President's Message

HOME

---

Jul-Aug 2010

52 PEOPLE SHOT, AND CHICAGO'S MAYOR DALEY STILL SAYS
SELF-DEFENSE FOR THE PEOPLE IS NOT NEEDED!

Fifty-two people shot in Chicago, eight of them fatally in a single weekend, yet Mayor Richard Daley refuses to acknowledge the right of the people to self defense. Year after year the statistics have piled up yet Mayor Daley has stubbornly defended the city's handgun ban. While he has luxuriated at his vacation home with the safety of armed bodyguards, the bodies of Chicago crime victims have stacked up like cordwood. Within days of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment also applies to all States, cities and local municipalities Mayor Daley has proposed some of the most draconian and restrictive handgun licensing laws ever seen. This arrogant moron just doesn't get it. I would have thought the decision of Supreme Court would put an end to his insanity, and give the citizens of Chicago back their right to defend themselves. Daley thinks his constituents should be content to call 911 and wait for help to arrive while they're being shot, stabbed, raped, robbed or beaten. Those crimes happen fast, and when seconds count the Chicago police are just minutes away. Chicago residents have endured the terror of public disarmament for almost three decades, and all they have to show for it is a body count. Mayor Daley should be ashamed. He should be impeached or removed for not abiding by the very constitution he swore an oath to uphold, even the parts he doesn't personally agree with.

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor and I am glad they have I have a couple of real concerns. First, how did four people get on the US Supreme Court and because of a personal bias or hatred for guns rule against such an obvious straight forward Amendment in the US Bill of Rights. With all the literature and documentation in the form of historical records provided to this learned court by the parties involved how could these four people not understand the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment? It was written as a guarantee to the people for the purpose of protecting the citizens from a government that might or could turn despotic or decide to rule the people instead of serving the citizens. If these jurists are as learned as they claim then why don't they understand and support the citizens rights under the Second Amendment regardless of their personal desires? Or is the Court now being filled with people who use their personal desires and wishes to trump the Constitution of the United States of America?

My second real concern is that even though this a win for all lawful gun owners in the country it still means that corrupt public officials whether elected or hired as civil servants can and will make life difficult for all lawful gun owners because they are the ones who make the laws and rules we honest people are compelled to abide by. These are the people who make the laws or rules that are reasonable or ridiculous. After all, most of the problems that have plagued the honest law abiding gun owner all over the country has come from politicians who claim to be trying to do something about the criminal misuse of firearms. Yet every proposed law has affected lawful firearms owners and not the criminals. Why is this? It is because criminals by definition do not obey any law so why should they obey these pesky firearms laws. So, even though we have finally won in the highest court that our civil right to own and use a firearm is protected by the US Constitution we will still have arrogant self serving public officials who will do everything in their power to limit, restrict and make difficult our ability to truly exercise that right. So it is up to us to make sure these types of public officials never get into office.

State Senate Candidate Takes Her Campaign to Shooting Range

On Tuesday April 20th, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal animal cruelty law so broadly written that it would criminalize the distribution of hunting videos and magazines under many circumstances. The 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Stevens is a big win for the National Rifle Association and hunters across America. A brief submitted by the NRA was cited in the majority's opinion.

"The NRA condemns animal cruelty. However, hunting and depictions of hunting are not animal cruelty. This excessive law would have imposed felony penalties for creating, possessing or selling mainstream hunting images. Therefore, we are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled against this overbroad law," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "Indeed, NRA publications like American Hunter, the largest-circulation all-hunting magazine in the world, could have been in jeopardy if this law was upheld."

Anti-hunting extremist organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were the primary advocates for the deliberately overreaching language in Congress and its defenders in Court. HSUS's intentions should have been apparent from the beginning. Before becoming president of the organization, Wayne Pacelle said, "The definition of obscenity on the newsstands should be extended to many hunting magazines." And, this is precisely what the law did.

"American hunters and sportsmen are our country's true conservationists. It is offensive that those who work hardest for the preservation efforts of wildlife in this country are grouped with those who commit actual animal cruelty," concluded Cox. "Fortunately, the Supreme Court chose the First Amendment over Pacelle's radical agenda, and the overruling of this law prevents the unwarranted punishment of ethical hunters and outdoor media in the United States."

