President's Message
(Archive Page 2004 - 2000)

HOME CURRENT PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE PAGE

December 2004

The Suffolk County Legislatures Parks & Cultural Affairs Committee will be meeting on December 1st, 2004 at 11:30 AM at the William H. Rogers Legislative Auditorium on Veterans Memorial Highway in Hauppauge New York. Because there has been little to no movement on re-opening the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range I think it is entirely appropriate for us to go to this committee meeting and ask WHY NOT? After all, they have oversight authority of the Suffolk County Parks Department. As we explained at our last regular SAFE meeting a couple of us from the SAFE Board attended a meeting with County Executive Steve Levy and his staff regarding the quick re-opening of this very important range. Quite frankly I thought we were very well behaved considering how little effort is/has been made to re-open this facility even though most public officials have claimed they want the range re-opened as soon as possible. We asked questions that should have had answers but as of yet there has been none. One of the specific items raised by us was; why isn't the range open while it is being updated and/or improved? If major construction of my home can be done while my family continues to SAFELY live in the house, why can't the Trap & Skeet Range be open and generating revenue to the County while the other half of the range is being repaired, renovated or improved? If you cannot make this meeting, you should be making some phone calls to the County Executive at 631-853-4000, and the Parks Committee Chairman, Mr. Jay Schneiderman at 631-852-8400. You only need to be a user of the range to make an inquiry not a resident of Suffolk County.

October 2004

Sept 2004

Jul-Aug 2004

I have personally spoken to County Executive Steve Levy, Deputy County Executive Paul Sabatino, County Legislators, Cameron Alden, Angie Carpenter, Jon Cooper, Michael Caracciolo, Jay Schneiderman, Vivian Viloria-Fisher, Daniel Losquadro, Brian Foley, William Lindsay, David Bishop, Peter O'Leary, Ricardo Montano, Elie Mystal and Presiding Officer of the County Legislature, Joseph Caracappa in the past couple of weeks regarding the reopening of the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range. Everybody but one has agreed that this is and should be a top priority of the County. If that were in fact true, why isn't it open now and bringing in much needed cash flow to the county?

Like many others I believed that all of the requirements for and objections about the reopening the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range had been met and as of the end of 2003 there would be definite movement in doing just that. Also, along with many others interested in seeing this Range reopen I attended every meeting of the Parks & Recreation Committee and every meeting of the full Suffolk County Legislature. The end result was an almost unanimous support for and vote by the Suffolk County Legislature for reopening this Range and exempting it from the low noise level standards adopted a number of years ago.

I commend the Suffolk County Legislature not only for voting to exempt this Range from these unrealistically low noise standards but for allocating all necessary funds to do what ever remedial work would be necessary to reopen this range as soon as possible. Because of this I find no fault with the County Legislature with one exception and that is "oversight". They have failed to make sure their mandate and their desire to reopen this profitable facility has in fact occurred in a timely fashion. I am now being told by people in the County Executives office, specifically Mr. Paul Sabatino, Chief Deputy County Executive, and a fellow by the name of Terry as well as the Parks Commissioner that the range will not reopen until 2005. This is completely UNACCEPTABLE and OUTRAGEOUS.

It is the only profitable facility that Suffolk County owns and it is enjoyed by thousands of resident tax payers as well as many non-resident Trap & Skeet Shooters from other counties. It does so mainly because there is no such type shooting facility available to the public in either Nassau County or New York City (all 5 boroughs). The longer the delay in reopening the Range the more costly it will become. As a tax paying voter in Suffolk County I don't want the added expense (because I pay for it). I want this issue resolved NOW! It must and should be the 1st PRIORITY of the Suffolk County Parks Department. It has been more than 6 months already since everything was approved to proceed.

While we have no real authority to request or demand this become the 1st PRIORITY of the Parks Department, we must all contact Mr. Ron Foley, Suffolk County Parks Commissioner at 631-854-4984 urging in the strongest terms, without being rude, to make the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range its first priority.

This range which was once run by county personal and I see no reason why it couldn't be again, at least until such time as there is a vendor to take over the operations of the facility. Even if that means the range will be open on a limited basis, it is better than not being open at all. However, this would require the County Parks Department to put out a Request For Proposal (RFP) so a vendor can be found…something it has not done. The County could also allow a vendor to operate this range while upgrades or required maintenance is performed. Any and all upgrades or improvements to the range can be made while it is open and generating revenue to the County. After all, I continue to live in my home while major renovations are being done with no danger to the inhabitants or visitors.

When you call the Parks Department you will probably be told there are other factors such as; a Brookhaven Town noise ordnance which in my opinion has no affect on County owned property or an EPA requirement for cleanup of lead shot. This EPA requirement has always been the case and it has been routinely done by every vendor operating the range. It just happens to be a requirement that creates additional profit for the range and again, it can be done on the days the range is normally closed.

The one person who needs to be contacted most urgently, even by those who don't live in Suffolk County, is the County Executive, Mr. Steve Levy. He appointed the current Suffolk County Parks Department Commissioner. He is the one who has the authority to request (demand) that the reopening of the Range be the top priority item on the list of things to do by the Parks Department. After all, the Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the County Executive. The address, telephone and fax number for the Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is; P.O. Box 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788. Phone is; 631-853-4000, fax is; 631-853-4818.

Don't overlook the County Legislators; they are involved in this process. They too need to be contacted to request this Range be reopened as soon as possible. When contacting your County legislator you should ask the same thing; what's the delay? Why hasn't a Request For Proposal (RFP) been published so a possible new vendor can come in and get the range up and running? Only the County Executives office or the County Legislators can answer this question.

Back to top

June 2004

2004 Annual Meeting Presidents Report

While this Annual Report is often given 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 of its contents. It will not touch on every activity I as President have been involved in or attended, but is meant as an overview of some of the more important issues and activities we 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. 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 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 the full County legislative meetings to give testimony and information that will ultimately re-open this range. Many of you have also attended these meetings 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 was the most significant player in these proceedings was 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. I am however not happy with the time it has taken so far but I truly believe this range will re-open and we will have played a major role in that result. I am currently concerned that things are not moving as quickly as they should and would like to see all members of SAFE regardless of where you live to contact the Suffolk County Executive, Mr. Steve Levy at 631-853-4000 or 631-852-1600. I have called as well as others and there seems to be some difference of opinion of what is supposed to happen and when. This is not to suggest that Mr. Levy is in any way holding things up but as they say; "The Buck Stops Here" and it is up to County Executive Levy to make sure things happen as they should. The Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range needs to be opened soon.

Basically SAFE is a reactionary or reactive organization. That is we respond to problems and issues when they come up, however that is far from all we do. Primarily, as I said earlier we provide reliable and accurate information, which actually does more to prevent bad proposals from being brought up in the first place in a public forum and 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 is a testimonial to the reliability and trustworthiness of SAFE as a 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 ways in which we are and have been proactive has been in our sponsorship, promotion and the carrying out our NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" Shooting Clinics. SAFE 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. Most of the attendees, 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 also owe a debt of gratitude to the Long Island Shooting Center Indoor Range located at 130 Freeman Ave. Islip NY 11751 (631) 665-7011. This range donated the use of their backroom for the class portion of the NRA/SAFE Women On Target Clinic and 5 shooting points for each class we held free of charge. 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 the WOT programs. Chris Baumgartner, Andrew Balistreri, Barry Cohen, Carol A. Cushman, John L. Cushman, Mario Geddes, Anthony Giammarino, Lewis Giordano, Dominick Golio, James D. Kelly, Bill Kirchoff, Howard Last, Patricia McEntee and Heather Raab. Tony Giammarino was the lead instructor for the class portion of the clinic and Bill Kiirchoff was the range master. Thanks to these people this program was a success.

SAFE is also proactive in that we sponsor and put on the only Right Carry Conference (RTC) 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, it has great speakers who are also national leaders and serve as a source of motivation for many who would otherwise never have had the opportunity to meet them. The one item we must constantly guard against is apathy. When people believe there are no more battles or that there is no use fighting for what is important to them, then we all lose, including our children and grandchildren. I will never let that happen. We must of necessity be always vigilant and always ready to respond whenever a threat appears that would in any way diminish our God given and Constitutional Rights. I am, are you?

Back to top

March 2004

Three strikes, you're out!!! Most people have heard of the "three strikes you're out" law. For those who have not, no it does not have anything to do with baseball. It has to do with a law that says when a criminal commits a serious crime against society three times he/she is considered a recidivist and or habitual offender and is put in jail for the rest of their life. In other words, it is by their actions they have proven to be trouble makers and criminals and do not deserve to be allowed to be left free to cause anymore harm in society.

Well Governor Pataki, it appears you are guilty of three strikes and you should be out. First you instigated and passed the New York State Assault Firearms ban. It did not matter that no crimes were committed by firearms so vaguely defined in your law. It also seemed to have escaped you and other Republicans that Assault is a human behavior and a Firearm is an inanimate object capable of no action on its own. It was passed in such a way that we the public were given no opportunity to comment or even communicate with our elected officials on this issue. It was simply something you wanted and we the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens are burdened with yet another useless law. Strike one.

Then in 2001 you passed the Combined Ballistic Identification System otherwise known as COBIS. A program we claimed was no good and one that has been rejected as useless and not worthwhile for consideration by other states. It is my understanding that at this time New York State has spent well over $12,000,000 on acquiring approximately 95,000 registered handgun ballistics and not one has been linked to a crime. Not one criminal has been apprehended or arrested with the aid of this worthless law. If you are truly looking to save state residents tax money why not repeal this expensive but useless law and return the police personal to their regular police duties. I am positive they can make a more worthwhile contribution to the citizens of this state in their regular police duties. Strike two.

Now, in this year's New York State budget you propose raising handgun license fees to an additional $100.00 payable to the state. You want to create additional fees for any and all amendments to a firearms license at $25.00 for each payable to the state. You want to CANCEL all lifetime licenses and make them all a 5 year renewable license so that you can charge renewable fees of $100.00 each time they are renewed. And if that isn't enough, you want to lift the limitations on what each individual county can charge an applicant for a NYS handgun license. The abusive handgun license fees of NYC and Nassau County immediately come to mind. In NYC the license fee is $255.00 for two years and in Nassau County it is $200.00 for five years. These fees are outrageous and an insult to the law-abiding public. Strike three. You're Out!

What I and countless other lawful New York State residents want to know is WHY? The Republicans have traditionally been thought of as friends of lawful gun owners. We gave you the support necessary to defeat the previous governor who was viciously and vocally anti-gun. Why have you decided to hurt the firearms owning community, the most law-abiding, honest and well behaved segment of all New Yorkers? We had high hopes that if anything you would have used your position to improve the treatment of lawful firearms owners by addressing the documented abuses by certain agencies. For example; statewide recognition of a handgun license including New York City, removal of all discretionary power to impose conditions, restrictions, limitations and conditions not in state law.

At the very least we expected you to do nothing to hurt us. Instead, you are heaping insult on injury by hurting the very people who supported you in the past. If the fees go any higher it will be cheaper (and quicker) to buy a handgun from the black market. Is this what you want? Governor Pataki, do the right thing and withdraw your hurtful and unnecessary taxation of firearms owners. We are your friends. Do you have so many you can afford to disregard us? The question is, will the rest of the Republicans support you in this wrongful endeavor or will they urge and convince you to reconsider your actions. I certainly hope so.

For the rest of you SAFE members, those of you who I do not have an e-mail address for and may have been unaware of this situation, I urge you to contact the Governors office and your Assembly member and your State Senator and request them to do whatever it takes to have this onerous and insulting budget proposal removed from the state budget. Just go to the next page to get the phone numbers and address of the governor's office.

January-February 2004

Back to top

December 2003

November 2003

October 2003

September 2003

Jul-Aug 2003

If the State or Federal Legislative bodies create, and it has, a "Gun Free Zone", these legislative bodies should be held "FULLY LIABLE" for any harm such law causes. If anyone should be injured or hurt because they did not have the right and the ability to defend themselves because of such a law, then the legislative body that passed such law shall be held completely and fully responsible.

Gun Free Zones are well known and documented to be dangerous areas. Just look at the shootings that have taken place in such areas. The idea that they, the legislators, somehow will make you safer is an outright fraud. These Gun Free Zones are a reckless and negligent use of legislative power and a denial of civil rights that is long overdue for a closer look. Instead we need to have the "DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2003" which would go a long way toward giving citizens a real chance to survive in a criminal crisis.

There is some hope though; both Arizona and Georgia have had this type of legislation introduced in their legislatures for 2003, House Bill 2320 in Arizona and House Bill 31 in Georgia.

I believe this bill belongs in our New York State Legislature too. You or someone you know should talk to one of your elected state representatives about introducing it. If nothing else were gained, it would start the dialog on the dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory Gun Free Zones. Any person who would deny your right or ability to self-defense is as violent and wrong as the person who assaults you.

A while back, an acquaintance of mine Mr. Alan Korwin, author of the book "Gun Laws of America" sent me his thoughts on this very subject and I would like to share some of them with you now. He proposes a bill called the "DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2003" which can and should be introduced at the federal and every state legislative body.

"Originally called the Gun Free Zone Liability Act, this bill recognizes that gun free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.

We have seen this recently in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.

The Defenseless Victim Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. The idea that gun free zones are safe is fraudulent.

It is a mythology perpetrated by anti rights activists who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:
1 - self defense should be illegal, 2 - guns should be confiscated, 3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns, 4 - government can take care of you better than you can. The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:

1 - police have no legal duty to protect you, and

2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces.

In the tragic homicides above and countless others you see on TV, the police don't draw their guns, they draw chalk lines when you're gone.

Self-defense against criminal assault is guaranteed in all 50 states and federally, as it should be, and is as old as the first written laws of civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self-preservation is unjust, immoral, and dangerous and should not be tolerated.

The notion that gun free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the public:

a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you.

b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill addresses only anti-gun-rights bigots who would callously disarm you and ignore your plight.

c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear mongering left, privately held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in one scholarly study after another. Since the nation's inception we have known and embraced the freedom giving truth that guns protect the innocent, and that this is good.

Initial reactions to the Defenseless Victim Act have been highly supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun rights movement. It shows all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally the right to bear), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless innocent victims are slaughtered.

The PR value alone, forcing the other side to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort. Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight."

Most of the federal and state elected representatives are home now and this would be a good time to make an appointment to see and discuss this issue with them. I believe the information above gives you more than enough good arguments to use to make your case with anyone. Instead of reacting only to bad legislation this would be an opportunity to put forth good and positive legislation that benefits all of the people, even those who do not want to have the means to protect themselves. At the very least I suggest this proposal would cause those in power to rethink their position on Gun Free Zones and the inherent dangers of such legislation. Any law, whether intended or not, that places a citizen in danger and gives them no means or right to defend themselves goes against common sense. Enjoy your summer, see you in September.

Back to top

June 2003

It is time to go to work. We have two issues of legislation to be concerned about right now at the federal level. The first is US Senate bill #S-659. Passage of this proposed law would rightfully protect the lawful firearms industry and ultimately you the consumer from frivolous and unjustified lawsuits that attempt to hold a legitimate industry responsible for the wrongful use of its products. No matter how many lies and distortions by the media and anti-gun fanatics, the truth is, only those who commit the crimes are and should be held accountable for their actions. Contrary to what these anti civil rights fanatics claim, the firearms industry does not sell firearms to criminals anymore than the auto industry intentionally sells cars to drive by shooters or to bank robbers looking for a fast getaway vehicle. Another question I have is with all of the crimes committed with knives such as stabbings and muggings, why have we never seen or heard of a lawsuit against the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of knives as being responsible for the crimes committed with them? Because it is a stupid idea, not profitable to claimants and/or lawyers and the public would not support it.

We need to contact the following people and urge them in the strongest terms possible that we want passage of this needed law. It is time to place the blame for crimes where it properly belongs and that is with those who commit such acts and not with those who produce a perfectly legal and lawful product that probably does more to protect and serve the people of this society than any other product I can think of.

The second issue is the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Law. Lets get it correct right from the beginning. There is no such thing as an ASSAULT WEAPON! Assault is a human behavior and a weapon is anything used to commit a crime against another. There has never been an assault weapon unless you are talking about human beings. Only human beings can commit an assault not an inanimate object. Therefore the federal law banning certain types of firearms that have been declared by someone who doesn't know any better should be allowed to sunset. That is, it should go away because it has been nothing more than a failed social experiment by legislators who didn't know any better. It has now been conclusively proven that this law has in fact done nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes and that the types of firearms under this law are not the ones used by predatory criminals. If the government cannot (and we know it cannot) keep any type of firearm out of the hands of criminals then it does not have right or justification to keep these same types of firearms out of the hands of the overwhelming majority of good, lawful and decent citizens. Just the opposite is true. The people have the God given right to own and use these same types of firearms to protect ourselves our families and anyone else we see in need. We also have the right to own and use these types of firearms for recreation if we so choose. So again, contact the people listed above and below to urge the sun setting or expiration of this useless federal law.

May 2003

H.R. 1036 a bill giving gun manufacturers and dealers broad protection from frivolous and wrongful civil lawsuits arising from the misuse of firearms has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. The vote was 285-140, with almost all Republicans backing the bill and Democrats divided. Go to the following web site to view the full vote of all 435 Congressional Members, see how yours voted; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889326/posts.

Backers of the bill say fanatical anti-gun groups have been using courts to try to carry out an anti-gun agenda they have not been able to achieve legislatively. They say nuisance lawsuits are also designed to force gun makers into bankruptcy.

"We shouldn't use the judicial process to bankrupt an industry that makes a legal product," said James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He accused gun control groups of using the courts as a "back door" to promote a political agenda.

The White House issued a statement strongly supporting the bill, saying it would "help prevent abuse of the legal system and help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits."

Based on the past actions of both US Senators from New York it makes one wonder if getting a judge to legislate from the bench with an anti-gun opinion is the real motive of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. It seems they want to use their power as Senators to prevent pro-gun, pro civil rights, pro-constitution judicial candidates from ever getting on the federal courts. When will these public officials learn to stop trying to blame guns for the crimes committed by individual people?

This is to advise all SAFE members that this will be a WORKING meeting. Bring your pens and pencils and return address labels. We will be informing both of our US Senators from New York State of our opinion on this legislation. They will shortly be voting on S.659 the companion of H.R.1036, which just passed the US House of Representatives. It is imperative we give strong valid reasons for requesting their support. They are supposed to reflect the will and opinion of the people and it is our responsibility to make absolutely sure they know our will and opinion. They must be made to understand that we are tired of anyone, including them, using my constitutional civil rights to further their own political agenda. The rights of my children and grand children are as much at stake as my rights are and I have no intention of giving them up. Do you?

