes Ms. Howard was the 2001 recipient of the NRA Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award.

The rest of our Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally speakers are literally a who's who of pro gun rights figures. We are again honored to have Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association. Mr. LaPierre has been on every major television and radio talk show program and published in every pro gun journal in this country supporting our right to own and use firearms lawfully. He has personally debated against every radical anti gun fanatic in the country who would take away our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms for lawful purposes and showed them to be the fraud they are.

The Honorable Bob Barr, former Congressman from Georgia and in my opinion one of the most knowledgeable people on the firearms issue especially with regard to the United Nations. Because of his expertise he was appointed as a United States Delegate for two United Nations Conferences on firearms. Congressman Barr has the rare ability to take a complex subject and have it make sense to us while making sure those who would deprive us of our rights on the international level are prevented from pulling the wool over our eyes. Congressman Barr has been and continues to be on the NRA Board of Directors.

Mr. John C. Sigler is the current President Elect of the National Rifle Association. President John Sigler has been a speaker before at our Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally and we are honored to have him once again. He is a former Navy Submariner and a retired Police Captain as well as holding numerous pistol and shotgun awards in his home state of Delaware. President Sigler has been and continues to be one of the most active and aggressive legislative people in the State of Delaware with regard to our firearms heritage and rights. This man does not know the meaning of quitting and I am honored to call him my friend.

Mr. James Fotis, Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, LEAA. This is the largest and most active rank and file police organization in the country working with the firearms community to help us maintain our constitutional rights. Mr. Fotis is the most highly decorated police officer in the history of the Lynbrook New York, Police Department. Mr. Fotis is also a prolific writer in the Solder of Fortune national magazine.

You cannot and will not find a more articulate, passionate and knowledgeable group of people than our scheduled speakers. If you truly want to know what is going on and how you can help fight for the rights we have and need to protect for future generations than you need to attend this Conference. This does not even take into account the prizes you could win.



Another project we are putting the final touches on is our Women On Target Shooting Clinic on Long Island in Nassau County on Saturday, October 13th, 2007. We have quite a few women signed up already for this clinic. As a matter of fact quite a few of the women on our list are those who could not get into our last class because we did not have enough room and they asked to be put on a standby list for the next clinic. As usual there is no charge for the class and we depend entirely on donations to pay for everything. That is to say we provide everything needed such as the firearms, ammunition, targets, hearing protection, eye protection, coffee, soda, tea, cake, donuts, informational booklets and the chance to ask any questions you have.

The clinic will be held at the Nassau County Indoor Rifle & Pistol Range, located in Mitchell Field Park across from the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Earl Ovington Blvd, Uniondale, New York. You may call 516-572-0421 for directions. The morning class begins at 8:45 AM (should arrive by 8:30 AM) and ends at 12:00 Noon. The afternoon class starts at 12:45 PM (should arrive by 12:30 PM) and ends at 4:00 PM. Any questions regarding the program or to sign up for the class call me at 631-475-8125.

Back to top

June 2007

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


May 2007

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!

It took less than 24 hours for authorities to trace two handguns used by Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung Hui, proving that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is lying when he claims that legitimate law enforcement access to trace data is being blocked by current federal law. Mayor Bloomberg's campaign to undo federal legislation that prevents him from conducting any fishing expedition that would allow access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has just been shown to be based on not only fabrication and falsehood, but on outright LIES. Local police, working with the BATFE, were able to trace both handguns quickly, even though Hui apparently filed off the serial numbers from both guns. That is only possible if police currently can access BATFE trace capabilities. Bloomberg's false and misleading effort to undo the federal law that now protects sensitive data from politically motivated individuals like he is and is really nothing more than an anti-gun sham. The speed of the law enforcements investigation proves that Mayor Bloomberg has been lying all along about legitimate access to the federal gun trace data. This data has always been available for legitimate, on going criminal investigations and he knows it.

The truth is Bloomberg's only interest in broadening access to that data is so that he and other anti-gun politicians can use it to mount more bogus gun shop stings and bully firearms retailers with harassment lawsuits. The current federal statute was adopted specifically to protect the privacy of American gun owners from politicians like Bloomberg, and to prevent the kind of grandstanding he launched last year with his vigilante operation against gun shops in five states. "This isn't about stopping gun crimes, it's about invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens," Gottlieb stated. "The speed with which authorities traced the guns used by the Virginia Tech gunman prove that the system works just fine for a legitimate criminal investigation. If Michael Bloomberg continues saying otherwise, that's a lie."




Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder


Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder. Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment. Ramey said the man told her he would leave.

"I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said. She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun. "I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now." Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.


Back to top

April 2007

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!

On March 9th, 2007 the District of Columbia Circuit Court affirmed that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an inherent individual right to bear arms. This ruling should have a positive impact on the current Washington D.C. gun ban that the National Rifle Association is currently fighting to overcome.

The majority opinion of the court states, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows: The D.C. Circuit Court went further in upholding individual freedoms, rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not a State. The D.C. City Council is expected to appeal the ruling, so this not over yet but it is a great start. Want to read the full 75 page decision, go to; http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/dccourt04_7041a.pdf.



City of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin Once Again Found In Contempt Of Court
District Court Judge to City Attorney: Conduct "wholly unprofessional"


The NRA and law abiding gun owners won yet another victory recently against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and former police Chief Warren Riley. Judge Carl J. Barbier, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, granted NRA's motion for contempt against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Warren Riley for "failure to provide initial disclosures and to compel answers to discovery" during NRA's injunction against the City for their illegal gun confiscation of law abiding citizens following Hurricane Katrina in 2006.

"Once more, Mayor Ray Nagin and former police chief Warren Riley are being held accountable for considering themselves above the law," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "These men have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming every step of the way in this process to return the lawfully owned firearms to their own citizens, and Judge Barbier rightly found them both in contempt of court for their complete lack of respect for the rule of law." Furthermore, Judge Barbier concluded that the delaying tactics by the City's attorney, Joseph Vincent DiRosa, Jr, were "wholly unprofessional and shall not be condoned." Mr. DiRosa admitted in Court that he had "no good reason" to explain his actions and has been ordered to pay partial legal fees to NRA's attorneys for their wasted time and money. Ray Nagin, Warren Riley and their attorney refused to provide vital information to the U.S. District Court for their unconstitutional acts in their city's time of great need.


Firearm Related Fatalities at Record Lows and Accidents Among Youths Are
Down Significantly

A new report from the National Safety Council (NSC) shows that accidental firearm related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths and firearms continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership level rises in the U.S.

Statistics in the NSC 2007 Injury Facts report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm related fatalities over a 10 year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003, contrary to what most of the general media would have you think. The NSC's most recent statistics show 109,277 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types in 2005 and Less than 1 percent involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, poisonings and falls, claiming 75 percent of all accidental deaths.

Because pro gun organizations throughout the United States have made the continuing awareness and education of firearm safety and responsible firearms storage a priority these record low numbers can be driven even lower. The declining trends reported by the National Safety Council are also supported by research available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the CDC, in the past decade, all four regions of the U.S. have witnessed dramatic declines in the number of accidental firearm related fatalities. Other new findings from the National Safety Council include:
  • There were 730 accidental firearm related fatalities in 2005, down from 750 reported in 2004. Firearm-related fatalities are down 40 percent from the 1,225 accidents reported in 1995.

  • Accidental firearm related fatalities among children ages 14 and under declined 7 percent in 2005 when compared to the previous year and were down 69 percent between 1995 and 2003.

  • Accidental firearm related injuries were down 11 percent among teenagers (ages 15-19) when compared to the previous year.

  • Accidental firearm related fatalities continue to have the largest percentage decrease of all measured types of accidental fatalities.
The estimated number of citizen owned firearms in the U.S. has risen to more than 290 million, while the number of American households with at least one firearm is now about 47.8 million.



Just for your information, the SAFE Board of Directors has decided to have our SAFE Annual Meeting and Elections, starting this year 2007 in December and not in June. We believe it will be more efficient and effective to have the Annual Meeting in December. A new Board of Directors will then start with new State, Federal and/or local legislators, depending on the elections each year.

Back to top

March 2007

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.