REPORT CONFIRMS MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME; NO PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT

A report published by MSNBC.com confirms "everything gun rights groups have been saying for years, that more armed citizens does not equate to increased violence, and actually coincides with a reduction in homicides. The on line news agency recently released an investigative report that record numbers of American citizens are now legally carrying firearms for personal protection. Yet, the report also reveals that homicide rates have declined dramatically during a period when gun sales have skyrocketed. Further, the report noted that Washington, DC with its extreme gun control has the highest murder rate in the nation, while Utah, with very liberal gun laws, has the lowest rate.

"This is further evidence that everything the gun prohibitionists have been claiming and predicting over the past two decades has been fundamentally fraudulent," said Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "They have repeatedly argued that more guns will equate to more crime and more firearms deaths, and MSNBC.com just let the air out of their sails with this exhaustive and well-balanced report." Gottlieb said the public "has gradually, but steadily come to the realization that the gun ban lobby has built its campaign of citizen disarmament on a mountain of falsehoods, one heaped on top of another."

"This is why," he said, "anti-gun groups have lost their momentum and their credibility. They failed to gain traction even with a Democrat-controlled Congress and an anti-gun White House. They are so desperate for attention that they have now declared war on private businesses just to generate publicity. Their high profile campaign of hysteria against Starbucks for complying with state laws that allow concealed and open carry in their coffee shops is based on an issue they fabricated just to grab headlines and television face time, and the public knows it.

"Every restrictive gun law, every ban, every gun-free-zone they have advocated and defended have one thing in common," Gottlieb concluded. "They gave us a body count. The MSNBC.com report suggests America has had enough."

First let me start this months' column by explaining why there is a change of venue for the SAFE Women On Target (WOT) Shooting Clinic scheduled for May 1st, 2010. We originally had it scheduled for use at the Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club but because of a contract requirement that was not in the best interests of SAFE we cancelled the use of that club and scheduled this clinic for the Medford Indoor Shooting Range on Route 112. We have done these WOT clinics at this range numerous times before and the owner was most accommodating.

You see SAFE ran an NRA Certified Instructors Course at the Bethpage Club where we trained 32 men and women to be NRA instructors over a two day period in November 2009 and there was no contract requirement of any kind of SAFE to do this course then. Because everything ran so smoothly the SAFE Board of Directors decided to give the Bethpage Club a donation of $250.00 for their hospitality and to request the use of their facility for our upcoming WOT Clinic under the same circumstances. However, this time the Club wanted a contract that was not in the best interests of SAFE and extremely restrictive. So please go the last page of this newsletter for the latest and correct information about the location of the Women On Target Shooting Clinic. All other issues a remain the same.

Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie and a hypocrite a liar. Usually hypocrisy may come from a desire to hide from others the real or actual motives or feelings of an individual. Hypocrisy is not simply an inconsistency between what is advocated and what is done.

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, recently shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, NC. The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, a district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.

The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Senator Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident on the evening of the shooting. "I am not in a position to talk to you," Senator Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

Senator Soles, is a top ranking Democrat and the longest serving member of the State Legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients.

The peculiar or ironic thing is the Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim. This is the act of a hypocrite or in other words someone who believes the laws are not meant for them but for you and me to obey. This act has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can. Of course we know this isn't true.

This man is not the first nor will he be the last to exhibit such an arrogant attitude towards firearms owners. And that means we all should do everything in our power to make sure those elected to public office understand this issue or at the least will do what we the public want with regards to firearms ownership and use.

Congressman Tiahrt sent a message to the Bloomberg Anti-gun Mayors:
Stop Politicizing Fort Hood Deaths!!!

U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., released the following statement in response to heinous accusations from Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun rights political organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. On Monday the Bloomberg organization paid for a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post assigning blame for the Fort Hood massacre, in part, to firearm policy authored by Tiahrt and approved by Congress since 2002. "The mayors who politicized the tragic deaths of those whose lives were taken along with the dozens who sustained injuries at Fort Hood should immediately issue a public apology to the victims and their families," said Tiahrt. "Their use of soldiers' deaths, their smear campaign against me, and their attempt to deceitfully change public policy disgraces their reputations as public servants. Using the Fort Hood massacre to advance a devious ad campaign dishonors the freedoms our men and women in uniform have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect. Americans everywhere should be outraged and demand that each of these mayors be held accountable. "The Tiahrt trace data amendment prevents the release of confidential law enforcement data to the public while making certain it is provided to local, state and federal law enforcement officials for use in criminal investigations. That's why the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, supports the Tiahrt trace data amendment.