On a positive note a federal bill has been introduced to defend our Second Amendment rights that is both reasonable and makes sense, H.R.648. Its purpose, "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right."

H.R.648 states: "A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms - in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person."

More surprisingly it provides for a recourse for a citizen if refused "permission" to purchase or own a weapon: "A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate."

The best part of the bill in my opinion is the "Findings" section. It includes some facts most Second Amendment supporters already know, but it is significant to see them included in the actual congressional bill as part of the supporting purpose;
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The US Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) The use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals - more than 6,500 people a day. In other words, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time does a citizen kill or wound his attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty (creating a privileged class). Likewise, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them. This 'should' be a no-brainer. H.R.648 is a carefully crafted bill that even moderates in the US Congress should be able to embrace.

Back to top

April 2003

Guns do not make you a killer. I believe killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car but no one is trying to ban you from going to a baseball game in a car! And killing is not the same as murder. To kill is "to deprive of life in any manner" as defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. In the same Dictionary murder is defined as, "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in Law. Special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime such as robbery or arson."

When good and honest people use a firearm in self-defense of themselves or others they might be killing someone but they are not committing murder. Morally, ethically and legally killing someone in self-defense is not what gun owners want to do but when it happens it is justified. Potential victims have every right to use whatever force is required to survive or to protect others from being victims. But for those who are bent on trying to convince everyone that gun ownership should be a crime there is no distinction between killing and murder. These people see only what they want to see. They do not realize that the average gun owner in general is not quite as bloodthirsty as they are portrayed on the TV. The TV does not show the thousands of cases where crimes are stopped or prevented when a gun is merely displayed or used to give teeth to a "leave me alone" plea by a potential crime victim.

If it sounds like I am opposed to all so-called gun safety laws, I am not. I am against all laws that cause more harm than good. We already have laws against murder, and whether armed with a gun, knife, club, or fist, there is no additional benefit to some separate "feel-good" law against gun murder. Criminologists can explain the reasons that such laws are often actually counter-productive. We also have laws that adequately address the accidental death or injury situation, again regardless of the instrument used. They are usually referred to as negligence laws. Anti-gun fanatics seem more preoccupied with opposing legitimate gun ownership than doing anything truly constructive to reduce crime, violence, or accidents. And that is what distinguishes us from them.

I find it amazing that all of the people who want to control the publics' access to firearms are the same people who know the least about firearms and /or people in self-defense situations. They make a tremendous amount of illogical and often wrong suppositions about guns and crime and act without any proof or justification for their position. They feel, not know, something must be done to prevent criminal activities but they are not willing to take the time to learn what is necessary. Criminals know as well as we do that it is force and/or the ability to hurt them that will make them stop or go elsewhere to commit their crimes. Yet the anti-gun fanatics would make us all potential victims in pursuit of their utopian idea of crime control. No law compels anyone to own or use a firearm. If they despise guns so much they should just stay away from them. I don't feel threatened or in fear for my life when a gun is present. On the contrary, I feel empowered. With a firearm I have a better chance to survive a given situation instead of being nothing more than a helpless victim. And that's called freedom of choice.

U.S. Senators Larry Craig (R-Id.) an NRA Director and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced the Senate's version of reckless lawsuit preemption, S. 659, on Wednesday, March 19. Fifty-two Senators have signed on to this bill, which seeks to end the gun-ban lobby's efforts to drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy under the crushing weight of their predatory, illegitimate lawsuits representing a majority of the Senate's 100 members. With nine Democrats already signed on as cosponsors, including Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as well as every Senate Republican who holds a leadership position, S. 659 has solid bipartisan and leadership support. Coupled with the February 27 introduction of the House version of reckless lawsuit preemption, H. R. 1036, the anti-gun extremists at the Brady Campaign/HCI must be gravely concerned Congress is prepared to remove one of the principal weapons from the gun-ban lobby's arsenal.

But until reckless lawsuit preemption becomes law, the firearm and ammunition industry will continue to be subject to the threat of predatory litigation. HCI and anti-gun big city mayors will continue to shop for judicial venues where they can find judges and juries that are sympathetic to their gun-ban agenda.

In fact, a recent ruling by a judge in New Jersey will allow three cases promoted by anti-gun mayors and HCI to proceed, and this week a judge in West Virginia made a similar decision to allow another HCI-backed case to continue. These rulings, while at the earliest stages of the cases, represent the need for reckless lawsuit preemption legislation. While firearm manufacturers remain confident they will prevail, as long as these baseless, merit-less cases are allowed to proceed, they will be a draining financial burden for all gun makers, a cost that will inevitably be passed on to future gun purchasers.

More than 30 states have already passed similar legislation. Those with an interest in manufacturing or selling manufactured goods of any kind should consider asking their Representatives and Senators to quickly pass HR 1036 and S. 659. Those lawmakers who have already signed on to these bills deserve our thanks, so please call them to express your support. Those who have not should be encouraged to sign on as cosponsors. To find out if your federal lawmakers have signed on yet, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in either bill number.

The Nominating Committee is now accepting nominations for the election of three directors at the next Annual Meeting of Members, tentatively scheduled for June 2nd, 2003. Potential candidates for Director cannot have been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, and must have been a member in good standing for at least three consecutive calendar years. Candidates for Director must be either nominated by the Nominating Committee or nominated by a petition signed by at least ten percent of all members with voting power, and verified by the Secretary. The Secretary upon request will make petition forms available to the membership. Members wishing the Nominating Committee to consider a potential candidate should, send a letter addressed to "Chairman, Nominating Committee" in care of the Secretary, state the qualifications of the potential candidate and any other information the committee could find useful in evaluating the candidate.

Back to top

March 2003

I want to begin this month with a short explanation of how a person stays a member of SAFE. It's real easy; pay your dues on time. Recently I have spoken to a number of people who wanted to know why they have not received a monthly SAFE report. It was because when they received their first and second dues notice they ignored it. For every ones benefit the standard procedure is; you will get a notice in the month your dues are due. The following month you will get a notice that says you are expired. For example, this is the March newsletter and if your membership expires this month it does so at the end of the month and you will get a notice that your dues are due. In April you will get a newsletter (an extra one) and a dues notice that your membership is expired. If we do not get your renewal before the mailing of the next (May) newsletter, your name and membership will be removed from our list. Failure to renew in a timely fashion will cause you to lose your voting rights and your membership in SAFE matters. Every month a SAFE newsletter has an address label with your name and an expiration date on it so every one knows precisely when your/their membership expires. Now on to other issues.

January-February 2003

I hope everyone had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. It's now time to get back to work and stay informed about what is going on in the firearms issue arena. This month I have included some of the latest developments in the courts as well as a couple of items where gun owning public is having a big impact in the outcome. You see, it is my opinion that first you need to keep yourself informed and then you can take action, whether it is in the form of just talking with others who know little about our issues or communicating with your state, local or federal representatives.

An example of local informed activism is the currently resolved closing and re-opening of the Freeport High School shooting range. In late November I and a few other activists got wind of a meeting at the Freeport High School and attended not really believing we would be able to persuade the powers that be that the shooting range should be re-opened and stay open. The issue was and still is that there has been recent construction to the school and because of that the school is required to live up to the State Board of Education building code. The specific problem is there is only one door into and out of the range and the building code requires at least two methods of egress. Because of that requirement, the range was closed and the air rifle and small-bore rifle shooting teams had to be bused to the Nassau County public shooting range. Because of the length of that trip and the more restricted times for shooting at the public facility the team members were not getting a sufficient amount of time for practice. It is tough if not impossible to be a shooting champion without getting the necessary practice.

Much to my surprise many of the parents and the students of the shooting teams came to this meeting prepared, and I really mean prepared, to make the facts known about all the positive aspects of shooting in general and in many cases the fact that their shooting children are honor roll students. A number of these students have had college scholarships offered because of their shooting skills and their academic achievement. The high school and district administrators as well as few members of Freeport Board of Education were in attendance. Without going into detail, we spent the next couple of hours going over the issue with all these people and proposing solutions to the problem. The first solution offered was to get special consideration from the State Board of Education to reopen and keep the range open for the rest of this school year, especially considering its long history of safety. This was achieved the next day when the Assistant District Administrator made the necessary phone call to the State Board of Education. The result is the shooting range is now open but only until the end of the school year.

The next issue was and still is the construction of another method of egress to the range and the creation of a separate smoke area once outside the range. This issue must be resolved before the next school year. There is a local contractor who happens to be the parent of a student on the shooting team and who has done work for the school district before and has the expertise to do the job.

Suffice it to say, some of the original remedies proposed for the range egress problem were quite costly, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, the final proposals were well below ten thousand dollars to comply with the state building code. While this issue looks like it is resolved (only time will tell) it is only because of the support of the parents, the open mindedness and professionalism of the school and district administrators and the support and input from many interested parties including the Freeport Board of Education.

One of those interested and supportive parties being the newly formed JROTC program. The fact that the JROTC program was just recently started in Freeport was very much dependant on the availability and use of existing range facilities for their cadets. I for one want to thank them for their attendance and their support in keeping open the high school shooting range. The formal meeting the next evening of the Freeport Board of Education was well attended and the JROTC student cadets who attended and spoke in favor of the continuation of the shooting range were very much appreciated and behaved most admirably. They should be proud of themselves, as I am sure their instructors are.

This is a hot and often controversial issue and I would like to thank everyone, the school board members, the school and district administrators, the parents and students and the other activists like myself involved, for maintaining a degree of courtesy, politeness and professionalism throughout the entire meeting. Collectively we achieved a result that is beneficial to the school, the community and especially the students. We did this not only by what was achieved, but also in how we as adults conducted ourselves in the process. I am sure the students present watched the adults very carefully and I believe we set a good example.

If you truly want to be informed then read the following pages for there is a wealth of information there. But keep in mind information only has value when it is used. We can provide (and we usually do) more information about what is going on in the firearms rights arena than you will ever get out of the general news media. For example, this is a local election year. Town and county elections are among the most important for at least two reasons. First because the turnout at local elections is considerably smaller than when it is a presidential election year and therefore we as gun owners have a greater impact in the outcome.

Secondly because the people who start at the local level are the people who eventually go on to higher office and it is here where we first establish our credentials as experts on firearms ownership, use, transportation and safety. We need to open those doors this year. Will you keep yourself informed and then active? For the benefit of next generation I sincerely hope so. I know I will.

Back to top

December 2002

I have recently found two quotes that I believe are particularly profound given our current political climate amongst firearms owners. The first is; just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. Pericles (430 B.C.). We can see the wisdom of this statement everyday in our lives when one legislative body or another comes up with solutions for problems most of did not even know we had. A legislative body at one level or another governs every facet of our daily lives, including firearms ownership and use. If I should want to advance the idea of unrestricted self-defense of my life or that of my family or even that of a person in need, I had better pay attention to the people who govern us and who make the laws. The best time to do that is well before election time comes around. Think about this between now and the next election. Next year are local elections, county and town, and generally these are the people who move up in a political party for higher office after serving at a local level. Our influence in these elections can be very effective, but only with your involvement.

The next statement I want to give you is; no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. --Mark Twain (1866). This is the most accurate quote I have ever heard. Maybe because I have been an activist for so many years I know this to be absolutely true. Everything and anything that governs our life can change in a heartbeat in a legislative body. And while its intentions "might" be honorable its application might be down right terrible. And what that legislative body does should be a reflection of the wisdom and wishes of the informed public. It usually is but only for those who take an active role in working to communicate with them. We at SAFE do and we urge each and every one of you to do so as well. No matter how well intentioned or how strongly supported by the media a subject is, it is and should be the individual citizens input on any given subject that should rule the day. Your rights to own, use and transport firearms are at stake. Do not under any circumstances leave the debate about lawful firearms ownership and use up to the media and the politicians.

As an example of something the politicians need to know is the "assault weapons" issue. Keep in mind that assault is a behavior, not a device. That means there are no such things as assault firearms or weapons, only people who commit assault actions. Is it less of a crime or an assault to use a baseball bat or other blunt object to beat a person to death by crushing their skull? Is it less of a crime or an assault to hack or stab someone to death with a knife or axe? How come none of these things are called "assault bats" or "assault knives"? Only firearms are called assault weapons. Considering how educated the people in the news media claim to be, how is it that they are totally confused over the definition of assault, which is a behavior and a firearm which is a device. It is the behavior of people that is important not what is owned. Politicians local, state and national are your elected representatives and need to hear these kinds of things from you. They need to know the public will not be fooled into giving up a constitutional right under any false and misleading pretenses. They need to know the public knows the difference even if they don't. They (the politicians) need to know their actions will have consequences, especially with law-abiding people who are actively involved. The one thing they must learn is, if they are not sure about a firearms related issue, they need to come to the experts, us. After all, don't they consult experts in many other areas? You bet they do.

In response to a shooting at a church in Lynbrook New York the House of Representatives has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act." The sponsor is our own fanatical anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York. Of course she is joined by one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York, Senator Chuck Shumer (D), who has sponsored the companion bill in the Senate, S. 2826. This bill would require states to turn over huge amounts of personal records to the FBI for use in connection with the NICS check, the background check used to purchase a firearm. These records could include any state record relevant to the question of whether a person is prohibited from owning a gun. While this starts with a large volume of mental health records, the FBI could also require that a state forward all of its employment and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens.

This bill could allow FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing only slight misdemeanors. You may remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this law, people who have committed very minor offenses that include just yelling at a family member have found out the hard way that they can no longer own a firearm for any reason, including self-defense. The anti-gun fanatics in Congress are annoyed because many of the states' criminal records are incomplete, which is not our fault. Because of this the FBI does not have access to all of these records when screening the background of someone who wants to purchase a firearm from a gun dealer. The McCarthy-Schumer bills would change that and keep potentially millions of decent, law abiding, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one slight offense committed in their past. Maybe that's the real purpose.

This bill would impact millions of Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. And these people have no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population. Many people who have suffered a terrible loss of a family member or even a personal physical injury have suffered from a bout of depression. Many of our nations military veterans have suffered some depression because of injuries sustained in combat activities. This bill would treat these often minor and treatable mental health problems as "bad" people. Truly bad people will always be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are.

There are two additional problems with both these bills. First is the list of reasons used in the beginning of each bill to justify the language in the bill. They are false and misleading and the language that follows will only make the country safer for criminals while allowing a major invasion of privacy of all Americans. Second is the lack of safeguard language to prevent and or punish bureaucratic abuse of the provisions in the bill. For these reasons please contact both US Senators from New York and demand that this bill be stopped. It is not in the best interest of the people to pass laws based on falsehoods.

I personally hope each and everyone has a Happy and Healthy Holiday season.

Back to top

November 2002

In the past two years since George Bush became President of the United States I and many others have been telling people not to believe for even a moment that the anti-gun fanatics have gone away. Neither should anyone believe that hired public officials and/or elected representatives who at one time not only embraced anti-gun agendas but who actively worked to ultimately ban all firearms ownership and possession have gone away. These people have simply maintained a low profile. These anti-gun zealots were just waiting for the right situation or event to come along in order to try and make their case once again. These so called sniper shootings have given these make believe public officials another opportunity to introduce laws that will have absolutely no impact on criminal misuse of anything. And, once again it is the media leading the way by asking these politicians what kind of gun-control law would or could have prevented these heinous crimes or would lead to a quicker apprehension of the guilty party. A number of years ago I made the prediction that sporting type rifles with scopes would be classified as sniper type firearms and would be the next type of gun to be singled out as too dangerous for the average person to own or use. I'm sorry to say I was more accurate than I anticipated.

You can all imagine my lack of surprise when our own Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., announced he would introduce legislation for a national program for ballistic fingerprinting that would have "solved this crime after the first shooting." Ballistic fingerprinting involves sending a fired bullet and empty cartridge casing from a gun to a government agency before that gun can be sold. The idea is to match, preferably by automated computer analysis, pre-sale ballistics data with crime scene data. Even though an October 2001 report by California state ballistics experts concluded that ballistic fingerprinting isn't feasible and does not work. Ballistic fingerprinting is really a misnomer, because unlike unique human characteristics, such as fingerprints, DNA, retinal topography and other biometric data, ballistic markings change. - For example, with normal repeated firing of the handgun or rifle as in hunting or sports shooting, the markings in the barrel of the gun will be obliterated from repeated firings, making ballistic fingerprinting impossible.

Maryland and New York already require ballistic fingerprinting and so far it hasn't helped either state even find, never mind convict a single criminal despite fingerprinting of over 17,000 guns sold since January 2000 in Maryland alone. New York has spent millions of dollars the past two years and hasn't had any success either. This idea currently under discussion is to make guns traceable via fingerprinting, testing every gun before it leaves the manufacturer for the unique marks it leaves on bullets and casings. The thing that sticks out in my mind is that the best anyone can hope for is to trace the gun back to its last lawful owner and not necessarily the criminal. The usual list of supporters of such a nationwide nonsense proposal includes most of the anti-gun crowd. It never ceases to amaze me these people never go to the behavior of the individual criminal but always to the tool used. I wonder why that is?

But forensics experts warn that devising such a system, even though it seems logical, is likely to be unreliable. That's because guns can be easily altered. And, of course, millions of un-sampled guns are already in people's hands. To change the kinds of marks a firing pin and a breach block make on a brass cartridge require only simple tools and little skill. Also, the gun's barrel can be re-bored, honed or simply allowed to rust, and the marks it leaves on a bullet change. There are just too many ways to compromise such a system and render it totally ineffective and useless. It doesn't require a lot of work or a lot of skill to subvert a system that might identify guns and ammunition. Additionally, with a premeditated murder or terrorist shooting, as in the case of the Washington, D.C. area sniper, the markings on the bullet or cartridge casing could be altered by the culprit in advance or in anticipation of the planned shooting, making ballistic fingerprinting useless.

What really has happened in Maryland -and New York and what the gun control fanatics hope to achieve elsewhere -in the country is that gun sales will drop significantly in the future. One way or the other, gun prohibitionists intend to have their way - whether it is with useless and frivolous lawsuits such as indiscriminate litigation, suing legal firearm manufacturers, or by pushing worthless legislative schemes bordering on junk science -to circumvent the individual natural right to self-defense and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a preliminary step to universal registration of firearms and their owners which would threaten the civil and constitutional liberties of lawful gun owners, a very perilous threat to individual liberty. What I find most amazing and unusually coincidental is that every time the gun control fanatics lose their momentum in restricting, limiting or just prohibiting the right to own and use firearms by American citizens, something like the latest shooting spree by some deranged lunatic criminal rears its ugly head and causes a renewal for further useless laws. I am sincerely beginning to believe it is in fact not so coincidental after all. Take for example just when the Colorado State Legislature was within a few days of passing a shall issue licensing law for handguns in that state, an issue that took many years of documented complaints by lawful citizens of abuses by local issuing agents, the Columbine High School shooting occurred, thereby preventing any further consideration of this worthwhile and needed legislation. There have been numerous other times in recent history which clearly demonstrate that every time the pro firearm/pro civil rights people have had an opportunity to protect their constitutional right to firearms ownership and use for self-defense and for recreation, some dastardly crime is committed thus stopping all positive momentum.