Another issue the press continues to ignore is a recent FBI study that says all gun laws are ignored by cop killers. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has revealed that for more than two months, a damning report on a five year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about how cop killing criminals ignore all gun laws including where they get their guns. "The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) last year," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved, had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows." The study is called "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers." Waldron called it a "smoking gun" in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Antigun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know this information as they campaign against the so called "gun show loophole," he said.

The Force Science News newsletter quotes Ed Davis, who told the IACP that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered in the slightest by any law, federal, state or local that had ever been established to prevent gun ownership by criminals. They just laughed at gun laws." The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter also stated, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows." "This is a devastating revelation," Waldron said, "and while Mr. Davis should be applauded for telling the IACP that criminals ignore gun laws, we're wondering why the IACP has been quiet about this, and why the mainstream press has never reported this, and probably never will. "Force Science News calls the gun show loophole a 'media myth'," Waldron said, "and that's what we gun rights activists have been saying for years. It's time for the IACP leadership to acknowledge that gun laws don't stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the 'arms bazaars for criminals' as they have been portrayed."

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


January-February 2007

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


December 2006

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


November 2006

Once again thanks to all of you the SAFE Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally was an outstanding success. Over 600 hundred people showed up filling the room and impressing the hell out of 17 current legislators and want to be legislators. This is in fact the biggest audience most of them have ever seen and I am proud to report that this gathering of sportsmen is larger than any other anywhere in the State of New York, and I have been to a few. We even had the president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Mr. Tom King and his wife in attendance and he said he thought it was a fantastic gathering of gun owners. It is unfortunate Mr. Faso did not make it to the Conference; I truly believe he would have been impressed with not only size but with the energy of the crowd. The enthusiasm was felt by every candidate for office who attended and they told me so. Mr. Spencer, (the candidate running against Hillary Clinton, who by the way could not make it to our meeting) on the other hand made a great speech and from what he said he clearly appears to know and understand the firearms issue and he will be getting my vote on election day. I personally have this philosophy that if a legislator in any political office does not trust me with any kind of firearm then why should I trust them to fairly and effectively represent me? Why should I trust them to do the right thing when they obviously don't trust me to do the right thing? Everything I just said means one thing; VOTE!!!



Most anti-gun legislative proposals are erroneous and draconian and are built on a foundation of lies, distortions and deliberate misrepresentations that serves only to harass and criminalize law-abiding gun owners. They are usually forced upon a largely uninformed population and are almost always based on the false promises of crime control and public safety. An example of this type of BAD legislation follows.

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 children. These dangerous criminals rely on the fact that no one on campus or school grounds will be able to offer any resistance. Congress passed a law in 1990, renewed it in 1995, and though it cannot stop murderers, it has in fact enabled many, experts say.

"The Gun-Free-School law is a cruel hoax that costs lives," said Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America. "Time and time again, these killers are using the law to provide a safe haven, where they are the only people with guns." It's no surprise these madmen never attack gun stores, police stations, or other places where people are known to be armed, he says, and news reports consistently overlook this point.

Anti-gun teacher's unions, school administrators and legislators project their own personal fears onto the system in order to disarm honest people, instead of taking prudent steps to protect the kids. This fear of an inanimate object is in fact a poorly understood morbid fear of weapons that afflicts millions. It is one of the greatest undiagnosed and untreated sources of harm in the country. People who are terrified of guns give themselves a good feeling and a false sense of security by passing such dangerous laws. In reality, all they have done is create target rich, no-risk environments for monsters that have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally-armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building," says Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Second Amendment Foundation. The Pennsylvania school attack comes less than a week after a similar attack in Colorado. "Gun-control extremists will use this incident to claim we have not done enough," Gottlieb predicted, and as in the past, the harm caused by gun-free laws has lead to calls for more of the same. This is irrational, which is a sign of hoplophobia (fear of guns) behavior. "They have disarmed the wrong people and left our schools, and the children inside, vulnerable to this kind of atrocity."

"We need empowerment, not avoidance," Korwin says, who believes that properly trained and prepared teachers are at least one prudent step to take against a rash of homicidal maniacs preying on schools. Hundreds of 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 can provide little help against the criminals who simply ignore the words in a distant law book.