"Contrary to what Mayors Against Illegal Guns have asserted, the Tiahrt amendment does not affect background check outcomes, does not affect who is permitted to own firearm, and does not restrict law enforcement officials from accessing and effectively using all available firearm data for criminal investigations. Allowing the federal government to maintain a firearm registry of law abiding American citizens who have passed a background test will do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks. Retaining a federal registry for 45 days or even 45 years will not make us any safer but will expose which citizens own guns and how many they own something every violent criminal would like to access."

Unfortunately, many opponents of the Tiahrt language, including Mayor Bloomberg, appear to be more interested in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers than about protecting law enforcement officers, the public, and privacy rights of law abiding citizens who own firearms.

For the past 6 years and the 12 NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Clinics we have held teaching just under 600 women the safe handling and marksmanship basics is indeed something we should all be proud of. Few sportsmen's organizations have done as much depending almost entirely on our own resources, meaning money and volunteers. The last SAFE WOT Clinic was even video taped and a copy of it is now on our web-site for all to see and was also sent to NRA Headquarters, specifically the women's division and they think the video and what it shows is outstanding. It is certainly something all members of SAFE can be proud of. And speaking about teaching and educating, SAFE recently sponsored and held an NRA Instructors Clinic where we trained 32 new NRA Instructors. The class was held on November 7th and 8th, 2009 with students coming from as far away as Poughkeepsie, NY. Add to this the direct involvement of SAFE as a sponsoring organization for the Boy Scouts Venturing crew in firearms and you have one very active pro gun organization. This does not even take into account the number of legislative and political activities we are involved in on a regular basis protecting your rights and abilities to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes. If re-elected to the SAFE Board of Directors I have every intention of increasing our activism in the legislative arena. Because it will be an election year next year for all state and federal offices now in my opinion would be the time to put the legislators on notice that their jobs may in jeopardy if they fail to give strong support for our constitutional right to own and use firearms lawfully. These things can only happen with you the memberships. SAFE is and will be whatever you the membership, want it to be.

---

Last but not least was SAFE's Firearms Civil Rights Conference. This year was one of our biggest and best attended conferences in the last ten years we are doing them. With over 900 people attending even Newsday could not ignore the pro gun movement taking place in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Newsday acknowledged not only the size of our event (even though they underestimated that) but they were very aware of the energy in the room. They did numerous man in the street interviews with attendees and all had the same issue. We the lawful firearms owners are fed up with being the scapegoat for anyone who uses a firearm wrongfully. We are tired of various public officials and people in the media using any crime committed with a gun as an excuse to irresponsibly lump all lawful gun owners into a class of people who should not have firearms. We are good people and we demand we be treated as such. We gave away almost $4000.00 dollars worth of firearms all perfectly legal and we raised funds through a silent auction specifically for our support of a lawsuit in Nassau County against so called colored guns. The lawsuit is much more than colored guns and we must win this issue. If you want to know more about this issue all you have to do is attend our monthly meeting for clarification. It is one of the most important issues we will face here in New York. And if anyone is interested in donating to SAFE to be used in the lawsuit just send a check payable to SAFE for whatever you can afford and in the note section write "chwick-v-mulvey."

At our Annual meeting we take care of all our legal obligations making yearly reports to the members, answering any questions and holding elections for Directors to the Board and to the SAFE Nominating Committee for next year. We try to make this portion of the meeting as quick and painless as possible so that we can move onto more serious business of the organization, such as making plans for coming year. While this meeting is required by law it can be quite informative and enjoyable.

November 2009

I have just received this update from NRA Headquarters and I wanted to share with you a quick update on the status of our participation in McDonald v. Chicago, concerning the Second Amendment's application to the states.

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

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

---

Here is something else of significance you won't find in the general news media. The Congress just passed NRA backed legislation protecting pocketknife classification this week. The United States Senate passed crucial legislation that will protect pocketknives used by tens of millions of Americans. The amendment, actively supported by the National Rifle Association, was included in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill and will keep pocketknives from being classified as illegal switchblades. US Senators John Cornyn, R-Tex, Mark Pryor, D-Ark. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah authored the amendment and were instrumental in its passage through Congress. US Congressmen Bob Latta, R-Ohio and Walt Minnick, D-Idaho also played vital roles in the amendment's passage in the House. Notice the absence once again of any names from New York.