Back to top

October 2002

For those of you who are planning to attend our annual Right To Carry Conference on Sunday September 29th, 2002, we may have a couple of additional speakers. On behalf of SAFE, I have sent certified letters to all candidates I know of for Governor of New York State, inviting them to attend and be given an opportunity to speak at our conference. For those invited who attend, they will be given 3-5 minutes to inform us of their opinions, points of view and positions on firearms ownership and especially that of self-defense. I have specifically asked all gubernatorial candidate speakers to confine their comments to firearms related issues and that only the candidate will be allowed to speak, no representatives of a candidate. A few have called already and expressed interest in speaking at our conference. Want to know who will be coming? Come and see for yourself.

Reuters is reporting that an audit at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and other agencies has determined that some 775 firearms are "missing", "lost", or even "stolen". The INS is the agency with the largest firearms discrepancy, with 539 weapons unaccounted for (this might explain some of the recent exodus from INS ranks). The FBI comes in second at 212 firearms unaccounted for. The Reuters story also notes that in a previous time period, the FBI was missing an additional 211 firearms. What is more, some 18 of the missing government firearms turned up in "...local police..." investigations related to drug crimes and armed robberies. This is further proof that it is the so-called professionals who are causing most of the gun related problems and not the civilian population. Can you imagine what the authorities would do to a civilian who could not account for their firearms? Can anyone tell me what Suffolk County, Nassau County or New York City Police authorities would do to any licensee who lost or misplaced a firearm? The question I have is what is going to happen to those who were responsible for safe guarding these firearms? Will we get an updated report of who was found to be responsible, how it happened and what punishment will be administered to them? Or will this be another case of where those in authority will be allowed to get away with what the average citizen is not?

I cannot think of a better way to create mistrust in the citizens of any and all public officials who allow this to go unanswered or unpunished. If those in power truly want to be respected and trusted, they must hold themselves and others like themselves (and so should we, the general public) to an even higher standard of behavior and accountability than the average person. We elect these public officials to represent the best in us not the worst. Most people believe when we give these public officials, those we elect or appoint or those hired, a great deal of power and authority over our lives, shouldn't we expect best? Shouldn't we demand the highest standards of those who have such power? I know that is what I want, how about you? I also know that if the trust, I and others have placed in them is not met, than I have the right to expect a more severe and harsh punishment than any average citizen might get. In other words, if a public official in any capacity violates the law or my rights in that position, that person should suffer a consequence under the law, twice as harsh as any normal citizen. Why? Because they betrayed the basic trust given them by the people.

Part of what I consider to be my responsibility is the distributing of information that would have an impact on what we know and what we do as good citizens. To that extent I want to pass on some recently received documented information that I hope will clarify and help the SAFE membership make a more informed decision in the upcoming statewide elections. I recently received a post card from Mr. Tom Golisano's campaign regarding his position on firearms. I will not read anything into it nor will I attempt to interpret what it says. I will simply reproduce it here verbatim for your information and you may draw your own conclusions. There may be other candidates who have published material regarding firearms but I don't have it. And I am positive if they show up at our RTC Conference, they will make every effort to let us know exactly what their position is.

"I'm Tom Golisano. When it comes to protecting our 2nd Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms I'll be a Governor you can count on. That's why as Governor, I'll fight to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights and to change New York to a true "Shall Issue " state where citizens can protect themselves, their loved ones and their property by having the right to own and carry a handgun.

George Pataki opposes the central tenet of the New York Conservative Party Platform: our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. He passed the most restrictive anti-gun laws in America-all in exchange for special interest cash endorsements and the liberal big city vote.

I'm Tom Golisano. I'm the only candidate sticking up for the freedom that so many New Yorkers cherish. I will not allow the slow undoing of our freedom the way George Pataki has done. As Governor, you've got my word that I'll be a leader gun owners can count on."

Sept 2002

On August 22nd, 2002 the Suffolk County Legislature's committee on Parks and Recreation met to receive and take action on two reports regarding the Suffolk County Trap and Skeet Range in Yapank New York. One of the reports was on the environmental impact of shooting and depositing lead on this property and the other report was a sound study to determine the amount of sound leaving the range and possibly disturbing the homes in the area. Both of these studies were done by in-house resident experts, already on the

county payroll, but a small vocal group of local residents and County Legislator Fred Towle were not satisfied and wanted outside and costly experts to do the same investigations. As you will see below the outcome of these professional and expensive studies came to the exact same conclusions as our in-house experts. What a waste of money (my tax dollars).

The environmental study proved conclusively there are NO ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS at the Suffolk County Trap and Skeet Range. As a matter of fact, the environmental investigator commented that whether by design or by accident, a better place could not have been chosen as a range. It has all of the natural attributes anyone seeking a place for a range could want. It will require lead reclamation of the property by the concessionaire every 5 to 10 years depending the volume of shooting done on the property, but that is a normal activity of range operation.

On the testing of noise levels we were not surprised to find that the range does indeed exceed the county decibel level of noise of 65 decibels, mainly because it is ridiculously low, but that is another subject I will touch on later. We were extremely surprised that the noise levels of routine activities on the road in the immediate area of the range and these homes were also in violation of the noise levels. For example, the school bus picking up children for school, the garbage truck picking household refuse, the oil truck bringing fuel to keep a home warm and almost any other noisy vehicle such as moving and/or delivery trucks and cars with less than perfect mufflers. How about lawn mowers, family barbecues and heaven forbid, children playing games such as basketball or baseball or tag.

It is my understanding after attending this public hearing of the Parks and Recreation Committee, and speaking to the committee Chairwoman Legislator Ginny Fields, she will be introducing two bills. The first to move the question to put out a Request For Proposal (RFP), which is to let the public know the County, is seeking qualified individuals and/or companies to bid on a contract with the county to operate the Suffolk county Trap and Skeet Range. The second bill will or should address the current county law regarding extremely low sound/decibel levels. If ever there was a case of unintended consequences when it comes to the decibel level of noise, this is it. The county legislature should recognize and admit that while having the best of intentions, some proposals and/or laws do not work. And when made aware of this, should take corrective action. My suggestion would be to repeal it in its entirety and adopt the statewide standard. We support both of these bills and urge all county legislators to do the same. On behalf of all SAFE members I would like to thank Legislator Fields as Chairwoman and Legislators Brian Foley, William Lindsay, Cameron Alden and Angie Carpenter all members of Parks and Recreation Committee for treating this issue so fairly and for not allowing it to get bogged down in bureaucratic and legislative procedures and red tape. Please continue.

Jul-Aug 2002

The New York State legislative cycle for 2001-2002 is over for the most part. Of course they can and most likely will go back into session for some claimed unfinished business. I am not good at predictions, but I do not think they will get involved with any anti-gun, anti civil-rights issue at any special session this year. Why…because there is a state and national election this year. Generally, legislative candidates do not want to do anything controversial that might upset their chances for re-election and gun control is currently one of those "should I or shouldn't I" subjects. All this does not mean some legislative candidate will not try to use the gun issue to further his or her own political career. After all, Mr. Andrew Cuomo has made most of his reputation on being anti-gun, anti-civil-rights and anti-self defense. Another case of, if you make me king I promise not to hurt you too bad. I just want to make you dependent on me and I will feel so much better.

It seems more people than ever have been expressing their opinion that firearms ownership is a good thing. We know this by the results of the last national election. We know this by the fact that nationwide sales of all types of firearms went way up immediately after the tragedy of 911. We also now know 10 months later, that crime and/or accident rates with firearms did not go up correspondingly at all, thereby destroying the myth that gun ownership equals an increased safety factor. If anything society is safer now than before and it has been proven that the general public is much more responsible with firearms than most legislators are with making laws.

It was a private individual with a firearm and not any of the police/military authorities that ended the latest tragedy at LAX Airport in California. Why are those in public office talking of safety and security only in terms of more police or military people and not in terms of what should be done to empower the people to be able to defend themselves? Most of these crazies are not crazy enough to commit such acts in front of the authorities because they know they are armed. The criminals attack in areas only where civilians are because they are smart enough to know they have no means of self-defense. Everyone has been made a potential victim in the name of security by our all-knowing public officials. That being the case shouldn't the civilians, such as you and me be able to have the means to defend our loved ones and ourselves? Shouldn't we be able to come to aid and assistance of one another without asking some ones permission first? Why is this concept so hard for such highly intelligent people to comprehend? I would like to see a couple of candidates for public offices answer these questions. After all, they want us to vote for them. Shouldn't we find out exactly where they stand on this issue first?

In addition to results of the SAFE annual elections and those of the Board of Directors (which are reported on the cover page) we have created a couple of committees that some of you might be interested in serving on. The first is the Audit Committee, which is chaired by Richard Fahie, our Treasurer phone 631-281-2061. Joining him are SAFE members Fred Form and John Kargman. The second committee formed is the Web-Site Committee, chaired by Board member Gary Burgess, phone 631-472-3339. Board member Chris Baumgartner, Board member Richard Fahie and our SAFE web master and member Paul Curreri join him. The third committee created is the Media Committee, which is chaired by SAFE member Bill Raab phone 631-242-1331. SAFE members Chris Garvey, Pat Walsh and Vincent Carbonaro join him. Should anyone else be interested in serving on any of these committees please contact the chairman of the respective committee. Should anyone have an idea for a new committee and is willing serve on it, don't hesitate to contact me personally.

June 2002

I would like to start this month's column by apologizing to Tony Giammarino, SAFE's Vice President, for leaving out his name as the author of the page 5 article regarding "Competitive Junior Pistol License" for last month, May. It is an important issue and Tony has worked hard on it. (To view the article in its entirety, click on the "Burning Issues" link to the left)

Mr. Rob Firriolo who is currently on the SAFE board of directors and also serves as the legal advisor to the board has decided not to run for another term office in SAFE. Rob has been an invaluable part of the SAFE organization and we will miss his input. I hope I am not speaking out of turn but I believe we can count on Rob to remain as the legal advisor to the SAFE board of directors. I personally am very appreciative of his counsel and knowledge these past few years. I know I speak for the entire board when I say he will be greatly missed.

Remember there are no scheduled meetings for July and August but if some major item does come up, then we will have a meeting. Our regular September organizational meeting will be on September 9th, 2002 instead of the 1st Monday in September because of the Labor Day Holiday. SAFE's Annual Right-To- Carry Conference this year is on September 29th, 2002 at the Melville Marriott, 1350 Old Walt Whitman Road, Melville New York, and telephone number 1-631-423-1600. The hotel is on the North side of the LIE at exit 49. The doors open at 12:00 Noon and the program begins at 1:00 PM and will end by 4:00 PM.

Make it a point to bring the entire family and friends to this event. Because it is the single largest event held on Long Island by the firearms community it is equally important for you to invite personally, your elected officials to attend. Make the invitation now, don't wait until later, and try to get a confirmation of their attendance. SAFE as usual will be inviting all publicly elected officials and a personal invitation from you reinforces the importance of the event. Keep in mind this is a state and federal election year. We have the greatest impact when we are actively involved and participate in the elections.

It is not only contradictory but down right bizarre for certain people in the federal government to have the authority to shoot down a plane load of people based on a mere assumption that it is in terrorist hands. Let me rephrase that, the federal government has assumed the power to shoot down any civilian aircraft that appears to pose a threat to public safety and thus be willing to kill hundreds of civilians on a "mere suspicion" of terrorism. This same government however, forbids the pilots and or flight crew as well as the passengers from lawfully carrying defensive firearms aboard aircraft because of the fear of accidental shootings. Why does it seem so obvious to me and yet escape the intelligence of those in charge that when passengers and crew are armed they could/would deter and prevent any terrorist hijackings. After all, who better to address the situation as it happens than those people who are right there on the spot, ready willing and able? When policies like this are in effect it is difficult for me to comprehend the real motives and reasons behind it. At the very least these policies are suspicious and worthy of public scrutiny. I always thought government existed to help us protect ourselves, not to disarm the American public and make us little more than victims for criminals or terrorists.

The NRA Meetings & Exhibits were great! It was good to see so many friends from Long Island there. If you missed it (It was in Reno Nevada this year, April 26, 27, 28) try and make next years in Orlando Florida on April 25th, 26th and 27th. This year 43,000 people attended and it was one of the largest conventions ever held in Reno. I also want to thank everyone who helped me get re-elected to the NRA Board of Directors. I have also been elected to serve on the NRA's Executive Committee by the other NRA board members.

The New York Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that could make it much easier for animal rights groups and anti civil rights groups (read anti-gun, anti-self defense groups) to ban gun ownership and use, hunting and/or trapping in the Empire State. The bill would allow citizens, with the help of the liberal media, to directly submit legislation to the voters, a tactic that the anti's have used in the past in an attempt to eliminate gun ownership, hunting and trapping in several states.

New York Senators voted 57-3 in favor of Senate Bill S-7306, which would give New York the initiative process. If this bill passes the state Assembly, New York sportsmen can kiss their hunting, firearms and self-defense rights good-bye.

Animal rights groups have used this initiative process to take hunting and trapping rights away from sportsmen in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington. These sportsmen lost the ability to trap, hunt bear, cougar and lynx. In all of these states, thanks to large populations in the major metropolitan areas, they had the deciding vote. Keep in mind that these are places where people have had virtually no exposure to rural lifestyles or outdoor sports including gun ownership and use. To have any chance in such a debate, New York sportsmen will have to spend millions to campaign in those areas. Where sportsmen/gun owners are able to raise the necessary funds they win, where they fail to raise the necessary funds, they lose!

Even in the states in which sportsmen have won, the cost of these successes has been astronomical. Victory had a price tag of $1 million in Arizona, $2 million in Michigan and $2.6 million in Ohio and $15 million in California. In each of these cases, it took sportsmen nearly two years to raise their campaign funds. New York hunters have been spared this one-sided playing field because the state does not have the initiative process. If Senate Bill 7306 becomes law, New York City will control the outcome of every initiative. Just like it controlled the outcome of the US Senate race between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio. The television market area of New York City represents nearly 11 million residents (58%) of the 19 million people in the state.

The only way to avoid this is to get on the telephone and stop the advancement of Bill S-7306. Call your State Assemblyman now. Tell him or her that sportsmen/gun owners oppose Senate Bill 7306. Be sure to leave your address to prove you are a constituent. Get your friends and family to make a call too. Your right to own and use a firearm for self defense and/or hunting depends on it.

Back to top

May 2002

Republicans in New York State have sought out and received support from the firearms community for many years. At a time when it was fairly easy to be pro gun they routinely proclaimed their support for the right of the people to own and use firearms. But that should not be the test…when it's easy. The real test should be when it is difficult or not the popular thing to support. Where were our Republican friends then when Pataki was pushing his ill advised and poorly written 5 point anti gun program in 2000? It would seem that based on past actions all Republicans can no longer be trusted to follow the party platform. That platform includes that they will not support any law or proposal that interferes with lawful ownership and use of firearms by New York citizens.

This year the election for Governor of New York State will be very difficult. I cannot in good conscience recommend Pataki when he has earned our mistrust and intentionally hurt the lawful firearms owning public so much. Unfortunately for gun owners, both Democratic opponents are trying to outdo each other with anti gun proposals they would seek if elected. That does not leave us with much choice. Or does it?

I for one think it is time to do something the gun owners and sportsmen in this state have never done before. That is simply to take a more active roll in the primary process in this state and decide who should be running for office on a particular party line. That's not as hard as you may think and because of our numbers we may actually get everyone's attention and a candidate who can truly be supported by the firearms community. At the very least I would expect such political action to make a clear statement that the firearms owners and users cannot and will not be taken for granted by any political party.

We have a chance to put a very pro gun candidate on the primary ballot against Pataki. That alone would definitely get us noticed as never before. It would also in my opinion elevate the level of discussion regarding firearms in this state to a level no one else has dared to in recent times. Louis Wein is/will be attempting to get on the Republican primary ballot and I think it is appropriate for people to discover for themselves just who he is and what he represents. He has a web site that you should all look at and if you don't have a computer you can send for information about him and his beliefs.

Following are a few excerpts from a letter many others and I received from Legislator Ginny Fields, Chairman of the Parks and Sports and Recreation Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature regarding the Suffolk County Trap and Skeet Range:

"Having so many sportsmen and women show up at the Parks Committee meeting on Thursday, March 14th, demonstrated to my colleagues at the Legislature, and to the Suffolk County Executive, that we CARE about Suffolk having this facility remain a shooting range. I appreciate all of the emails, letters, and phone calls. I also appreciate the personal appearances of those who took time out of their busy schedules to show up at my Parks Committee meeting last Thursday. There were approximately 200 sportsmen and women in attendance who were supporting my opposition to the closing of the facility. It certainly left an impression upon those who were listening (and there are now many)."

April 2002

In the name of catching or stopping terrorists, some agencies in the federal government are rapidly establishing program after program that monitor law-abiding American citizens. Long time wish lists of government officials and special interests for expanded government surveillance of ordinary Americans are being put forth daily, wrapped of course in fine-sounding phrases. Promoters of this nonsense hope that busy and/or frightened Americans will look no further than each proposal's reassuring title, (remember the quote "don't judge a book by its cover"). We must look beyond these innocent sounding titles. What these measures really seek to establish is federal surveillance of law-abiding people on a scale previously unimaginable and not tolerated in America. It reminds me of quote from one of our founding fathers, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin. We should not be so eager to accept without looking very closely at every proposal put forth in the name of "National Security".

There is a general misconception that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law that violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. " Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). This includes Treaty Law! You would think the courts already know this!

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them "Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. "Norton vs. Shelby County118 US 425 p.442.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, an not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. "16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 law 2nd, Section 256.

Here are a couple more pertinent quotes:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Barry Goldwater politician speech, San Francisco, 17 July 1964.

No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.

Back to top

March 2002

Some of you had noticed our web site was not updated for the past couple of months and for this we apologize. That's because our previous web master had to resign for personal reasons. He did an excellent job of setting up the web site and maintaining it and I wish to thank Alan Chwick for all his efforts. We have found somene to take over that responsibility and the site is currently being updated.

Make a note that the 2002 SAFE Right To Carry Conference will be on September 29th, 2002 at the Melville Marriott Hotel. The specifics of time and list of guest speakers will be published when all the final arrangements are completed. This being a state and federal election year this conference will be extremely important.