Several states have introduced Gun-Free-Zone Liability laws, which allow people to make the arbitrary and un-enforced gun-free zones, but would hold them liable for any harm the zones cause. It is believed this would make people think twice about making the dangerous and negligent zones. Sample bill language is here: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/index.htm

Alan Gottlieb categorizes gun-free zones as a myth, since they stop no one, leaving victims defenseless. An unintended consequence of the federal gun-free-school-zones law, 18 USC 922(q), is to criminalize millions of citizens who travel near schools. Because the law stipulates a 1,000-foot gun-free perimeter around schools, virtually all private travel with firearms in American cities violates the law.

This creates tens of millions of federal felonies, of unsuspecting citizens, with no enforcement, but no actual harm done. The law is a travesty and needs repeal. See maps and details here: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

On the subject of recent school shootings and in a remarkable moment of candor, even the usually rabid anti-gun Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell acknowledged what we have been saying for years: Stronger gun laws could not and will never prevent the horrible shooting yesterday at the Amish school in Lancaster County. Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack, noting. You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life." We have consistently said that such crimes are impossible to predict, and equally impossible to prevent with passage of yet another gun law.

This shooting, and the ones recently in Colorado and Wisconsin, and every school shooting in the past 10 years all had one thing in common, they all happened in so- called 'gun-free school zones', where students and adult staff are essentially helpless. Gun control extremism has disarmed the wrong people and created a risk free environment for those who would commit murder and mayhem. We can no longer accept the false illusion that gun control and gun-free zones will keep children safe. Like all other gun control laws, this one has been a monumental failure, only this one is literally killing our children.

Back to top

October 2006

Are you ready for the Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally this year? I'm not. I always wind up running around at the last minute trying to make sure all is in place for a great event. Then I realize a great event only takes place when you the participant arrive at the Conference. Only when you get the chance to meet and greet the speakers and the other public officials who attend and are running for public office and they in turn see all of you in attendance can this event be termed great! It is you the attendees and more specifically the large number of attendees that truly makes this event great. Those people running for public office have learned that this is the place to be seen especially since it is the largest turnout of voters on any subject anywhere in New York State. Gun owners and civil rights activists have become much more educated and much more politically active then ever before and we have no intention of slowing down.



In this issue of the SAFE Legislative Report you will find a letter sent to me from a Mr. Italo Zanzi the Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District. In it I believe he makes it clear where he stands on the Second Amendment. He appears to support our right to own and use firearms for recreation as well as for self defense. His opponent Congressman Tim Bishop has also made his opinion very clear. He however is opposed to the lawful ownership of all firearms by his constituents as stated in his letter to Mr. Gary Burgess the Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC) for the NRA in the 1st Congressional District of New York. The question I would ask and I think you should too of all public officials is; if I cannot trust the elected official to safeguard and protect one of my most valuable civil rights, the Second Amendment, then what exactly should I trust them with? On what issue should I believe they will be truly a reflection of me the American citizen? On what issue may I trust them to do the right thing instead of the politically correct thing?


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.



In the Attorney Generals election they are a number of candidates and from what I have read in the papers none of them have a clue as to the importance and value of civilian firearms ownership. All of them would take your right as a law abiding citizen and limit what you can own and use especially in self defense. It is almost as if these people do not believe in citizen self defense. All of these candidates seem to believe naively or stupidly that if gun ownership is restricted or extremely limited crime will go down. They would only have to look at Washington DC to see the folly of that idea. The place with the most restrictions on the law abiding public is in fact the crime and murder capitol of the entire United States. And right across the river in Virginia where all lawful citizens can get a firearm the crime rate in general is one of the lowest in the nation. Now why do you think that is the case? More importantly, why don't these so professionals know this? Or do they know these facts and are choosing to ignore them so they can justify there own personal anti gun agenda. I for one have never trusted an official that doesn't trust me. In my opinion one of the worst candidates is Andrew Cuomo. Just read some of his quotes below and see for yourself he is not a friend of any lawful firearm owner. On the contrary, he is an enemy of free people.

"We must hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable for their products - period. We must be creative and proactive and use economic pressure to force the gun industry to be responsible. We can organize law enforcement agencies across the state to agree to purchase weapons only from those manufacturers and dealers that follow a code of conduct. We did it in the Clinton administration and we will do it again. New York must finally pass a state assault-weapons ban. There is no legitimate sporting purpose for these deadly weapons, which threaten police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us," All lies and distortions.


Back to top

Sept 2006

On August 22nd, 2006 there was a full Suffolk County Legislature meeting where they considered IR-1738-2006, a bill introduced by Legislator Kate Browning. This bill would have permanently closed the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range and canceled the negotiated in good faith existing contract between Mr. Mark Wroobel and Suffolk County. This bill also wanted to create a search committee to find another location for a shooting range supposedly better suited to the area, which by the way we had no objection to this section of the bill. The original bill was introduced back in June when the Range was not yet open and that version wanted to cease and desist from doing any further reconstruction on the Range and stop it from opening at all. The version on the County agenda last night was an amended version and this one wanted to close the now open Range (reopened on July 15th, 2006) permanently and cancel the contract approved by the County Legislature with the current vendor, Mr. Wroobel. The SAFE members are to be congratulated for being at all of the endless debates and discussions and all of the Parks & Recreation Committee meetings allowing the range reconstruction to continue. Since the reopening of this Range, there have been more than 1000 shooters using this facility, a mere five weeks of operation. As you might expect I/we are opposed to IR-1738-2006.

We arrived at the County Legislative Building at 3:00 PM and the official meeting started 4:00 PM. At a little past midnight (9 hours later) on August 22nd, 2006 the County Legislature voted 15 to 3 to oppose IR-1738 thus killing it. Those voting in favor of closing the range and canceling the contract thus denying sportsmen a place to shoot were Legislators; Kate Browning (sponsor of the bill), Legislator Jon Cooper and Legislator Jack Eddington. We had over 140 pro-gun people in attendance and 102 had signed up to speak publicly to oppose this legislation and keep the range open. All of the people who attended have my personal gratitude and thanks for taking the time out of their schedules to make sure our right and ability to own and use firearms lawfully is recognized. Having a legitimate shooting range is just as important and necessary as the right to own a firearm.

For those of you not completely familiar with this issue, for the past 5+ years the members of SAFE and a lot of other pro-gun sportsmen and women have fought one hell of a battle to keep open the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range in Yaphank NY. Hundreds of our members have showed up at various County Legislature Park Committee meetings as well as full County Legislature meetings and we thought we had answered all questions of concern regarding the Trap & Skeet Range. We have also met a number of times with the County Executive, Steve Levy and his staff to answer any and all questions. And I am glad to say that County Executive Levy has been very fair and open minded about this issue. While I will not going to go into all the boring detail, which would fill many pages, I am honor bound to say he has listened carefully to all sides and taken into consideration all of the information available and because he has, he is a proven supporter of reopening the Trap & Skeet Range. He has on a regular basis communicated to everyone involved his opinion that this Range should and will open. It is and will be to the benefit of thousands of Suffolk County residents who are shotgun shooters as well as others throughout the Long Island region.

Because this range is one of the very few of its kind in the region, which includes Suffolk and Nassau Counties and all of New York City, it will generate not only revenue to the county directly from the range but indirectly from all of the businesses in the area. All will see an increase in income from travelers from outside the immediate area such as gas stations, restaurants, and other stores and for tax purposes this is good for Suffolk County. I believe Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy has exhibited good and sound judgment on this issue and I for one wish to express my gratitude to him. I think all SAFE members should be equally grateful for his support. Keep in mind that I have spent many years in this legislative arena and it is uncommon to find an open minded and fair chief executive. Most of the time I find people who are more interested in being politically correct and not morally or ethically correct. Thank you Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy. Hope to see you and your staff at our Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally where we will be able to publicly thank you.



The National Rifle Association's Civil Rights Defense Fund (NRACRDF) is sponsoring both a scholarship and an essay contest for law students in the United States in celebration of the Second Amendment as an integral part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Scholarship applicants must be third-year law students as of Fall 2006, who submit articles on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Articles must be of quality suitable for publication in a law review journal and authors may not have been previously admitted to practice law in the United States at the date of submission. Papers cannot have been previously published. Citations should conform to A Uniform System of Citation, current edition. The scholarships will be awarded to first, second, and third place winners in the amounts of $12,500, $5,000, and $2,500 respectively. The essay contest is open to all current law students who have not been previously admitted to practice law in the United States at the date of submission. The theme for the essay is "The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms as a Federally Protected Right." Papers should be double spaced, not exceed 30 pages in length, exclusive of endnotes, of law review quality, and cannot have been previously published. Citations should conform to the current edition of A Uniform System of Citation. Cash prizes will be awarded to first, second, third and fourth place winners in the amounts of $5,000, $3,000, $2,000 and $1,000 respectively.