A couple of bills worthy of our support are A-9561 companion S-2279, which provides that a properly issued license to carry concealed is valid throughout New York State, including the City of New York. The current law has been protecting New York City muggers by keeping their victims unarmed since 1911. Isn't it about time that the muggers worried about the possibility that their suburban victims may be armed? As Professor John Lott's extensive studies have shown, armed victims are the most effective deterrent to violent crimes. Many lives could be saved if this bill passes. Another recently reintroduced bill is A-9560, which establishes a presumption that an applicant for a handgun license has "proper cause" for issuance thereof under Penal Law Section 400. The Senate companion is S-2302. This would end the requirement that a person needs to give a reason in order to apply for and obtain a NYS handgun carry license. The burden of showing that there is a good reason not to issue a license is on the issuing authority. In other words this bill would stop issuing agents from taking a "proper cause" and turning it into a "proper restriction" on a license.

I have reported previously that the Suffolk County Trap and Skeet range has been closed because the concessionaire did not do those things required in the contract with Suffolk County. That issue is still up in the air with a number of unofficial proposals being considered. When I hear of something more definite I will inform you all immediately. Unfortunately, now the Brookhaven Rifle and Pistol Range is under fire (no pun intended). The Long Island Pine Barrens Society has filed a complaint with a state commission that the Brookhaven Shooting Range has been illegally building on core pine barrens land. The LI Pine Barrens group wants the range shut down and is disappointed that town supervisor has not taken action yet. Mr. John LaValle, Town Supervisor, said he would wait until the Central Pine Barrens Commission finishes it's investigation and then a punishment may be administered, but one that matches the violation. It would seem no matter where we (gun owners) go, someone is hell bent on putting the shooting sports out of business. This is similar to what has been going on for years at the Calverton Range. Someone is always claiming that the range is dangerous or breaking a law or a nuisance to the general public. All of that is nonsense. It is in fact the safest activity regularly engaged in by the public. No other sport has such an enviable safety record. It is not only the shooting sports that suffer, but also those who want and or have firearms for self-defense. Closure of the ranges would prevent people from having a safe place to learn to properly use firearms and develop the skills necessary to defend themselves and their families.
Back to top

January-February 2002

Happy New Year and I hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas. It's now time to get back to work by staying informed of the activities of the various legislative bodies that control the future and our way of life. Because of the latest terrorism threat many politicians have been talking of and introducing legislation that does nothing to address terrorism but does interfere with our exercising our Constitutional and God given rights of self-protection. While everyone says we should get back to our regular routine way of life, that will be difficult considering how much restriction is being proposed by certain legislators who want to control all good lawful American citizens in an attempt to get at potential terrorists. The one thing few politicians are proposing are laws that empower the average American citizen to protect themselves and/or come to the aid and assistance of others in need.

At a recent regular meeting of SAFE a member by the name of Bill Rabb suggested a project for the SAFE and it's membership. That is we should be trying to get pro-gun self-defense videos on the various cable channels on Long Island. The NRA has had limited success in getting a number of Crime Strike videos on commercial TV. We can get those tapes from NRA but what we need is for members of SAFE to contact their own respective cable companies where they live and request the necessary paperwork and/or contact person to get our videos on their cable channels as a public service. We are sure that residents and subscribers are entitled to make such a request while non-residents and/or non-subscribers may not. I have appointed Mr. Bill Rabb as chairman of this project and when you get the necessary paperwork or information you should contact him directly at 631-242-1331 or at his e-mail address br53113@hotmail.com. Should this project be successful we may just be able, in a limited fashion, to get our message out to the general public, and this has been very difficult for groups like us and something we should be doing.

A recently released survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP) finds that over 62 percent of the nation's police chiefs and sheriffs favor a national system allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. The survey asked 23,113 chiefs and sheriffs around the country, "Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states already reflected?" According to the NACOP, 62 percent of those surveyed said "yes". The survey further shows that 93 percent of the commanding officers believe law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense.

While I am thankful for the support of the majority from NACOP with regard to a citizen concealed handgun carry right, I do not agree it should be by a national license. First, it, like the current New York State carry law would be subject to too much bureaucratic abuse and /or interpretation, depending on the current administration. To avoid this, all that needs to be done is for every state to honor all carry licenses issued anywhere in the USA. After all, every state currently recognizes a marriage license or a drivers' license or a vehicle registration issued in all other states. Then why not the same recognition for a concealed carry handgun license? The same general background check is required and performed from state to state under federal law. It is my opinion that when a person has been proven not to be a criminal by going through the National Instant Check System (NICS), then there is absolutely no reason and no justification to assume once a citizen has been given a concealed carry license that that person would suddenly become criminally involved. Only public officials who don't trust the citizenry and anti civil rights (gun control) people think like that. After over 90 years of concealed handgun carry in New York State we have proven positively to be the most law-abiding segment of society in this state.
Back to top

December 2001

This will be the last regular SAFE meeting for 2001. And looking back on this past year it has been a very busy and successful one. Take for example the Right To Carry Conference (RTC). Everyone who attended including our speakers said it was extremely well run and a very effective tool in getting gun owners together as well as making a really good impression on all the legislative candidates. I have to admit that I did not think 1000 plus people were going to attend this year, especially since it was only a local election year. I must say I am very satisfied that so many people thought it important enough to come out and make such a positive statement. And that statement is, firearms owners are and will be a major factor in any election, local, state or national and no potential politician should take us for granted. Because of this years RTC conference our membership rolls have increased once again and you can bet every potential candidate for office knows of SAFE.

In last months column I wrote about three good pro-gun bills we are supporting in the New York State Legislature. I hope you "ALL" took the time to contact your State Assembly person and your State Senator either by phone, by writing a letter to them or taking the time to personally visit them on these important bills. These legislators need to know and hear from the people that these bills are very important to us and we want them to vote in favor of them when they come up for a vote. Most importantly they are all in their home offices until January when the return to Albany NY. Even then most state legislators are in the local office the last couple of days each week.

As a matter of fact, we want them to do everything in their power to see to it that these bills are brought up on the floor for discussion and a vote. If your legislator cannot or will not support any of these bills you should ask why not? All these bills do is to restore certain rights and reduce the ability of issuing agents to use current law in an abusive way. Too many times the average law abiding citizen is made to comply with artificially created situations in an attempt to discourage lawful gun ownership. These bills in no way interfere with an issuing agents ability to issue a handgun license. The law would still make sure the person getting a handgun license has the required thorough background checks. But these bills would stop the completely arbitrary and totally different requirements in each County and create one statewide standard. And what's wrong with that? When it comes to "RIGHTS" all the people in the state should be treated equally, not differently from one area of the state to another.

I and the rest of the SAFE board of directors have worked hard to provide you, the member, the latest up to the minute information and education on anything related to firearms ownership and use. All the information and education in the world is of little value if no one uses it to improve the conditions of firearms owners and would be owners. Firearms ownership and use is our right, and we need to constantly safeguard and protect that right from being abused and in some cases done away with entirely by being better-informed activists. I for one am proud to be an activist and you should be too. The rights we leave our children and grand children with regard to firearms ownership and use is directly related to our active involvement in these issues today and tomorrow.

By the time you get this Thanksgiving will be over and I hope you all had an enjoyable time with family and friends. And in as much as this newsletter will be the last for this year I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy and Healthy New Year.
Back to top

November 2001

The antigun fanatics in this country have never seen a tragedy they won't attempt to exploit in their quest to demonize gun owners and/or U.S. gun manufacturers. Groups like the Violence Policy Center (VPC) are using the misrepresentation of the .50-caliber rifle in Afghanistan as a back door attempt to go after every lawfully owned gun in this country. Elsewhere in this report is a letter from Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. bringing out some facts you should all be aware of in this debate.

I am extremely proud of our recent Right To Carry (RTC) Conference and especially all of the volunteers who helped to make it a success. Without the full boards cooperation and the hard working volunteers it would not be the outstanding and effective event it usually is. There were a number of people from the media in attendance but only one that I am aware of actually wrote and published an article, and one that was accurate and thorough. It was written by Carl Limbacher of www.Newsmax.com and published on the internet. I have reproduced it here for those who have not seen it or who do not have access to a computer or the internet.  

If you have looked at all of the legislative reports from SAFE for the past five months or at our web-site, you will notice these three bills are the ones that directly effect the Right to Carry issue in New York State. They are the ones that need your immediate attention. You see "your" state legislators are home now, in their respective districts, and now is the time to go visit them (the best method) or write a letter regarding these bills (the next best) or to call them (the next, next best method). If for any reason you can't talk to your representative in person ask to speak to the legislative director who handles the firearms bills. No matter who you speak to make it absolutely imperative that you believe in and want these bills passed into law so as to prevent further local arbitrary abuses and to create a statewide standard. You have now been given the information you need to do something of importance, what remains is your doing it. Do not wait for the other guy to do it.
Back to top

October 2001

It isn't Social Security benefits that Americans are worried about it's the Social Security number itself. The widespread misuse of Social Security numbers is a growing political issue. The misuse of Social Security numbers is now a national crisis. Because the government created the Social Security number and allowed it to assume such great power it's the government's job to rectify the problem."

When Social Security was created in 1935, the Social Security number's sole purpose was to track the earnings of employed Americans so their wages would be properly credited, and we were promised it would never be used for anything else. The Social Security number has become a de facto personal identifier for everything.

The temptation to use Social Security numbers for other purposes is apparently irresistible. The Department of Defense uses them for armed forces personnel and draft registration, and the Internal Revenue Service requires them for income tax returns and for our bank deposits to make sure all our income is declared.

Federal, state and local governments use Social Security numbers for everything from food stamps to drivers' licenses to marriage licenses to water and sewer bills. This is a convenience that we can no longer afford.

Congress should be thanked for enactment of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, which enables the feds to prosecute those who misappropriate someone else's identity. To be sure, it's important to punish identity theft, but it is even more critical to prevent it in the first place.

The problem is the everyday and pervasive use of Social Security numbers by those other than the Social Security Administration. This not only includes government agencies, but schools, colleges, hospitals, banks, insurance companies, credit card companies and merchants, even for such transactions as getting a hunting license or buying a refrigerator. More and more people are being told their Social Security number is required for reasons that just don't make sense.

There is a definite need for legislation that limits the use of Social Security numbers to purposes that benefit the holder of the Social Security number. It should not be used for the benefit of the company that sells an appliance or insurance or the state that issues a driver's license.

The Inspector General of the Social Security Administration said that last year his office received 46,840 allegations of Social Security number misuse and another 43,456 of allegations of program fraud that includes Social Security number misuse. Identity thieves used to steal credit card numbers one by one from mailboxes and restaurant receipts. Now they steal wholesale on the Internet. A thief can buy someone's Social Security number on the Internet for $39.95, use it within minutes to get a credit card, and then use it to buy big-ticket items such as cars and jewelry.

Commercial online data brokers collect and sell personal information for legitimate purposes, and their customers include banks, insurance companies, journalists and law enforcement agencies. This data comes from public records or information provided by consumers on credit applications. But when sold online, the brokers have no way of checking the identity or legitimacy of buyers. The majority of applications for credit are made over the phone with the Social Security number as the only identifier.

The best solution to this privacy crisis caused by the universal use of Social Security numbers by government and business comes from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He proposes assigning every American a new Social Security number and banning the use of Social Security numbers as identifying tools. This invasion of privacy must be addressed and soon.

By Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story...

Monday, Oct. 1, 2001 10:30 a.m. EDT NRA Backers Grapple With Terrorist Threat More than 1,500 gun rights supporters meeting at a New York hotel Sunday had a message for terrorists who may be planning another attack on America: Next time your victims might be armed and able to defend themselves.

Headliners of the event, sponsored by The Sportsman's Association for Firearms Education (S.A.F.E.) and billed as "The 2001 Right to Carry Conference," included staunch Second Amendment backer Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and Prof. John Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

Also addressing the standing-room-only crowd: NRA officials Kayne Robinson and Sandy Froman, Kevin Watson of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (L.E.A.A.) and Suzanna Gratia Hupp, the Texas state representative who became a gun rights activist after witnessing the murder of her parents by a gun-toting madman who killed 23 at a Killeen, Texas, restaurant in 1991.

While some of Washington's political elite want to restrict Second Amendment rights and other constitutional guarantees in response to the murder of over 6,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Melville, N.Y., gathering was warned that this is no time to disarm America.

"We need to be very, very skeptical" about restrictions being planned in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Rep. Barr warned.

"It will be very difficult to fight against these new proposals, because they're being touted as they were [after the Oklahoma City bombing] as anti-terrorist proposals."

The Georgia conservative said that without public resistance, his congressional colleagues could be stampeded into backing harsh new legislation "because they're afraid of being portrayed as being in favor of terrorists."

Barr was also critical of ex-President Clinton's attempts to make political hay out of the Twin Towers atrocity. "It was bad enough to see Clinton after the [National Cathedral memorial service] hogging TV time. He just parked himself right on the steps as everybody was leaving, where he knew the cameras would be focused on him. And he just stood there and shook hands and glad-handed like it was a campaign event, for heaven sakes.

"Thank God these terrorist attacks didn't happen under the Clinton administration," Barr added.

Prof. Lott cited a little-publicized aspect of Israel's response to terrorism and suggested America would do well to follow Israel's example.

"A few years ago, after a wave of terrorist attacks, Israel's national police chief called on all concealed [carry] permit holders to carry their firearms at all times," he told the crowd. "The Israelis realize that the police simply can't be there at all times to protect people from terrorists."

Lott urged the NRA to educate Americans to the fact that restrictive gun laws actually increase crime and cost hundreds of lives each year.

A living testament to Lott's point is Rep. Hupp, who recounted the day her parents were shot to death in a Texas restaurant as she looked on helplessly - with her own gun lying useless in the family's car just 100 feet away.

A Texas gun control law, since repealed, made it illegal for Hupp to carry the weapon, which might have saved the lives of not only her parents but also 21 other people, into the building.

She warned that all the security in the world was no substitute for a public able to defend itself, and she underscored the point with a startling anecdote.

Displaying a small penknife, she told the crowd, "Flying up here this weekend I went through two security checkpoints with this in my purse. It's got about an inch-and-a-half real sharp blade on it. Doesn't that make you feel safe?"

The NRA's Sandy Froman echoed Hupp's sentiments: "The next time someone tells you that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment has been superseded by the National Guard, ask them who it was who prevented United Airlines Flight 93 from reaching its target."

"Those brave souls did what they could," she added. "But because they were unarmed, all they could do was crash that plane so more people wouldn't die. Think what they might have been able to do had they been armed."

Froman's NRA colleague Kayne Robinson talked about the kind of national response necessary to deter future acts of terrorism.

"Real security against attacks by state-sponsored terrorists lies in the knowledge by those states that they will be totally destroyed if they attack us. ... The cost must be so great that no one will ever forget - a cost with the mental impact of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden."

S.A.F.E. President John Cushman reminded those who want to blame firearms for America's violence, "The largest mass murder in American history was just committed without the use of a single gun. ... Twenty thousand gun laws couldn't have prevented the Twin Towers massacre."

The L.E.A.A.'s Kevin Watson warned, "You can't take measures like authorizing the military to shoot down aircraft if you won't allow pilots to shoot down terrorists."

Watson also noted that since the events of Sept. 11, Handgun Control Inc. has announced it is laying off 20 percent of its staff due to declining interest in gun control.

Also on hand was Republican Alan Skorski, who hopes to unseat Congress' No. 1 gun control advocate, Carolyn McCarthy. McCarthy was catapulted into politics after her husband was shot to death in 1993's Long Island Railroad massacre.

But Skorski said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have changed the political landscape in a way that may make McCarthy politically vulnerable in 2002.

"The Democratic Leadership Council no longer wants to ignore the 80 million gun owners in this country," he told NewsMax.com.

"Some House members are now softening their position. Carolyn McCarthy is one of those people. ... When she won on election night 1994, she said, 'Tonight I defeated the NRA.' I want to hear her come out and say, 'I was wrong. I apologize for demonizing gun owners for the last six years.”
Back to top

September 2001

Few public policy discussions have become so bitter and divisive as the endless debate over guns. None is so burdened with contradictions and misinformation. The dictionary defines a paradox as "something or someone with seemingly contradictory qualities or phrases. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Gun control is gun safety. George Orwell, in his book 1984, showed that those who can control the terms used in a debate would control the debate. The current trend among those who want to control legitimate access to firearms have taken to calling their proposals "gun safety laws". This is perhaps the most blatant example of double speak as I have ever heard.

While not wanting to get into reinventing the language dictionary we use, we need to be more careful not to use the negative and often misleading terms of those who would deny the American people the right to own and use firearms. The first issue we need to address is the language currently being used in all of our communications, both to our members and that which goes out to the general public.

For example, none of our communication media (venues) should use the following terms, "gun violence, assault weapon, gun show loophole, or gun control". Each of these terms is not only incorrect, but more importantly, extremely misleading in general and damaging to our cause because they shift the terms of the debate onto our opponents' ground. There is no such thing as gun violence, only people who are violent and sometimes use guns. As for "Gun control," that term works against us because it disguises the fact that the real issue here is people control, or gun regulation. These latter concepts are much less appealing to the vast majority of Americans who do not have strong feelings about guns, but who can be persuaded to join the pro gun or pro civil rights camp by the imprecise use of language.

Groups like HCI or VPC ultimately seek to prohibit firearms ownership by anyone except the government (i.e., the police and military). Two points that are central to this type of prohibitionist thinking are: (a) in order for a society to be civilized, ordinary people must be disarmed; and (b) disarmament of the citizenry can only be achieved gradually, and only after first demonizing guns and gun ownership. They do this by creating words and or phrases that confuse at the very least, and in most cases intentionally misdirect the debate to inanimate objects such as guns, (which have no rights) instead of to peoples' rights (god given and constitutional) such as self defense and recreation. We must be careful not to use their terms or definitions in our communications.

We should develop a lexicon of our own which can be used to more clearly define the issues and what is a stake for the American people. For example an assault weapon should be properly called an "anti-assault firearm" or a "self defense firearm" because in most documented cases it prevents a crime from happening or stops one from going any further. Gun prohibitionists usually are those who defend the right of a woman to have an abortion, but would deny her the right to use a firearm to protect herself and her family. Since these are both matters of life and death, one might expect more consistency, but instead they are contradictory. Most of those who would take away every ones right to own and use firearms use terms and language that are contradictory and confusing intentionally. It is our obligation to do everything we can to clear up the terms used in this most important debate. That being said, I invite anyone who wishes to contribute to the cause to send/give me a list of more accurate and/or appropriate words to be used in this debate to better explain and insure our future freedoms to those not already involved. And in some cases, to those already involved.
Back to top

Jul-Aug 2001

Hope everyone is enjoying their summer. I also hope everyone is taking the time to read these legislative reports boring as they might be. The state legislature is still in session (usually they have gone home by now) and they continue to need to hear from you even if the only thing you tell them is that you support our reports and positions on firearm bills. Please do not leave it for the other guy to do.