Submissions must be postmarked or delivered on or before May 31, 2007. The author's full name, address, and phone numbers, as well as a brief discourse on the author's legal education, should accompany entries. For any additional questions, or a listing of scholarly reference materials, please call (703) 267-1250.

Please mail entries to: The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, C/O NRA Office of General Counsel, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030, and specify scholarship or essay contest on the envelop. For questions regarding the contest please call (703) 267-1250.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was founded in 1978 to preserve and defend the civil and constitutional rights of the individual to keep and bear arms in a free society. It is also charged with the purpose of encouraging inquiry, research and scholarly works on the right to keep and bear arms. For additional information please visit our webpage at www.nradefensefund.org.

Back to top


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

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
New York Law Journal, June 9, 2006

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?

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?


Anti-Gun Mayors Plot Demise Of Individual Firearms Rights

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


May 2006

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.

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.

Back to top


April 2006

US Supreme Court Justice Does the Right thing

I 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.

"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

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!

Back to top


March 2006

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.



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
By JOHN STOSSEL

MYTH # 5 - Guns Are Always Bad for Us

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.



Anti-gun Fanatics Object to Washington Redskins and the NRA working
together for the benefit of Children

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 2006

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.



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 2005

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!



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 2005

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.



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 2005

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.



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.

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:

  • The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.

  • It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.

  • It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against armor. The NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)

Here's what this amendment does not do:

  • The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

  • The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

  • The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

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.



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.

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



May 2005

First 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 "weapon" is anything that can be used against another to instill fear or to inflict pain or suffering or severe injury. "Assault" is a human behavior, not an object. The news media's favorite term, "weapon of choice for criminals' was in fact a Louisville Slugger in my day growing up in New York. The weapon of choice is not relevant but what is and always has been is the action of the person committing the crime and NOT the tool they use that is the crime.

These bills, A-2466/S-2445 add insult and further injury to an already faulty law that has no impact on criminals but severely impacts on lawful citizens. These bills also seek to include all semi automatic firearms into the now proven worthless ballistic databank, section 396-ff of the general business law. This has been another multi million dollar boondoggle that has led to no criminal prosecutions or criminal apprehensions. Failure to comply would require you to make the current legal firearms totally inoperable thus destroying thousands of dollars of value or you must surrender it to the authorities thereby giving something worth thousands of dollars away.

Why anyone would want to add lawful citizen personal information to a useless databank system that other states have either had or were contemplating and are now thoroughly rejecting because of the unreliability of the system? I'll tell you why. It is because those proposing this law know that criminals will not obey this law if passed anymore than they obey any law. And this is what they want in order to progressively increase the types of firearms that lawful citizens can own and use. It truly has nothing to do with criminal use but simple possession of a lawful and reliable firearm by law abiding citizens because they are the only ones who are affected by such draconian legislation. They are the only ones who obey all laws and the ones who will suffer the most if this proposed legislation becomes law.

If this isn't bad enough this bill proposes to give unelected officials; the State Police, the power to make any and all rules and regulations regarding the disposition, procedures, background checks (that can be even more offensive than the current law) on lawful citizens. And John Q. Public has no recourse what so ever because we the public do not hire nor can we make accountable anyone who abuses his/her authority in the so called performance of their duty. I don't know about you but I want a publicly elected official to be accountable to me, the public for any wrongful action or inaction of any departmental personnel. You know that will never happen if they pass this law, they will simply pass buck by saying that they had nothing to do with the latest rules or regulations. Those elected by the public and only those should write the laws that govern the citizens and only after open hearings and much debate by and with the public. I elected them to do this not some bureaucrat who is nameless and faceless and in most cases not accountable.