On the front page of this newsletter is a preliminary announcement about this years Right To Carry (RTC) Conference and those speakers who are confirmed. There are others I am waiting to hear from and when they confirm I will announce it. This notice contains all the information you need to make plans now to be there.

The results of the elections at the SAFE Annual meeting are as follows; the three incumbent directors Carol A. Cushman, Tony Giammarino and Chris Baumgartner were each reelected for a three-year term. Also at the annual meeting the membership elected James Kelly to serve on the SAFE nominating committee for 2002. At the board of directors meeting following the annual meeting the following officers were elected by the board to serve for the coming year. John L. Cushman, President, Tony Giammarino, Vice President, Carol A. Cushman, Secretary and Richard Fahie Treasurer. The board also elected Bill Mills and Dennis Ahearn from the membership and board members Tony Giammarino and Chris Baumgartner to serve on the SAFE nominating committee for 2002.

On July 9 to 20, New York City will host the United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects. The purpose of this conference is to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns. You see most countries do not have a SECOND AMENDENT. Do not be misled by the term "small arms." UN documents define small arms as weapons "designed for personal use" such as your Browning pistol, your Remington rifle, or your Winchester shotgun. Don't be misled by the term "illicit" trade. UN documents make it clear that, since most illegal guns start out as legal purchases, the only way to stop illegal trade must be by clamping down on legal gun owners. What else is new!

The United States has however voiced a host of objections to the draft proposal, including its inclusion of weapons that civilians can legally own, such as handguns and hunting rifles. John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control said Washington rejected any attempt to limit legal commerce in firearms or intrude on domestic matters such as the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Instead, "it is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that ... should properly concern us," he said Monday. The United States "cannot and will not support" any move to limit gun trade only to governments or adopt a legally binding treaty to curb small arms trafficking, he said. The lack of a universally accepted definition of small arms and light weapons is an underlying problem at the conference.

Representative Bob Barr, R-GA., a leading foe of gun control and an observer to the conference, said any attempt by U.N. members to "involve themselves in the domestic affairs of the United States or, indeed, of any nation would not be viewed with favor by the Congress." I am very glad we have George W. Bush in the White House, I cannot believe Clinton or Gore would have stood up for our Constitutional Rights as he has.
Back to top

June 2001

The Annual Meeting of Members

The Annual Meeting of Members will be held on Monday, June 4, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Rainbow Center in Lindenhurst.

Several important items of business will be transacted at this meeting. Two of the most important are the nomination and election of members of the Nominating Committee, and the election of Directors.

The Bylaws provide that the Nominating Committee shall be elected at the Annual Meeting. The Nominating Committee is comprised of three (3) Annual or Sponsor Members and two (2) members of the Board of Directors, with the President serving as committee chairman ex officio without vote, except in cases of a deadlock. One member will be elected to the Nominating Committee by those members eligible to vote in attendance at the Annual Meeting.

Nominations of members to fill two additional seats on the Nominating Committee will also be accepted at the Annual Meeting. At the first meeting of the Board of Directors after the Annual Meeting, the Board will appoint two (2) members from the list of members nominated at the Annual Meeting to serve on the Nominating Committee. The Board will also appoint to the committee two Directors whose terms do not expire the following year.

The election of Directors will take place at the Annual Meeting. To be eligible to vote, you must have been a SAFE member in good standing for a continuous period of two years and thirty (30) days prior to the date of the Annual Meeting. In accordance with SAFE’s Bylaws [§ III. 4. a.], the Board of Directors will provide an official Notice for the Annual Meeting by mail to all members eligible to vote. When you receive this Notice, please read it carefully and bring it with you to the Annual Meeting. This notice will be exchanged for a ballot at the annual meeting. If you receive no Notice but believe you are eligible to vote, please speak with the Secretary at the start of the Annual Meeting so that your status may be verified.

Remember there are no scheduled meetings for July and August but if some major item does come up, then we will have a meeting. Our regular September organizational meeting will be on August 27^th, 2001 instead of the 1^st Monday in September because of the Labor Day Holiday. SAFE’s Annual Right-To- Carry Conference this year is on September 30^th, 2001 at the Melville Marriott, 1350 Old Walt Whitman Road, Melville New York, and telephone number 1-631-423-1600. The hotel is on the North side of the LIE at exit 49. The doors open at 12:00 Noon and the program begins at 1:00 PM and will end by 4:00 PM.

Make it a point to bring the entire family and friends to this event. Because it is the single largest event held on Long Island by the firearms community it is equally important for you to invite personally, your elected officials to attend. Make the invitation now, don’t wait until later, and try to get a confirmation of attendance. SAFE will be inviting all publicly elected officials and a personal invitation from you reinforces the importance of the event. Keep in mind this is an off year election cycle and we can have an even greater impact on the outcome of all local elections. But only if you all participate in them. Enjoy the summer.
Back to top

May 2001

We had an excellent turnout of people at our April meeting, probably because the snowstorm on the evening of the March meeting limited attendance. As usual we had a lively discussion on a whole host of subjects and an especially informative one on the Nassau County handgun license fee issue. Tony Giammarino, Rob Firriolo and others gave an in depth commentary on what took place at the Nassau County Legislative meeting. I just wish more of our Nassau County members were able to attend the legislative meeting, although over 200 did turn out on short notice. Every member who gets this report should make an attempt to make our monthly meetings because there is so much more information that is brought out there than can be possibly put in our newsletter.

For example, the All County Rifle and Pistol Club, a member of SAFE was informed that I am in need of a new computer to do the SAFE newsletter, letter writing, e-mail and maintain the database of our membership. So at the April 2001 general meeting Mr. Daniel Albrecht, Secretary/Treasurer on behalf of this member club graciously donated $1000.00 dollars to SAFE earmarked for the purchase of this computer. I wish to "Thank" them publicly on behalf of all of SAFE for their generous donation. It will go a long way towards the new computer and helps tremendously to financially ease the burden on our general fund.

Just as a reminder, I sincerely hope you are all using our legislative reports when you contact your elected representatives. As I said earlier, they already receive these reports but they may need some push on your part to pay attention to the positions we have taken. And if they have any problem supporting our positions they should contact us so we may further explain if necessary. The state budget is almost complete and when that happens legislation will start to be acted on more quickly and we want to be sure our opinions are foremost in the minds of these legislators at this time.

Recently the International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. The survey said twenty-six percent of English citizens, roughly one-quarter of the population have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. Highlights of the study indicated that:

• The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
• Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent.
• "After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate.
• England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.
• The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S. After reading this survey, does it appear that we need more gun control or less? Gun control has never been the solution to crime and never will be, but it can and often does make good citizens victims of criminals.
Back to top

April 2001

Nominations and Petitions for Directors

The Nominating Committee is now accepting nominations for the election of three directors at the next Annual Meeting of Members, tentatively scheduled for June 4th, 2001. Potential candidates for Director cannot have been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, and must have been a member in good standing for at least three consecutive calendar years. Candidates for Director must be either nominated by the Nominating Committee or nominated by a petition signed by at least ten percent of all members with voting power, and verified by the Secretary. The Secretary upon request will make petition forms available to the membership.

Members wishing the Nominating Committee to consider a potential candidate should, by letter addressed to “Chairman, Nominating Committee” in care of the Secretary, state the qualifications of the potential candidate and any other information the committee could find useful in evaluating the candidate. Letters received by the Secretary later than the end of the regular SAFE membership meeting on May 7th, 2001 will not be considered.

For the record, the following members of the board of directors’ terms expire this year: Carol Cushman, Chris Baumgartner and Tony Giammarino. Each year the membership elects three members to the board of directors for a three-year term. Special note to Nominating Committee members: The Nominating Committee will have a brief meeting on Monday, April 2nd, 2001 during or immediately after the regular SAFE membership meeting, and at the same location.

At the 2000 Annual meeting the membership elected Larry Goodson to the nominating committee and from the rest of those nominated by the membership the board elected Jim Kelly and Marilyn Cohen to serve also. The two sitting board members, Gary Burgess and Al DiBernardo whose term of office does not expire next year were elected to serve on the nominating committee for the year 2001 elections. As president I will chair the committee but will have no vote except in the case of a tie.

Because of the snowstorm last month and only 12 people showing up there was no regular meeting. This month promises to be a full active meeting you won’t want to miss. As I write this month’s column I am wondering what will happen at the Nassau County Legislative meeting tonight in Mineola New York. I am currently out of town so I will not be able to get to this important meeting. However, Tony Giammarino Vice President of SAFE and Rob Firriolo a SAFE Director will be leading the fight to restore some common sense to the legislature for their outrageous 800% increase in handgun license fees last year. I e-mailed everyone I have an e-mail address for last week so if you did not get a notice, it is because I do not have yours. Anyone who wants to be on our e-mail alert list must simply send me note via e-mail with your full name and e-mail address. We do not use it often or to just chat just when something of particular importance comes up. And this is a two way street, that is, if you know about something that is important or going to happen let me know so I can pass it on.

I hope you all find the legislative reports informative and timely. It is a lot of work to prepare them and I sincerely hope you are using them with your legislators. Legislators routinely say they never hear from the firearm’s owners regarding these proposed laws. I know they hear from SAFE and now they must hear from you so they will not have the excuse to do as they please. Action on our part now will make them all pay attention later. See you at the meeting.
Back to top

March 2001

On the following pages is the first installment of this year’s legislative report. All of the bills listed on the next six pages were introduced in New York State. This is far from all the bills that will be introduced this year and so the next few SAFE Legislative reports will contain mostly firearms bills that can and will effect your life in the future. While you see only the synopsis of each bill listed here, be assured that I/we have the full text of each and every bill and it is only after the full text is read that a position statement is made.

The reason for giving each of you the various bills in this format is to make sure you are thoroughly informed about it’s purpose and our position. It is also important because I hope you will take the information and do something with it, specifically, contact your legislator with your opinion and support SAFE‘s position. As I have said elsewhere in this report, every legislator gets this information, so when you contact any legislator and they say they don’t have it, tell them you will make copies and send it to them. Do not allow any legislator to plead ignorance as to the purpose of any bill introduced in this state or in our position on it.

Recently I was in Washington DC on NRA business and made an appointment with my Congressman, Felix Grucci in the 1^st CD. While I did not get the chance this time to meet with him personally (I have done so before the election) I did meet his staff. We had a 45-minute meeting on the activities of SAFE and firearms issues in general. We had what I believe to be a good dialogue about what SAFE can offer in the way of expertise on firearms related issues and what we expect of Grucci’s staff. Specifically, we expect Congressman Grucci’s office to keep us informed of any firearms related bills or proposals introduced and to be given every opportunity to provide guidance or input on any legislative proposal before action or a vote is taken. To be treated fairly is all we request and expect of our public officials.

I would strongly recommend that every SAFE member who can, ought to make an appointment to see their own Congressman or State legislator or the staff person who handles the firearms issues in that office right here at home. Seek to have them keep you/us informed of any firearm legislation or proposals and to use SAFE’s expertise and knowledge when looking at any of these firearm-related issues in the future. I and every member of the board of directors of SAFE have only one pair of eyes and ears and they go wherever I/we go so, we cannot possibly know everything that is going on unless you inform us. I have often said I would rather hear the same piece of information 10 times than not hear it at all. This whole system works best when we all work together. I/we will do everything possible to keep you informed and you must do the same in return.

This year I believe, as does the SAFE board that we must, we should and we will get more involved in the local, county and town elections on Long Island. Most candidates who ultimately run for higher office such as State or Federal are people who have gotten their first or primary experience at the local level. This helps us in two ways. First, we have a greater impact vote wise at the local level because of our numbers. And second because it is a great opportunity to establish how credible we are in our knowledge, expertise and honesty on the firearm issue. It is vitally important for us to establish as early as possible in any politician’s career our ability to provide accurate and reliable information on any firearm-related matter. This is something that most public officials will carry with them for as long as they serve in office.

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court decided to stay out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns. The Bush administration has recently advocated this "individual right" position by reversing the government's long-held policy that the right to keep and bear arms applies just to state militias. Without any comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department just last month announced this change in policy. Of course this new policy was denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association. Everyone I know was hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the case and once and for all resolve the issue in our favor. I just hope that when the nation's highest court gets around to hearing the case of an individual right verses the collective right to keep and bear arms we will still have judges on the bench who believe in the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and not a more politically correct and modern interpretation.

Back to top

January-February 2001

1. Where are the documented complaints filed with whatever official Suffolk County agency?
2. Has the complaint/s been properly investigated, and if so, by whom? Where is the report of the results of that investigation and are the complaints accurate and justified?
3. What about the contract obligations the county has with concessionaire? I understand the contract is for 10 years with 5 years remaining.
4. The "therefore be it resolved" portion of the resolution itself appears to written backwards. That is, the resolution proposes to close the range first and then look for an alternative location. I strongly suggested that under no circumstances should the range be closed without it's replacement being fully constructed and ready to go. After all, would you move from one house to another before it is completely finished? I wouldn't !
5. The current law, specifically section 150 of the General Business Law gives a degree of protection to existing ranges provided they met the standards at the time of original construction. I believe the residents who were at the hearing today, and said they made the original complaints, felt the legislative route was the only one open to them because the law as currently written would not help them get the range closed. And, that is what they want, the range to be completely closed. A number of these residents (complainants) even said they were NRA members and/or shooters and/or hunters, but still wanted the range closed.
6. Lastly was the argument that there are no Trap and Skeet Shooting facilities in NYC or Nassau County and thus this range is now busier than ever. This not only brings in revenue directly to the county in the form of shooting fees, but also indirectly in the form of gas and food purchases. This does not even take into account the money generated in local stores by people who accompany those who are shooters. How many other county or town facilities can match the financial record of paying for themselves as the shooting ranges do? Additionally, it was pointed out that in over 40 years of operation there has not been a single shooting incident at the range which is strong testimony to the safe operation of this facility. How many other recreational facilities can boast this safety record?

• Vivian Fisher, chair 631-854-1500 631-854-1503
• David Bishop, Vice chair 631-854-1100 631-854-1103
• Michael Caracciolo 631-852-3200 631-852-3203
• Ginny Fields 631-854-0900 631-854-4928
• Angie Carpenter 631-854-4100 631-854-4103
• Brian Foley 631-854-1400 631-854-1403

December 2000

Election Day has come and gone for this year and we still do not know who will be leading our country.  I am writing this month's column before the new President of the United States is declared because this newsletter needs to be mailed at least one week before the next meeting.  It needs to be written, then printed, then folded and stuffed into envelopes, then labeled and stamped before it's ready to be mailed.  I and my wife Carol who is also the secretary of SAFE do all this by the way.  I tell you this so that if anyone has a problem with or suggestion for this newsletter, you should contact me.

I hope this election clears up once and for all the notion that my (YOUR) one vote does not count.  Never before has it been so clearly shown that EVERY vote counts.  What truly amazes me is that with the number of firearms owners in this country and in this state, how could we possibly not win any election we are involved in?  For example, we now have as a US Senator a person who truly believes the average American has no need or reason to own and use firearms.  Vice-president Gore has proven beyond any doubt he does not believe in our right to own or use firearms for self-defense, only for sport. and even that he does reluctantly.  Only because of this election does he concede, for the moment, that guns may be used recreationally, that is for hunting or target shooting.  He has clearly illustrated that he does not believe in the second amendment of our American Bill Of Rights.  Knowing this, how, why, could any person who owns a firearm vote for him, or more importantly, not vote against him?  With almost seventy million lawful gun owners in this country, I for one do not understand how this presidential election could be so close.

This may turn out to be one of those elections that the person receiving the popular vote (Gore) may not be elected (I hope) and will probably be used as justification for a call for the abolishing of the Electoral College.  I think that would be a tragic mistake.  What I am saying is, we should come up with a foolproof method of voting that leaves little to nothing to chance.  The idea of trying to interpret what a person had in mind when they voted without speaking directly to that person is outright ridiculous and very dangerous.  And before abolishing a piece of the constitution, it should be thoroughly discussed by all of the people, not just the legislatures, state or federal.  After all, if the various state governments can run a lottery, known as Powerball, across 11 states without anyone making a mistake or being confused and without any chance of corruption occurring by millions of people, then I think it entirely reasonable for them to be able to run an election with no chance of shenanigans.

Regardless of who ultimately wins this election for president, we will still have terrible gun laws on the books that we will need to repeal or modify and/or generally correct.  If we get the right president we will be able to spend more of our time on these endeavors.  If on the other hand we get the wrong president, we are more likely to spend time trying to put out the new brush fires he will start or support.  You should also keep in mind that no matter who takes the white house we are stuck with those who believe we should not have any right to choose whether we can be allowed to own firearms.  They sincerely believe that that right belongs to those in power and not those who elected them.  Do not be naive to think that all of the bogus issues currently facing us will goaway simply because a more reasonable person may occupy the White House. As I have said many times and in many places, this is a constant and never ending battle to protect and preserve our civil rights for ourselves and for future generations.  It is and will always be our responsibility to our children and grand children.

Every major change that has ever taken place with regard to gun laws has been achieved over a period of time.  For example, the Brady law did not happen all at once or the first time it was introduced.  It took more than almost ten years and a lot of lies that sounded like truth before the United States Congress accepted it.  Even then, it barely passed. What we will be required to do is the same.  That is, bring the truth to the congress or the state legislature or the local legislative body and convince them to either repeal or at the least modify the current bad laws.  It may take as long or longer than it took to get it passed originally, but we are not going to give up or go away.  You can be sure SAFE will do everything it can, and with your help and support we will ultimately prevail.  And for those who think it will happen anyway, it might, but I intend to make the anti's fight very hard for every inch they get.  If they are not careful, we will take back some of the things that have proven to be a failure.

At the same time we must also remain alert to new proposals by the anti's that want to solve more problems, even if no real problem exists.  Gun buy backs that have proven to be an expensive waste of tax payers dollars along with so called gun interdiction programs that do not stop the illegal traffic of firearms.  The state has already passed (see rest of newsletter) a DNA program for shell casings that can do nothing but trace a shell casing back to the last lawful owner, not the criminal who stole the gun in question or the one who used it in a crime.  You will probably see a national call for similar legislation, regardless of how useless and expensive it will prove to be at the state level.  The only gun laws that have clearly and unequivocally proven of real merit are the "right to carry" laws the various states have passed. 

And if you think that we in the United States are the only ones having problems with their governments and firearms ownership, all you have to do is look to our northern neighbor.  The latest Canadian law not only regulates handguns but also requires that all rifles and shotguns be registered.  Once again there is no demonstrated need or justification for these new anti-gun proposals but that has never stopped some idiot government legislator from thinking he knows best what is good for the people.  Many millions of tax dollars are being spent on a program that will have no impact on criminals but is doing a damn fine job have negatively impacting on the people of Canada.  The non-resident hunters and tourism dollars are fast disappearing.  Keep your eye on the Canadian elections and see if they, like us, express their displeasure at the ballot box. 