Everyone who reads this and agrees needs to contact Senate President Pro Tem, Senator Joe Bruno at; 518-455-3181, Speaker of the Assembly, Assemblyman Sheldon Silver at; 518-455-3791, Chairman, Assembly Codes Committee, Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol at;518-455-4477 and Chairman, Senate Codes Committee, Senator Dale Volker at; 518-455-3471.

Back to top

April 2005

Each month this newsletter/legislative report is filled with information with regard to your individual right to own, use, possess and transport all types of firearms legally and lawfully. The question I have is; what do you do with it? Do you just read it and say to yourself; that's interesting or I didn't know that! I constantly try my best to give you all the information I can about firearms laws, those already on the books and those that are just being proposed that you should know about. If you like what I provide, you can validate that by doing something with and about it.

You all must realize that once you know about proposed pro-gun or anti-gun legislation you have an obligation to write letters, sometimes make phone calls, or personally visit the legislators that have or will have some say as to whether or not this latest proposal will become the next law of the land. If it is a good bill it is just as important to let our elected officials know our opinion about that as we would if the bill was a bad bill. In either case they cannot read our minds and so it is our responsibility to make sure they know what we want. When we fail to let them know they can and often do whatever they want. Sometimes they do what they want anyway but it should never be because I/we didn't make sure they knew what I thought about the subject.

Please be assured you do not have to be a scholar in order to write a letter of support or of opposition to a firearm bill. Just keep it simple and direct. This newsletter/legislative report usually provides you with many reasons why a bill is either good or bad. You are free to use those and/or any other reasons you can come up with. Never insult the person you are writing to but feel free to tear apart and criticize a bad legislative proposal. Just make sure you are clear as to what you think and what you want the legislator you are writing to, to do. Leave no doubt about what you are asking the legislator to do. Also, don't forget to ask that if they cannot support your position (pro or con) ask them to explain why not? You have a right to know what your elected representative is doing and why. Making a legislator accountable for what he/she does in office is the first step in citizenship.

Recently a bill that would drastically expand the New York State current "assault weapons" ban by redefining what constitutes an "assault weapon" was approved by the NYS Assembly Codes Committee. In addition to expanding the ban, A-2466 would require those who currently own any firearm deemed an "assault weapon" to register it, render it permanently inoperable, or turn it in to the police. Those who choose to register their firearms would be subject to an additional NICS check and would be required to have the firearm tested for entry in to the state's ballistic imaging program. The bill is expected to be considered on the floor soon, so you are all encouraged to contact your Assembly member and urge him or her to OPPOSE A-2466! Don't wait, do it now. Use the letter in this edition of the newsletter as a guide on how to write to legislators. Don't try to put everything in one letter.

Recently our own anti-gun House Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced legislation to ban alleged terror suspects on the "No Fly List" from buying firearms a day after a government report showed that some on that list had been able to legally purchase firearms.

Joining Ms. McCarthy are anti-gun New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg and several other anti-gun Democratic colleagues who wrote to FBI director Robert Mueller asking for a meeting about what legislative fixes might be in order. The issue could emerge in the US Senate in some form later this year. We need to keep an eye open for it.

The Government Accountability Office report said people associated with terrorist groups had taken advantage of loopholes in U.S. gun laws that do not automatically bar a person belonging to such a group from buying a gun. It documented 44 attempts and 35 successful sales in five months of 2004, and another 12 sales later in the year.

This report has left out a lot of information that the public should know about. Unfortunately we cannot depend on the likes of McCarthy or Lautenberg to make sure it is brought to the attention of the American public in a fair and even handed manner. So, while this report was widely publicized, the response from the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting sports Foundation was not. Their opinions and observations are in another part of this newsletter for your information. Make sure you read them and then circulate them.

There is another serious problem for citizens in this state who chose to protect themselves from violent criminals. What is needed is a law that REMOVES the duty to retreat in the face of criminal attack. What we need is a law that creates the clear presumption that anyone who is in your home without being invited is an attacker or intruder and intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly physical force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of such an attack. This new law should also prohibit prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and should also prohibit civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people.

Over time the courts in New York State have clearly eroded the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a duty to retreat or not allowing a homeowner to forcefully defend that which is his. Law-abiding citizens should not be victimized by the state courts for failing to retreat on their own property or any other place for that matter that they have a right to be when attacked by an unlawful intruder or criminal. Nor should they be victims of a system that punishes them, financially or otherwise for standing up to criminals who would harm them or their families. What do you think?