It is important that everyone who is an activist keep in mind that the struggle for the right to own, use and transport firearms for recreation and self defense is a never ending battle.  No one should let down their guard or think for one minute that if Bush wins the White House the fight will be over or the bad legislative proposals will stop.  They won't go away and you cannot, for even a moment, stop paying attention and remaining active.  That, after all, is the price for continued freedom. Stay informed, and stay involved.

Just a reminder that there will be no regular SAFE meetings in the months of January or February.  There will continue to be a newsletter and the board of directors will continue to meet regularly to take care of business and plan future strategies.  Should anything come up in the interim, you can contact any of the board members listed on the SAFE masthead.  Also, as is past practice at the December SAFE meeting, there will be a hero sandwich, salads and sodas for those who attend.  On behalf of myself and the entire board of directors of SAFE, we wish you all a Happy and Healthy Holiday season.
Back to top

Brazil's Supreme Court overturns decree banning gun sales
October 19, 2000
 
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- The Supreme Court has overturned a nationwide ban on gun sales decreed earlier this year as part of a government program to curb rising crime rates in Latin America's largest country.

Ruling on an appeal filed by the Liberal Social Party, the court's 11 justices voted unanimously to overturn a June 21 decree that banned the issuing of gun permits through the end of the year. The decree in effect imposed a nationwide ban on firearm sales, because nobody can buy a gun without a permit.

"Criminals don't buy their weapons in gun stores," Chief Justice Carlos Velloso told reporters in explaining the court's ruling. He said the decree had no impact in curbing crime in this nation where recent statistics say a killing takes place every 13 minutes.

The Supreme Court accepted the party's arguments that the decree undermined the right to self-defense and violated the constitution's free enterprise guarantees.

The government issued the now-defunct decree as a stopgap measure until a comprehensive gun-control bill that has been stuck in Congress for months is approved.

The bill would restrict possession of firearms to the armed forces, police, private security personnel, collectors and gun clubs, people in rural areas, and private security agencies.

Everyone else would have 360 days to turn in their guns and ammunition. Those who return the guns will be compensated, but the bill doesn't say by how much. Illegal weapons would be confiscated.

The decree was part of a major anti-crime package introduced in June. Besides severely limiting gun sales, the $1.7 billion National Security Law also includes the hiring of 2,000 new federal agents, better training and equipping of police forces and improved lighting in neighborhoods across the nation.

"The government did its part," Justice Minister Jose Gregori said when told of the Supreme Court's decision.  "A ruling by the judiciary must be obeyed." He refused to comment further.

The country's two biggest arms manufacturers-Taurus and Rossi_ would not immediately comment on the Supreme Court's decision.
Back to top

A Message from Katherine N. Lapp Director of Criminal Justice and
Commissioner, Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Effective August 9, 2000

On August 9, 2000, Governor George E. Pataki signed into law a comprehensive legislative package to combat gun violence. There are nine distinct areas of reform contained in the bill, which are briefly explained in the following pages.

· Closing the Gun Show Loophole
· Child Safety Locks
· Assault Weapons Ban
· Raising the Legal Age for Handgun Licenses
· Criminal Purchase of a Weapon
· DNA for Handguns
· Gun Trafficking Interdiction Program
· Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Guns
· "Smart Gun" Study
· Additional Information

CLOSING THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE: Effective August 9, 2000  Under the federal Brady Law enacted in 1994, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background check on any prospective purchaser prior to selling a firearm. This requirement, however, does not apply to purchases made at gun shows from private collectors. Chapter 189 closes this loophole.  The General Business Law is amended to require the operator of a gun show to clearly provide notice to all exhibitors and attendees at a gun show that a National Instant Criminal Background Check must be completed prior to a sale or transfer of any firearm, rifle or shotgun.  The required check may be accomplished by either individual exhibitors who are authorized to perform the check or at a designated location by an authorized individual. The gun show operator may face a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars for a violation.

Under the new law, no firearm, rifle or shotgun may be sold or transferred at a gun show without a National Instant Criminal Background Check being conducted nor shall any person offer or agree to sell a firearm, rifle or shotgun at a gun show and then transfer or deliver such weapon at a location other than the gun show for the purpose of evading or avoiding the check. A violation of this requirement is a class A misdemeanor punishable as provided in the Penal Law.

CHILD SAFETY LOCKS: Effective November 1, 2000   Chapter 189 amends the General Business Law to require any person, firm or corporation engaged in the retail business of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms to provide a gun locking device at the time of sale, delivery or transfer. Additionally, notices regarding gun safety are to be posted in all retail establishments and affixed to the weapon itself or, be included in the container in which the weapon is delivered.  Failure to comply with these provisions is a violation for a first offense and a class A misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense.

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN: Effective November 1, 2000   Since 1994, federal law has restricted the possession of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. New York law, however, did not specifically address the possession and sale of military-style weapons or those with excessively large ammunition capacities. The provisions contained in Chapter 189 mirror the current provisions of federal law by defining and prohibiting activities related to a "semiautomatic assault weapon" and a "large capacity ammunition feeding device".

The term "assault weapon" includes a designated list of federally barred firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, shotguns or pistols that possess at least two specified characteristics, such as a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a silencer. A specific list of weapons manufactured on or before October 1, 1993, which are set forth in federal law, are not banned. The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994 which has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include a tubular device which only accepts .22 caliber ammunition.

The Penal Law will now include the possession of an assault weapon and the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device within its definition of the class D violent felony of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Thus, the law will now treat the illegal possession of an unloaded assault weapon as seriously as the possession of a loaded handgun. Moreover, because this law adds an "assault weapon" to the definition of a "firearm," the current penalties attaching to the criminal use of a firearm will also apply to the use of an assault weapon.

RAISING THE LEGAL AGE FOR HANDGUN LICENSES: Effective November 1, 2000 New York law is currently silent regarding the legal age at which a person may be licensed to possess a hand gun. In practice, however, a licensing officer who must determine an applicant's eligibility generally will not license an individual under the age of 18. Chapter 189 amends the Penal Law to explicitly provide that a license to carry, possess, repair or dispose of a firearm shall only be issued to a person 21 years of age or older, unless such person has been honorably discharged from the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard or the National Guard of the State of New York.  An additional exception was also included for an individual over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 to possess a pistol or revolver at a pistol range in a shooting competition if certain requirements are met.

CRIMINAL PURCHASE OF A WEAPON: Effective November 1, 2000  A new Penal Law crime entitled Criminal Purchase of a Weapon is created. Under the new crime it will be a class A misdemeanor for a person who, knowing that he or she is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun, attempts to purchase such a weapon. Further the "straw purchaser", that is, a person who purchases a firearm, rifle or shotgun for use of a person who the purchaser knows is prohibited by law from possessing such a weapon, will also be a class A misdemeanor.

DNA FOR HANDGUNS: Effective March 1, 2001 Chapter 189 adds a new section to the General Business Law to require gun manufacturers, effective March 1, 2001, who ship pistols or revolvers into New York State for retail sale to provide to dealers a shell casing for each hand gun. The shell casing would be encased in a sealed container and shipped with the gun to the dealer. Within ten days of selling a pistol or revolver, the dealer must forward the sealed container containing the casing to the New York State Police who would then enter the ballistics information into a ballistics databank. If a dealer receives a handgun from a manufacturer after March 1, 2001 which does not have a shell casing in a sealed container, the dealer can obtain a shell casing fired from the pistol or revolver by participating in a program that will be operated by the State Police.

GUN TRAFFICKING INTERDICTION PROGRAM: Effective November 1, 2000  Under Chapter 189, a gun trafficking interdiction program is to be established within the Division of Criminal Justice Services to distribute funds for the purpose of interdicting guns and components of guns illegally entering New York with a focus on those states from which a substantial number of guns enter this state. A gun tracing program is also to be established within the Division of State Police to create a central clearinghouse of information on guns recovered by law enforcement agencies which are believed t have been used in the commission of a crime.

FAILURE TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS: Effective November 1, 2000  There currently are provisions in the Penal Law which set forth procedures to be followed whenever a person reports the theft or loss of a firearm, rifle or shotgun; however, there is no mandate that the owner report the theft or loss of the weapon. Chapter 189 amends the Penal Law to mandate that the theft or loss of a firearm, rifle or shotgun be reported to a police or sheriff's department within 24 hours of discovery of the theft or loss. The failure to report such a loss shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars.

"SMART GUN" STUDY: Effective August 9, 2000  Under Chapter 189, the Superintendent of State Police is directed to conduct a comprehensive study and submit a report with recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature no later than October 1, 2001 regarding the availability and feasibility of personalized firearm or "smart gun" technology designed to limit access of a firearm only to the authorized user of the weapon.
Back to top

November 2000

Outstanding, fantastic, unbelievable, great conference.  Those are just some of the comments I received during and after the 2000 Right To Carry Conference and Election Rally held on September 24th, at the Melville Marriott Hotel.  With almost 1300 people attending this years conference this was the largest single get together of people on Long Island regardless of the subject.  Even the legislators who attended were absolutely impressed not only with the size of the attendance but also with the enthusiasm of the attendees. 

For those of you who did not get the chance to attend, this was truly an inspiring conference.  The list of speakers included myself, Wayne LaPierre, Exec. VP NRA, Professor John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, Congressman Bob Barr, Kayne Robinson, 1st VP, NRA, Kevin Watson, rep from Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) and Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Texas State Representative.  The speakers this year was the most motivating I have ever seen them.  We even had special videotape sent by Charlton Heston addressing the SAFE membership for putting on this conference and apologizing to all the attendees for not being able to attend in person.

The theme of the conference and the subject of every speaker's presentation were the positive value and importance that firearms play in the lives of the people.  The other major focus was the absolute necessity of voting in this year's election.  This year's election will probably be the most important one in your or my lifetime.  So many have given so much including some who have given their lives in order for us to have the right to vote.  It would be an insult to those who have given so much and an injury to those of following generations if we did not exercise that right and did everything possible to preserve all of the other rights in the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

Yesterday I did something I have not done in over two years.  I exercised one of my Constitutional rights.  I went to the shooting range with friends and spent the whole day doing what I have been actively fighting for the past 25 plus years.  I had a great time punching holes in paper using a variety of firearms and just having a good time with friends. Besides having a great time, it reminded me why I must and I will vote in the upcoming election.  It is the ONLY way to preserve my right to own and use firearms lawfully and to insure the next generation also has this right.  I will vote next Tuesday first for those who will, I hope, stand up for my rights and/or at the very least will do the slightest amount of harm.  It is terrible that these may be the only choices I have, but until I can personally have some real say in who the various parties choose as candidates I will make a choice between those.  I really would like to have candidates such as Congressman Bob Barr or Texas Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp as alternatives to the choices I must make.  When I get into the booth I will vote for the candidate who has the best chance of actually helping to preserve at least some of my Constitutional Rights.  You vote for who you believe can do the most, but at all costs, VOTE.
Back to top

CLINTON-GORE-RENO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS ITS OFFICIAL POSITION:
INDIVIDUAL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

     What follows is the text of a letter from the Department of Justice to an NRA member.  The letter confirms that the Clinton-Gore-Reno Justice Department stands by its contention that law-abiding individual Americans have NO Right to Keep and Bear Arms!  This letter should serve as a stark reminder to all gun owners why this year's elections are so critical to the future of the Second Amendment.  We hope you will share this letter with your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and use it to ensure that all of our supporters are fully engaged in this year's elections.


Office of the Solicitor General


Solicitor General Washington, D.C. 20530
August 22, 2000


Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):

Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes "that it could 'take guns away from the public,' and 'restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people.'" You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government's position "that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right."

I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress's power to "call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union," not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law"); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942) ("The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution."); Eckert v.  City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) ("It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution."); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) ("We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment."); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) ("There can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."); Ouilici v.  Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) ("The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) ("The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon."); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir.  1972); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) ("There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.").

Thus, rather than holding that the Second Amendment protects individual firearms rights, these courts have uniformly held that it precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the organized state militia. Similarly, almost three decades ago, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel explained:

The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun.[and] [there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment].   Courts.have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.

Letter from Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to George Bush, Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973) (citing, inter alia, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)). See also, e.g., Federal Firearms Act,  Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate 41 (1965) (Statement of Attorney General Katzenbach) ("With respect to the second amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that the amendment did not guarantee to any individuals the right to bear arms.").

I hope this answers your question. Thank you again for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Seth P. Waxman
Back to top

October 2000

This is being written a few days before our 2000 Right To Carry (RTC) Conference and Election Rally. Based on how busy I have been the last couple of weeks we should have and I fully expect to see an outstanding turnout of people at this event. We have one of the best lineups of speakers ever and I am positive the attendees will leave with a renewed sense of purpose and conviction. We are and will be a major factor in the upcoming elections.

Now for some bad news, we are losing our current meeting place in Lindenhurst NY. The members of the board of directors have begun a search for new place and that is where you, the member can help. We are looking for a place to meet which can hold between 60 and 90 people the first Monday of every month (except when a holiday falls on the first Monday). We meet every month except for January, February, July and August. The time we normally meet is 7:30 PM to 9:30 or 10:00 PM. We want to get a place as close as possible to the Route 110 corridor so as to accommodate our members from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. I doubt we will be able to get a meeting place for the price we enjoyed at the Rainbow Center but we should try to keep the monthly rental below $100.00 dollars (the lower the better, after all, we are non-profit).

As you see from the front page and the enclosed letter we have some excellent candidates running for public office that the SAFE membership should be aware of. These gentlemen are both expressing strong support for our second amendment rights. And that is one of the main reasons for SAFE's existence. Both of these men have said they will be in attendance at our right to carry conference.

On September 9th, while I was at a NRA board of directors meeting in Roslyn VA. I did a radio interview from my hotel room. Elaine Buckley interviewed me from a radio station in the Fonda (Albany NY) area. She seems to be very pro gun and during the program gave SAFE's RTC conference a lot of free publicity. I spoke mainly of the importance of being a registered voter especially this year. It is my opinion that this election will be the most important and serious one for gun owners in the last century and just maybe the most important for the next century. Our children and grand children will either have a second amendment right or may not, depending on the outcome of this election. It is that serious.

On August 22nd, 2000 I was an invited guest on the Montell Williams show. It seems a 16-year-old boy found a handgun in a glove compartment of a car his mother was driving that belonged to the father and was unregistered. While playing with the gun it accidentally went off and shot and killed a young girl in the back seat of the car. I was invited to express my opinion as SAFE president as to whom, if anyone should be held accountable. My response was that if the 16-year-old had received the proper basic safety education, similar to the Eddie Eagle Safety Education program there is a good likelihood he never would have touched the gun much less handled it improperly. The anti's of course were there to promote the latest safe storage and mandatory trigger lock proposals. In the beginning of the program I was polite but as it went along I became a bit more aggressive towards the anti's. They taped about 80 minutes for a 48-minute program (once commercials are added it will equal an hour). So, I have no idea what will be cut out and what will wind up on the final tape. I was told it would air sometime in October but as of now I have no word on when. As soon as I know I will put the word out.
Back to top

Sept 2000

First let me start off this months column by saying how pleased we all are to have Charlton Heston for our Right To Carry Conference and Election Rally. I don't think I need to say anything more except, you do not want to miss this year's conference.

Next you should all notice a few changes to our letterhead, which indicate our constantly changing SAFE organization. SAFE has a new home in cyberspace! Please note the new address in your links: http://www.nysafe.org

Our new domain will allow SAFE to improve the service we provide to our membership and more efficiently work to protect the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of New York State. Look for more up-to-date information on the web site and other improvements in the future.

I and the Officers and Directors of SAFE would like to single out for special mention, two members who are largely responsible for the development of the web site. Richie Fahie, our first webmaster, deserves our gratitude for creating and graciously hosting the original site and Alan Chwick garners kudos for many hours of time creating the new site. On behalf of all the members of SAFE, THANK YOU.

Those of you who have been at our conference before should remember my mentioning Marathon USA as an excellent alternative to ATT, Sprint or MCI. Because these other telephone carriers have been financially supportive of anti-gun groups we at SAFE recommend using Marathon as your long distance carrier. Their rates are substantially lower and most importantly, they financially support pro-gun groups like SAFE. As a matter of fact we are part of their affinity program and we could receive a royalty from them equal to 15% of your long distance bill, provided you designate SAFE as your choice. It is a great way to financially support our work without having to make an out of pocket donation. You should take the time and contact them directly about any specific questions you might have. You can reach them at 1-800-894-4081, ask for Mr. Jack Riddle or you can write them at Marathon USA 1275 Kennestone Circle Suite 500 Marietta Georgia 30066-6032 or contact them at their web-site www.marathoncom.com.

I don't know if you will get this news letter before August 31st, 2000 but in the event you do you should be aware of a public hearing on that date in the Riverhead County Center, Riverhead NY 631-852-1600. Anyone, who wants to speak against this proposal, as I do, should be there at 2:00 PM. There will an open public hearing on this legislative proposal #1765-2000 also known as the Firearms Safe Storage Law. This bill is particularly bad because it includes ALL FIREARMS, rifles, shotguns and pistols. Needless to say, this proposed law has no real relevance or justification to safety or storage. Its only purpose is to make it even more difficult for lawful firearms owners so as to discourage legitimate possession of firearms. To comply with the outrageous conditions spelled out in this bill is almost impossible and that is its purpose. The only way for the county to enforce this proposal is to violate the constitutional right of privacy and of search and seizure without a warrant or justification to be on your property.

Everyone who can, ought to show up and oppose this legislation. If you want a copy of the bill and you have a fax machine, you can call Suffolk County Legislator Coopers office (the original sponsor of this trash) at Tel # 631-854-4500 and ask them to fax it to you. Do not let them get away with this nonsense. There was a Suffolk County Public Safety Committee hearing on Resolution #1765-2000 on August 22nd, chaired by Legislator Bishop, who has publicly admitted to being anti-gun anti-civil rights with regard to firearms. Even though every speaker that was allowed to attend and speak was opposed to the resolution, the majority of legislators in attendance voted to have a public hearing. Should this public hearing on August 31st, not give Mr. Cooper the necessary support for his insulting proposal, which I expect, will be the case, the proposal provides for a public referendum. In other words Mr. Cooper does not care how he spends your tax dollars. If he cannot get the support he wants at the hearing process level he is more than willing to spend hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars on a public referendum which he believes the anti-gun media will help him to sell to the unsuspecting public.

The main reason to hold a public hearing on a Thursday and out in Riverhead is to discourage people from attending and then claim no one is interested or opposed to the proposal. I strongly urge you to attend and bring a friend. Even if you do not say anything publicly you can applaud those who speak against this nonsense. Some of the more onerous components of this bill are:

• This proposal includes ALL firearms, rifles, pistols and shotguns.
• A child is defined as anyone under 21 years of age, which means no junior shooting clubs nor will 12 year olds who can legally hunt be able to touch a firearm.
• A person would be quilty of negligent storage if a weapon is accessible to a child (see age definition above).
• Who decides specifically what constitutes safe storage. (Shouldn't it be the gun owner)?

I would like to mention that I was invited to and did attend a taping of the Montel Williams Show as a guest. Along with me was Mr. Ted Deeds from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA). We were both pleasantly surprised to find out Mr. Montel Williams is very pro gun and is a strong advocate of lawful firearms ownership. Because of this I believe we were treated more fairly than we might have been on any other show. We taped the show on August 22nd, and it should air sometime in October (instead of September) because of the Olympic TV coverage. We taped about 100 minutes for a 48 minutes show so I am not sure what will be edited out in the final version. The theme of the show was who is to be held accountable for the actions of youngsters who do bad things and one of those things is use a firearm wrongfully. While the anti's on the show proposed legislation such as safe storage laws (sound familiar) punishing the adults as the answer I proposed education of youngsters with the Eddie Eagle Program. My point was they want to punish people who own the firearm instead of the one who used the gun wrongfully. They do not want to educate the young on the proper behavior with firearms. Mr. Deeds made an excellent representative from LEAA. The rank and file law enforcement community was indeed well represented.

The reality is the anti-gun people will not accept any safety program unless it demonizes all guns and portrays them as evil instruments. The fact that the Eddie Eagle Safety Program is now in 43 states and over the past 12 years has been used to educate over 13 million children nationwide without a single negative problem is and should be clear and convincing proof that it works.
Back to top

July-August 2000

I really should not be writing this column now because I am so angry and infuriated at the betrayal of trust that others and I have placed in our elected officials. These elected officials seem to have forgotten they are supposed to represent me (us), the voting public and not the government bureaucracy in these matters. What deal was struck or what promise made that could possibly justify and persuade our elected officials to pass this terrible piece of legislation and sacrifice the next generations' civil rights.

The New York State Republican Senate leadership has betrayed lawful firearm owners, specifically, Republican Majority Leader Joe Bruno, who guided the Pataki gun control package through the senate. Republican senators, many of whom claim to be our friends, joined Democrats in passing the most invasive (and useless for crime control) gun control package since the Sullivan Act of 1911 (the NY handgun licensing law).

Fifteen Republican senators, nine of which are from Long Island, who in the past have received strong loyal support of gun owners because they claimed to be defenders of the Second Amendment betrayed their supporters by voting for S-8234/A-11535.

After reading the following cursory analysis you should all contact your Senator and ask why we should ever support them again. In the last few days the following question has been raised. Is it better to be stabbed in the chest by an anti-gun Democrat or stabbed in the back by a so called pro-gun Republican? Each of you will have to answer that question for yourself. No matter how you feel about this new law it is my opinion that this betrayal of trust by our elected officials can not and should not go unpunished.

These are the highlights of the bill:

• A ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices except those lawfully possessed prior to September 14th, 1994. Note this bill has no sunset provision like the Federal law has which is set to expire in 2004 unless re-passed by Congress. This means New York's Assault Weapons ban for all intents and purposes is forever. Unless of course you believe the traditionally anti-gun, anti-civil rights Democrat controlled Assembly will repeal this law should it fail to be re-passed at the federal level and therefore cease to exist.

• A mandatory "gun locking device" that must be provided at point of sale of all firearms (handguns), rifles and shotguns. And when there is an accidental shooting or a shooting involving some young people, what will the next intrusive law proposed be? How about a law that says the authorities can come into your home without a warrant or probable cause, but simply because you are a registered lawful firearms owner. Keep in mind the state passed a nationally proven safety training program in firearms that addresses this issue only to have it vetoed by Governor Pataki.

• A ballistic identification databank created from sales of all firearms (handguns), sold in this state. Once again keep in mind that this only affects the last lawful firearms owner. After all, the this ballistic identification databank can only trace a firearm back to it's last LAWFUL owner, not the criminal user. But maybe that is in reality the purpose of this new law. Is this just another way to harass legitimate gun owners?

• The raising of the minimum age for a pistol license to 21 years of age. This one totally confuses me for I am not aware of any problem amongst the licensed handgun owners in this state. And while junior handgun licenses (those under 18 years of age) have been issued statewide for many years I do not know of a single instance of a licensed junior getting into trouble with the law. So what justifies this section?

• An amendment to the executive law and the state finance law, in relation to establishing a gun trafficking interdiction program and a gun tracer program. While this section has some high moral sounding ideals, it does not specify how much money will be devoted to it even though I the taxpayer will pay for it. Even more important, it will be administered and all the rules written by people we the voting public did not elect. Which to me means we the public, the most affected by such rules and regulations, have absolutely nothing to say about how it will administered.

• An amendment to the penal law, in relation to requiring the report of a stolen or lost firearm (handgun) rifle or shotgun to a police agency. This is another section I do not clearly understand the justification for. I was not aware there is or has been a problem with people notifying the authorities of lost or stolen firearms, rifles or shotguns.

• An authorization for a study relating to the availability and effectiveness of existing technology for use of "smart guns ". This may eventually lead to a mandatory requirement that all guns be "smart guns". You should be aware that because of reliability concerns many police officers are refusing to carry "smart guns" even on a trial basis. And if they will not, why is it OK to force me to carry such a firearm?

• No sale, which includes an offer to sell, of a firearm (handgun), rifle or shotgun may take place at a gun show unless a national instant background can be conducted. Is this a back door attempt at national registration of all firearms by lawful people?

These are the Republican senators who claimed to be defenders of the Second Amendment and yet voted to dismantle your rights by voting for S-8234/A-11535:

* Michael Balboni (516) 873-0736
* Joseph Bruno (518) 583-1001
* Charles Fuschillo, Jr. (516) 546-4100
* Kemp Hannon (516) 222-0068
* Owen Johnson (631) 669-9200
* James Lack (631) 360-0490
* Kenneth LaValle (516) 696-6900
* Vincent Leibell (914) 279-3773
* Carl Marcellino (516) 922-1811
* John Marchi (718) 447-1723
* Thomas Morahan (914) 425-1818
* Dean Skelos (516) 766-8383
* Nicholas Spano (914) 969-5194
* Caesar Trunzo (631) 360-3236
* Guy Velella (718) 792-7180

The asterisk (*) denotes that the Senator also has the Conservative Party endorsement. Everyone should contact the New York State Conservative Party Chairman, Michael Long (718) 921-2158, as well as the New York State Republican Party Chairman, William Powers (518) 462-2601. Let them know how you feel.

My greatest concern is in the details of giving further regulatory powers over firearms to the Superintendent of the State Police, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General. They are not directly accountable to the voting public, you and me.
Back to top

May 2000

Greetings Friends and Activists

The following is well worth reading and checking out. Please do what you can to support this effort. I think it's time to change your long distance telephone carrier. If you do not already know of or do business with these people you will be pleasantly surprised. Too many people with an anti gun agenda are readily pouring resources in to our enemies coffers, many people seem to be eager to donate to them because it is fashionable. We are forced to play the same game. And this is the most painless way I know of to do that.

The Board of Directors of SAFE urges you to take a moment and sign up for long distance service from MARATHON USA. When you do so, you can support a pro-civil right to bear arms organization every time you make a long distance call. Namely us, SAFE.

Marathon USA was founded primarily to provide funds for pro-firearms rights, pro-self defense organizations. A portion of Marathon's revenues goes right back to the organization you designate as a beneficiary. We urge you to designate SAFE as that beneficiary.

We have not compared Marathon's rates to see if they are the lowest available, but SAFE's position is, WHO CARES? Rather than giving your money to a huge corporation that doesn't care about you or the Second Amendment, or worse, which may be actively WORKING AGAINST the Second Amendment, isn't it better to look forward to making a long distance call knowing you'll be donating a few cents to a worthwhile organization? We think so.

You can contact them at 1-800-894-4081 or via fax at 1-800-424-1649. The company address is 1275 Kennestone Circle, Suite 500, Marietta GA. 30066-6032. The company also has a web-site at http://www.marathoncom.com should you be interested. The man to contact is Mr. Ray Liotta, Vice President of sales and the person I usually do business with.

IMPORTANT

I have taken the liberty of sending to the Chairman of the NYS Senate Codes Committee Senator Dale Volker, copies of all the letters I have copies of from members in opposition to Pataki's gun control (people control) proposals. In as much as the "Discharge Motion" failed on the Senate floor and the bills are returned to the Codes Committee, I thought it important that the committee chairman, the person who sets the agenda for the committee, should have the benefit of knowing just how strongly opposed the general public feels towards these ill conceived bills. Even though most of the letters were originally written for/to Senator Bruno and the State Republican Party, Senator Volker will surely get the intended message, and if so, the Pataki proposals will die in committee as they should. For the record I have also sent the same package of letters to the Vice-President of the NYS Senate, Senator Owen Johnson, who is a long time pro civil rights supporter and a strong advocate of our right to own and use firearms lawfully.

My purpose in telling you of my activities is to suggest you do the same and to the same people. This of course is in addition to anything else or anyone else you feel the need to contact. My opinion is, if hundreds if not thousands of similar letters are in fact delivered to these gentlemen, they will both have the support they need to do battle on our behalf.


By the way, the number of letters I forwarded to these gentlemen numbers more than 80. Naturally the more they receive the better we look as organized gun-owners.

Senator Owen H. Johnson
Room 811, LOB
NYS Senate
Albany, NY 12247
Tel: 518-455-3411
Fax: 518-426-6973

Senator Dale M. Volker
Room 708, LOB
NYS Senate
Albany, NY 12247
Tel: 518-4553471
Fax: 518-426-6949

TRIGGER LOCKS

Lately there have been a number of newspapers running editorials that endorse trigger-lock laws based on some Handgun Control Inc. propaganda. It includes the claim that 30,000 people are killed by guns (not by people) in the United States each year, a fact necessitating more gun control. The problem with that argument is that number is made up of mostly suicides. Now I know there's just nothing like a new gun-control law to lower the suicide rate.

Let's take a closer look. The glorious gun-controlled Utopia of Japan has a suicide rate higher than the combined suicide and homicide rates of the United States. In fact, the suicide rate in Japan is double the total U.S. death rate from firearms of all kinds for all reasons, including homicide, suicide, accidental shootings and police shootings.

Either gun control is far more depressing than even the NRA thought, or there is no cause-and-effect relationship whatsoever between gun laws and suicide. How often do you/we have to catch Handgun Control Inc. lying until it dawns on us that they're not reliable or honorable?

But wouldn't safety locks still be a good idea even if the folks pushing them are not honest? A safety device will only be effective if it's well designed, if it's used, and if it doesn't create a false sense of security leading to greater carelessness. In many cases, trigger locks increase the likelihood of an accidental discharge if the gun is dropped. There are other ways to secure a gun that are more effective, cheaper, and don't interfere as much with the gun's usefulness in an emergency.
In other words, anyone conscientious enough to use a trigger lock doesn't need it, and anyone who isn't, wouldn't use it. This probably explains why almost no one who is knowledgeable about guns buys trigger locks voluntarily.

Twelve states that I know of have trigger-lock laws, and in 10 years the accidental shooting deaths of school age children in those states has dropped 24 percent. During the same time, however, the rate dropped 32 percent in the other states. After 10 years, on average, the states without such laws are significantly safer than the ones with the laws.

Why not find out what really is working, and actually solve some problems. And for those of you who just love that little analogy about aspirin bottles, it's a really bad example. Accidental poisonings by aspirin and aspirin substitutes have increased by about 3,000 a year nationwide since the government mandated those safety caps. But I guess if you're looking for proof that the government can make our personal decisions for us better than we can, this really bad example is probably as good as it gets.

SAFE Legislative Report May 2000

These bills are all currently active and can be considered, put on the agenda, by the Codes Committee at any time. We have here our opinion for the benefit of not only the SAFE membership but for the legislators as well. Every State Legislator from Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the Codes Committee from the Assembly and Senate get a copy of this report.

Bill # Sponsor Subject

A 10059 Koon Adds §400.15, Penal Law - Requires manufacturers and distributors of pistols and revolvers to provide discharged projectile and shell casing specimens for each such weapon; requires dealers to submit the specimens to the division of state police upon sale. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, a complete waste of time and money because the only tracing that can be done is to the last lawful owner and not to the criminal who used the firearm illegally.

A 10184 Warner, et al. Amends Penal Law, Generally; amends §1115, Tax Law - Establishes the crime of criminal storage of a firearm in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth degrees and exempts gun vaults and trigger locking devices from sales and use taxes.
OPPOSED, well intentioned but totally unneeded and overly burdensome. This requires you prove you did everything right as opposed to the authorities proving (not claiming) you did it wrong. Very costly to lawful gun owners.

A 10186 Rules Comm. Adds §265.17, Penal Law - Proscribes persons, firms or corporations engaged in the retail business of selling firearms from selling, delivering or transferring child operated firearms; defines "child operated firearm" to mean a pistol or revolver manufactured 1 year after the effective date of these provisions which does not contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average 5 year old from firing same. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, guns are safe, people are not, and no amount of legislation can remedy bad behavior, or give a person a sense of right and wrong. Except of course after the fact.

A 10256 Conte Amends §606, Tax Law - Provides a $500 credit against personal income tax for the surrender of a firearm to local police, sheriff or state police. Ways & Means Com.
OPPOSED, well intentioned but does not say whether firearm surrendered is legal, or is an illegal one OK? Can a criminal turn a piece of junk worth only $25.00 and get the state government to give him/her a $500.00 tax credit?

A 10322 Faso Amends §720.35, Criminal Procedure Law; amends §400.00, Penal Law - Prevents any person having a youthful offender adjudication for a felony or misdemeanor involving possession or use of a firearm from receiving a lawful gun license. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
NO OBJECTION

S 6687 Alesi, et al. Amends §400.00, Penal Law- Ensures compliance with required background checks on purchasers of guns consistent with federal requirements of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by providing an independent statutory basis for state enforcement. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, not necessary and a waste of time.

S 6770 Spano Amends §§115.01 & 80.00, add §§115.02 & 60.13, Penal Law;
add §99-g, State Finance Law - Enacts the "children's firearm responsibility act of 2000;" includes within the class E felony of criminal facilitation in the third degree the custody or control of a pistol or revolver by a person over 21 years of age, when such weapon comes into the possession of a person under 18 years of age and such minor commits a crime with the weapon; imposes, in addition to any other authorized penalty, a fine of not more than $10,000, restitution and community service upon conviction of such felony; requires all fines to be deposited into the children's gun victims assistance fund, established in this act to be disbursed by the crime victims board; establishes affirmative defenses to such felony. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, the person using the firearm wrongfully should bear full responsibility, not the person it was stolen from.

S 6906 Gentile, et al. Adds §230, Executive Law add §97-777, State Finance Law; amends §265.00, Penal Law - Establishes a gun trafficking interdiction program and a gun tracer program; amends the definition of "firearm" to include any disassembled or unassembled weapon within the existing definition. Criminal sanction impact. Finance Com.
OPPOSED, if this program is anything like the drug interdiction program then the criminals who use firearms have nothing to fear. This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

S 6908 Montgomery, et al. Amends §400.00, Penal Law - Provides that eligibility to obtain a license to carry, possess, repair or dispose of firearms shall include that the applicant for such license be twenty-one years of age or older. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, there is no documented evidence to substantiate that people 18 years of age and under legally licensed to possess a firearm are any kind of problem.

S 6909 Oppenheimer, et al. Adds §265.45, Penal Law - Establishes the crime of illegal sale of a gun at a gun show as class A misdemeanor; provides that no person shall sell, transfer, exchange, give or dispose of a rifle of shotgun at a gun show unless such person is licensed as a dealer; defines the term "gun show." Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, this would prevent private sales by lawful people.

S 6911 Sampson, et al. Amends §400.00, Penal Law; add §837-p, Executive Law - Establishes procedure for the suspension and revocation of license to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; requires person to successfully complete an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program as a condition of the suspension; provides for the revocation of such license upon two violations of provisions relating to alcohol and drugs within ten years. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, this bill creates prior restraint. Additionally, where is the documented proof of a growing problem. Issuing agent already has the power to suspend or revoke a license.

S 6912 Schneiderman, et al. Amends §265.00, adds §§265.45 & 265.50, Penal Law; adds §396-ii, General Business Law; amends §305, Education Law - Enacts the children's weapon accident prevention act, establishes the crimes of criminally negligent storage of a weapon in the 1st and 2nd degree; requires the sale and use of weapon locking devices and requires
the commissioner of education to formulate a weapons safety program for children. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, the Eddie Eagle Bill A-2045 satisfied all of the requirements of this proposal but was vetoed by Governor Pataki. See bill S-7039 of this report.

S 6948 Seward, et al. Adds §11-107, General Obligations Law - Provides that manufacturers, distributors and sellers of firearms shall not be liable for death or injury due to the use of a firearm by another person; excludes actions for breach of contract or warranty or where the transferor knew or should have known of any illegal intent to use a firearm by the recipient; provides that the potential of a firearm to cause injury shall not constitute a defective condition. Judiciary Com.
FAVOR

S 7001 Spano, et al. Adds §60.13, amends §§265.00, 265.11 & 400.00,
Penal Law - Includes the retail sale, loan or lease of a pistol or revolver by a dealer in firearms without a locking device within the class D felony of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree and imposes a mandatory $5,000 fine for the violation thereof, in addition to any other sentence authorized for a class D felony conviction; requires dealers in firearms to post notice of such locking device requirement in their places of business. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, see paragraphs 4&5 of the Presidents Corner, this issue.

S 7029 Meier Amends Penal Law, generally; amends §§1.20, 190.71, 220.10, 220.30 & 700.05, Criminal Procedure Law; amends §§117, 301.2 & 308.1, Family Court Act - Makes provisions relating to the criminal possession of a weapon; expands criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and makes it a class C violent felony punishable by no less than five years and not more than ten years of imprisonment and/or a fine not to exceed $250,000. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, vague language that could get almost anybody into trouble, no criminal intent.

S 7033 Rules Com Amends §§220.10 & 220.30, Criminal Procedure Law; adds §§396-ee & 396-ff, Art 39-DD §§895-897, General Business Law; amends §§70.02, 265.00, 265.02, 265.10, 265.11, 265.15, 265.20 & 400.00, add §265.45, Penal Law - Relates to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Governor's Program Bill. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, this is the Governors all-in-one gun control bill. It has nothing to do with criminal misuse or crimes committed with a firearm. It includes trigger locks requirements, gun show prohibitions, an assault weapons ban, ballistic data banks and large capacity magazine ban.