Back to top

March 2005

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

Remember, you do not need to be a Brookhaven Town or Suffolk County resident to write to the Town Supervisor and Board members. You only need to express your strong opinion and desire to have the range be given an exemption to the ridiculously low noise standard in the Town. You should inform them of your use of this shooting facility and the surrounding facilities and your willingness to spend money in the town. We need to contact these people now either by writing to them or by calling their offices. Hard copy in their hands is better than just a phone call.

On another issue a recent report by the Maryland State Police recommends repeal of a law that requires collection of ballistic imaging information and destroys one of the favorite myths of gun control extremists. In its report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. This report admitted what we have known all along, guns found to be used in the commission of crime are not the ones being entered into the system by law abiding citizens.

Maryland's Gov. Robert Ehrlich's administration should be congratulated for having released this information. The Maryland research also reveals that the exact same program in New York State has produced not a single trace that has led to the solution of a crime. I think Gov. George Pataki ought to seriously consider scrapping New York State's useless IBIS program as well and save taxpayers here about $4 million dollars annually.

Current law in New York and Maryland require that a fired bullet and a cartridge case from each handgun sold in the state be provided for entry into the respective state's IBIS database. This just adds more to the cost of the firearm for the law abiding citizen. Fanatical gun control groups supported this requirement because it amounts to a gun registration system disguised as a crime fighting tool.

The Maryland State Police have admitted that the ballistic imaging doesn't work, and is a waste of money. Technicians with the California Department of Justice said the same thing two years ago. Most if not all gun rights groups in the country have been saying the same thing all along; that ballistic imaging was a fraud as a crime-prevention tool, and now it's also being proven as completely ineffective as a crime-solving tool. The taxpayers of New York have a right to expect to have their hard earned dollars will be wisely spent on genuine anti-crime measures, not on some bogus scheme that amounts to nothing more than gun registration by another name.

Back to top

 


January-February 2005

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.



Re-elect John Cushman
to the NRA Board of Directors


As many of you know I am once again running for the National Rifle Association Board of Directors. I am in need of your help. All NRA voting members will shortly get their ballot in the mail, most likely with the February issue of your NRA magazine. You will see 31 names of people nominated by the nominating committee and by petition. I am glad to say I have been nominated by both methods. What remains is to be elected because only 25 will be selected by the membership. There are some very high profile people running this year such as Tom Selleck, movie star, Zell Miller, former US Congressman, John Milius movie producer, Roy Innis, chairman of CORE and James Gilmore, former Governor of Viginia. All very good people, but the question is where does that leave me?

I have been an activist and worker much longer than most of these people in fighting to protect and preserve our constitutionally guaranteed firearms rights. That does not mean I think I am better than them. It just means they have National name recognition and I don't and that helps them and does not help me. The fact that men and women of this caliber, stature and national recognition are interested in serving on the NRA Board is testimony to the importance and power of the NRA in American culture and this where I need your help. The people running because of their name recognition will easily get elected. In order for me to get elected I will need as many votes as I can get and I hope I can count on yours. I also hope you will help me in getting other NRA voting members to vote for me.

I believe I have done a good job of getting the NRA to recognize the importance and value of the gun owners and Second Amendment activists of Long Island. I have brought more NRA representation and support to Long Island than anyone else ever has and I wish to continue to do so. Because I am now officially retired, I can and will have more time to make sure the firearms owners of Long Island are forcefully and effectively represented in all areas of government. The rest as they say is up to you. I need people who go to the various shooting ranges and or gun and hunting clubs to make their members aware I am running for the NRA Board and that I am deserving of their vote. Just for your information I serve on the following NRA Committees; Executive Committee, Vice Chair of Grassroots Development, Public Affairs, NRA Whittington Center Board of Trustees, (the NRA shooting and hunting facility in Raton, New Mexico) and the Military & Veteran Affairs committee.


By the time you get this newsletter the holidays will be over but I sincerely hope you all had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy and Healthy New Year. I was fortunate to be able to spend time with my entire family this year including my son who is a career Military man.

Back to top