S 7036 Spano, et al. Adds §396-ee, General Business Law - Requires the purchaser of a rifle, shotgun or firearm to be provided, by the retailer, with a gun locking device for such gun; requires retail gun dealers to post a notice that use of a gun locking device is only one aspect of responsible gun storage, and that guns should be locked apart from ammunition and away from children; makes a first violation of such provisions a violation and any subsequent violation shall be a class A misdemeanor. Criminal sanction impact. Consumer Protection Com.
OPPOSED, here we go again, the legislature trying to create law for common sense. This bill also would allow localities to create even more restrictive and confusing laws. See paragraphs 4 & 5 of the Presidents Corner in this newsletter.

S 7037 Marcellino, et al. Adds Art 39-DD §§895-897, General Business Law - Mandates completion of a national instant criminal background check prior to the sale of a firearm, rifle or shotgun at a gun show; defines weapons involved, and provides that violation of such mandate shall constitute a class A misdemeanor. Criminal sanction impact. Consumer Protection Com.
OPPOSED, current law is more than sufficient and also has severe penalties for violations.

S 7038 Lack, et al. Adds §396-ff, General Business Law - Provides for the establishment of a pistol and revolver ballistic identification databank in the custody of the division of the state police; shell casings and projectiles from each such weapon shall be provided to the state police by manufacturers of such weapons upon shipping or other transfer of such weapons. Consumer Protection Com.
OPPOSED, this bill will serve no purpose but to trace a firearm back to its last lawful owner causing a great deal of trouble for that person. Additionally this will be extremely expensive to the taxpayers without and real improvement in crime prevention.

S 7039 Maziarz Adds Art 11 Title 25 §§11-2501 - 11-2505, Environmental Conservation Law; adds §3204-a, Education Law - Provides for firearm accident prevention instruction to promote firearm safety for children in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade by promoting a safety message "STOP! Don't touch; leave the area; tell and adult;" authorizes the department of environmental conservation to implement a firearm safety instruction program for such children. Environmental Conservation Com.
OPPOSED, this bill is well intentioned and at first sight appears to be modeled after the NRA Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program, but unfortunately it has no requirement that it be value neutral. That is to say this bill does not require the portrayal of firearms in either a negative or positive way, but in a neutral fashion. Only when this safeguard is incorporated into the language of the bill can we be sure that those who will administer it not be allowed to demonize guns in general.

S 7040 Hannon, et al. Amends §70.25, Penal Law - Requires the sentence of imprisonment for criminal use of an assault weapon to run consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment imposed for the conviction of any other felony committed at the same time such assault weapon crime was committed. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, this bill is an additional sentencing bill for use of an assault weapon as defined in another bill A-788-A which has not and should not be passed into law. There are no such things as assault weapons only people who assault others with whatever weapon is handy.

S 7065 Goodman Amends §§265.00 & 265.15, adds §§265.50 - 265.54, Penal Law - Relates to the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons at buildings used for educational purposes; defines building used for educational purposes as any place, enclosed or unenclosed, owned, leased or otherwise used by a pre-kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, college or university, regardless of whether such entity is public, private or parochial; including school sponsored activities outside of normal school hours. Criminal sanction impact. Codes Com.
OPPOSED, current law already covers possession of firearms on school property. This bill creates new law called " Fostering Firearms Violence" a class D felony should you knowingly allow a child (under 18 years of age) to be within 1000 feet of a public or private school with a firearm or live ammunition. How about when I am taking my son/daughter legally hunting and they are junior hunters with junior licenses and we have firearms and live ammunition in my car, which is passing within 1000 feet of a school?

S 7081 Nozzolio, et al. Amends §400.01, Penal Law - Provides that a retired state police officer may utilize the county firearms licensing procedures to obtain a firearm permit. New York State Police Bill. Codes Com.
NO OBJECTION, provided this is not an opportunity to avoid being treated like ordinary citizens.

S 7246 Connor, et al. Adds §396-ff, General Business Law - Requires a manufacturer of pistols, revolvers or ammunition, who ships, transports or delivers a pistol or revolver within this state, to include a sealed container containing identifying material (a projectile discharged from such pistol/revolver, a shell casing of a projectile discharged from such pistol/revolver, and any additional identifying information) with the pistol/revolver; the forwarding of such sealed container by gunsmiths or dealers in firearms (whether obtained from the manufacturer or obtained after participation in a program operated in accordance with the division of state police) to the division of state police; entry of data in automated electronic databank of division of state police; and makes intentional violation of section a violation and second intentional violation a class A misdemeanor. Criminal sanction impact. Consumer Protection Com.
OPPOSED, a ballistic data bank is an expensive and useless way to expend taxpayer money with little or no return in preventing crime. This is nothing more than feel good legislation.

S 7247 Connor, et al. Adds §396-gg, General Business Law; amends §400.00, Penal Law - Enacts the firearm safety act of 2000 which requires the manufacturer of pistols and revolvers to certify that each weapon meets the child safety test, the performance test and the drop test provided for herein. Consumer Protection Com.
OPPOSED, the manufacturers of pistols and revolvers have already met tough industry standards and have proven over time the reliability of their products. The child safety test is nothing more than an arbitrary way of harassing legitimate firearms manufacturers and raising prices to the public in an attempt to discourage lawful gun ownership.

S 7248 Connor, et al. Adds §33, Executive Law; add §139-d, General Municipal Law - Enacts a code of conduct for firearm manufacturers which prohibits any state agency and municipality from dealing with any entity which has not affirmed its compliance therewith. Finance Com.
OPPOSED, this bill seeks to impose on the people engaged in a lawful activity, firearms manufacturers and dealers, a code of conduct dictated by a governmental agency. This is another Elliot Spitzer special, attempting to make it so difficult to do business in this state that the gun manufacturers and dealers will not want or be able to afford to do business here in New York State. And this is just fine with all the anti-civil rights leaders in this state such as George Pataki, Sheldon Silver and lets not forget Elliot (lets make a deal) Spitzer.
Back to top

April 2000

First and foremost and on behalf of myself and the board of directors of SAFE I wish to convey to my friend and fellow NRA board member Oliver North, our sincere condolences at the loss of his mother. For those who attended SAFE's Right To Carry conference this past year Mr. Oliver North was scheduled as a speaker but could not make it because at the time his mother suffered a stroke. I have just recently been informed of his mothers passing. Should any of our members wish to express their condolences you can send them to:

Lt. Col. Oliver North
22570 Markey Court, Suite 230
Dulles, Virginia 20166

On Sunday March 19th, 2000 there was another protest and counter protest at K-Mart in Riverhead NY. Once again anti gun fanatics tried to force their will on the K-Mart store and entire community to stop selling firearms in their store. This time they showed up with about forty (40) people and I believe were completely stunned by the massive showing of over two hundred (200) plus pro gun, pro civil rights activists from the local community. To the anti's chagrin many of the people who showed up brought their families including wives and children. If ever there was a statement being made, it was that the local community was not going to be browbeaten into giving up one of their most precious civil rights. The willingness of the anti-gun fanatics to stomp into the ground the rights of a major segment of society, the lawful firearms owners, is not only wrong but is potentially dangerous for all of society. Once a segment of society loses a right (such as firearms ownership) it is much easier for other rights to be questioned as necessary or needed any longer.

I am extremely proud of the large turnout of SAFE members at this counter protest and by the behavior of our people. Even when provoked by some outrageous and outright false statements by the anti-civil-rights people we maintained our civility. Some of the shouting got a little loud occasionally but at no time did anyone from our side get abusive or arrogant or threatening. I believe we handled ourselves admirably and we should all be proud to have been a part of this exercise in freedom. I saw many of our members, myself included, having quiet conversations with many of the individuals who were there to originally protest K-Marts sale of firearms. The feedback I have received so far from those who had such conversations is, we seem to have dispelled some of the wrong information being disseminated. This will go a long way towards neutralizing the misleading lies and rhetoric of the anti-gun groups.

Governor Pataki, the following paragraph is an exact quote from a man who has been a leader of the Republican Party for many years and just recently a candidate for President of the United States. I would strongly suggest you read this passage and reread it if necessary.

"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 -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime." --Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the police are not required to protect individuals, but have only the legal responsibility to maintain general order. How, then, can the State of New York assume responsibility for the safety of its citizens from anything other than the actions of its own employees in performing their official duties? The fact is that each citizen is responsible for his or her own personal safety, and it is the parents of a child who alone are responsible for that child's safety.

A comprehensive, study by Professor John R. Lott, Jr. in the January 1997 issue of The Journal of Legal Studies titled "Crime, Deterrence and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns" proved that if a few citizens carry firearms, then crime declines because the criminals are afraid of almost everyone. The benefit of concealed carry laws in reducing crime arises from the fact that the great majority of people who choose not to carry guns can ride free on those who do. Since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying a handgun, only a small number of handgun carriers are required to achieve deterrence and a significant reduction in crime. Guns in the hands of lawful citizens reduce crime. You personally may not like guns, but do not impose on others your personal preference at the expense of the safety of your constituents.

At the end of last year you vetoed the Eddie Eagle Bill, the one gun safety program that works. Your reason for the veto was, the National Rifle Association sponsors it. Many States, municipalities and police departments have adopted this program with great success. The bill even passed unanimously in the Democrat controlled Assembly and by three to one in the State Senate. Was this new anti-gun agenda the real reason for its veto?

As for the Smith and Wesson (S&W) deal, can everyone spell "DOUBLE STANDARD"? What the current administration has not been able to get by legislation, the proper way, with full debate by all parties, they will achieve by extorting perfectly legal companies. Who the hell empowered the Clinton bunch of racketeers to run the country this way? I thought the government wanted to fight organized crime, not teach them how to be a better criminal!

The plain truth of the matter is this is nothing short of extortion or blackmail. When the Federal Government threatens a perfectly lawful business using my tax dollars to drag them through the courts, it is outrageous. I believe it is illegal. After all if any private citizen ever goes to a business and demands that things be done in a certain way, whether it be kickbacks, or accepting only certain clients, etc., or that businesses and it's owners will suffer certain repercussions, such as lawsuits with tax dollars; it is called extortion, racketeering, and violation of the RICO act. Any individual who does this is arrested, held in jail and will eventually face trial and if found guilty go to jail. Why is a government official and in this case, an appointed one not an elected one, exempt? All this is being done to the American people without any pretense of Democracy or fair play, terms that once defined this great nation.

I have a question. Why are the Republicans in Congress so silent on this latest travesty of justice by the current corrupt administration? Is it because the Republican Party no longer feels they the need support of lawful firearms owners nationwide? The reality of the situation is when the media puts a microphone in front of one of our so called supporters running for office, should we not expect the truth will be brought out and our civil right to own firearms is defended, as per the US Constitution? I think so… what about you?


FOR GUN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

I found this document on the internet and felt it would be extremely useful to the SAFE membership. I have edited or modified it in an attempt to make it more specific to our circumstances here on Long Island and in New York. I really wish someone would have written and circulated this kind paper many years ago when I was just starting to get involved in the gun rights or sportsmen's related issues. It would have saved other activists and me a great deal of trial and error in learning what works and what doesn't. I hope you read it carefully and use its wisdom in your future activities.

No one is interested in the gun rights movement more than you! The NRA is no good and neither are any or all of the rest of the gun rights organizations. At the same time, all of these organizations are the best thing since sliced bread. We will not keep our rights without them. It's normal to love them and be frustrated at them at same time. Be sure your complaints about them go to the person who can do something about your problem. Never give up your membership, it is much easier to fix things from the inside. Avoid complaining in public, it gives our opponents ammunition they do not need. Always handle our dirty laundry behind closed doors. Our closed doors!

There is no single answer, rule, or solution. There never has been, and never will be. None of us will write the single most brilliant letter to the editor or internet message that will miraculously turn everything and everyone around. Do as much as you can, whenever you can! Anything you do does count, but some things count more than others. Find out what counts. Then do it more often.

There will never be a final victory. Preserving the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is an ongoing process. We are winning and losing battles during this process, but the war will never be over. Becoming active to keep your gun rights is a lot like cleaning your house: it's thankless and boring work, but necessary. And like dirt, the antigun crowd will just keep coming back. Your active involvement will keep us winning more than losing. Our opponents count on wearing us down. They love it when one of us gets discouraged and drops out. When you fully understand and accept the reality that RKBA is a never-ending struggle, you're automatically one of the top RKBA defenders.

RKBA activism can be especially boring when you are doing things that really make a difference. Most of us want excitement. We want to be entertained. Phone bank calling, precinct walking, going to RKBA grassroots seminar, are not glamorous, but they are necessary. Freedom is not free. It's a pain in the ass. Get used to it, and get to work.

Gun owners are susceptible to emotions such as fear and guilt. Awaken RKBA activists by tapping these powerful emotions. Fear and guilt can move mountains, and on occasion fill the collection plate, and recruit new members. If gun owners won't become active for themselves, ask them to do it for their families especially for their children. For the future generations of their country.

WATCH OUT FOR MISDIRECTED, TIME-WASTING EFFORTS.

E-mail to elected people is pretty much worthless-unless the official already personally knows you. Internet polls are useless. Online polls make some folks think they are actually doing something. They are not. It's a false sense of accomplishment. It's like bringing a doctor to a dead man. Focus on the stuff that works. If you're going to hunt ducks, go where the ducks are.

Politicians care mostly about money and votes. Personal visits, phone calls, and snail-mail, handwritten letters to elected folks help-because politicians know that if you take this much trouble, you and your family and friends will also vote, and this issue is very important to you.

Make yourself known to politicians for issues other than gun rights. Don't present yourself as a single-issue person. (I do not agree with this particular statement in that I believe that certain civil rights, such as gun ownership have an overriding value and importance to me.)

Praise and help politicians on THEIR pet projects. Then, when a new gun control law comes up, your opinion will seem especially credible. Otherwise, you will soon be stereotyped and discounted as a single-issue voter. (Again I disagree because having politicians know the value and importance to me on this issue of firearms ownership is for me the deciding factor of who I will ultimately work and cast my vote for.)

Politicians have to explain why they vote Yes or No on proposed laws. Sometimes they really need your help in composing explanations to their constituents. If you want your elected official to vote No on a seemingly popular new gun control law, s/he might be more willing to vote your way if you give him/her a "back door". Otherwise known as a good common sense explanation that s/he can give to all of his/her constituents. We at SAFE do this all the time.

Get the right people in office in the first place. If we have the right people in power, antigun laws will not be passed. The laws are what matter. This concept is so simple that many folks can't see it, just like they can't "see" the air they breathe. The anti-rights crowd can hold all the gun control seminars and news conferences they want, but nothing will happen unless they can pass more laws. This fact tells you about the how, what, where, when, why, and with whom you should be spending your time, energy, and money. Politicians pass laws. Therefore, you must get involved in politics to protect your gun rights. There is just no way to get around this. Sorry. I don't like politics either. Bummer!

Stop the saber rattling now! Avoid those shrill folks who sound threatening or talk about doomsday. It's a waste of your time. These noisy folks remind me of a couple in a failing marriage who only talk about a getting a divorce instead of talking about their real problems. If they don't solve their problems, separation or divorce becomes the inevitable outcome. Some people get pumped up on silly fantasy scenarios. I do not.

Arm yourself with accurate information. Paradoxically, bad information or misinformation is a plague in the so-called Information Age. When you write or talk about firearms issues, use only the facts, the truth, and the provable. Verify any quotes that you use. Back up your generalizations with powerful and specific examples. Get on the internet, and get your like-minded friends online. Join several of the hundreds of net communities that will keep you informed instantly and completely about our special issues. Information is power! The internet or e-mail is also a great way to stay informed within a group or organization.

Ignore the spin media and the news waves. It's far too easy to go bonkers reacting to the latest media-driven crisis. Don't let the media push your buttons. The RKBA grassroots pros I know do not overreact to crises. In fact, most of the ultra-pros that I know do not react at all to media hysteria. Bashing the media about their bias is not productive. Some gun owners use media bias as an excuse to do nothing-because the situation seems so overwhelming and hopeless. Truth is, if you are a busy activist-already steadily doing stuff that matters- you will find the media reacting to YOU. Be friendly and polite with them-not hostile. Become a reliable source of information for them. And just keep on being active.

Just show up. It's been said that 80 percent of success is showing up. Being there. Showing up to vote. Showing up at an RKBA seminar. At your Assemblyman's office. At a city council meeting. My father's favorite motto: "Your actions speak so loud that I can't hear a word you're saying." Your "silent" activism can be a model for others. What will your 3 hunting buddies think when they find out you spent an afternoon handing out brochures door-to-door for a pro-gun politician?

Don't mess with true believers. In the time you spend trying to convert one hard core antigun person to our side, you could have gone out and motivated and organized 20 people who already think like you do. Go with the flow. It's easier on your nerves, and much more effective. Personally, I have converted several anti-rights true believers, but never again! Lots of NRA members are not registered voters. A lot of gun owners aren't NRA members. Even more folks have no idea of their elected officials' positions on gun issues. Where is your time most effectively spent? Think about this before you spend an hour writing a clever response to a silly message you found somewhere on the internet.

Simplicity still matters. The old rule, Keep It Super Simple (KISS), is as important as it ever was. It applies to internet postings, planning, speeches-everything. And keep it short. And keep it sweet: don't ever ridicule or insult anyone. Did you notice that I did NOT say, "Keep It Simple, STUPID?"

You are all alone. Well, not quite alone. You do have some help. The NRA has a staff of several hundred. There is no way humanly possible that "the NRA" can put out all the brush fires started by the anti-rights crowd. Pro-gun national organizations give direction and information-but they cannot save your rights. Only YOU can save YOUR rights. You are 100 percent responsible. When you fully accept this reality, you are automatically in the top one percent of all RKBA activists.

The hidden bonus of gun rights activism. The more involved you get with firearms freedom, the more you will realize that your single issue actually complements and protects other human rights issues. Personally, I am deeply offended by many aspects of today's culture. When I focus my activism on RKBA, I can often sense I am making a measurable difference.

All rights-like all humans-are connected.

When in doubt, just do something. Sometimes we don't know what will work. Sometimes the rule is that there are no rules. I once wrote an essay I thought was mediocre at best. Five years later, I'm still receiving mail about it. Don't hesitate to try something new and innovative-get it out on the table! Often your finest essay or brilliant letter will not be acknowledged, or you will just get a form letter response. But that letter to the editor that you dashed off in a few minutes appears in tomorrow's newspaper! Go figure. Better yet, try not to figure. Trust yourself, trust your instincts-and just do something.
Back to top