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

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

---

Now here is a bill we can support because it supports the idea of public shooting ranges for sportsmen and gun owners, something many legislators here in New York seem to be unwilling to push. And keep in mind these are the same legislators who claim to support the Second Amendment but won't or don't help provide public ranges for the public to use in their lawful activities, namely shooting. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) which is the department that administers the Pittman-Robertson monies here in New York has been reluctant to do anything in the way of providing shooting facilities for it's cadre of volunteer Hunter Education Instructors. They just might have more incentive to do something if this bill becomes law. But I can guarantee you they will need convincing, strong convincing by us!

Congresswoman Betsy Markey and Congressman Mike Coffman announced the introduction of HR-3782, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which will improve and create more public shooting ranges for gun owners and sportsmen. The bill is co-sponsored by Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act will allow states to allocate a greater proportion of their federal Pittman-Robertson funds for recreational shooting and target practice by providing more flexibility in funding to help construct and maintain safe public shooting ranges, and by limiting the liability exposure to federal land agencies regarding the use of their land for target practice or marksmanship training.

"Colorado has a rich tradition of hunting, sporting, and recreational shooting," said Rep. Markey. "But the number of places where sportsmen and gun enthusiasts can go to safely practice has declined in recent years. By giving states more flexibility in how they use their allotment of federal funding, we're supporting Colorado's hunters and sportsmen now and for generations to come."

Rep. Coffman commented, "As an ardent advocate of Second Amendment rights, I am proud to support the development and maintenance of public shooting ranges. The changes this bill makes will empower states and provide a greater federal share of funding for wildlife restoration, hunter education, and target ranges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee move this bill through committee to the House floor."

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Act, which established a 10 percent excise tax on firearms, hunting equipment and ammunition, and distributes these funds to states for hunter safety programs and the development and maintenance of shooting ranges, among other things.

Rep. Markey's bill will amend the Pittman-Robertson Act by adjusting the funding limitations so that states have more funds available to create and maintain shooting ranges. It also limits the liability exposure to the federal land agencies (the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management) regarding the use of federal land for target practice or marksmanship training. The bill also encourages those agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land so as to encourage their continued use. HR-3782 has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. If and when this bill passes (and we should be all working to get it passed by contacting our Congressmen and both US Senators) then we need to exert pressure on the DEC to use the funds designated for shooting ranges, something they are not doing now!

Back to top

October 2009

First let me start this months' column with a large "Thank You" to all the people who helped make this years Firearm Civil Rights Conference the huge success it turned out to be. The SAFE Board members and the volunteers who stepped up to help out did an outstanding job of getting the room prepared and organized for the almost 900 people who attended this years' conference. Take my word for it, it takes a lot of work bringing in and distributing all the literature and then signing up and/or renewing memberships for the NRA and SAFE. Each year for the past 10 years it is these volunteers who help out where and when needed that make our conference the success it is.

For the record this is the first year our conference was reported in Newsday (see page A-14, October 14th, 2009 issue) even though Newsday reporters and photographers were in attendance at many previous conferences. I have also been recently informed that ownership has changed hands and maybe that is why we have finally seen our conference reported on in the media. While it was not a ringing endorsement of SAFE and what we stand for, nor was it an acknowledgement that we at SAFE have provided the public with the largest single gathering of people regardless of the subject anywhere on Long Island, the article was none the less an objective article. If anything it was refreshing to read an objective article about our conference, instead of the usual highly critical and distorted piece we have grown accustomed to. Gun owners are the most law-abiding group of people in New York State and it was nice to be treated that way for once. There was only one error in the article and that was at the beginning where it said that 700 people were in attendance. It was closer to 900 people as we had 750 chairs out and they were all full and then we had about 150 people standing in the back and along the sides of the room.

We have every reason to be proud of the turnout by our members and the quality and of our guest speakers. Our speakers were not only very informative by the content of their speeches but they were at the same time very motivating speakers. While the information provided was significant it was also important to see that with this new information we could and should make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming elections this year and again in future elections when it is time.

In order to protect and preserve our Constitutional rights with regard to firearms it is imperative that we be well armed with the necessary information to make the outcome of the elections something we can live with. We need to send a collective message that we firearms owners will not tolerate the taking away or in any way limiting our right and ability to own and use firearms lawfully. No longer will we sit by while those in power suggest that the 99.9% of the firearms in circulation and in safe and sane hands are responsible for the criminal acts of a few criminals. As has been said before, "that dog just don't hunt". In other words we are not and will not accept responsibility for criminals and their criminal acts simply because they use an otherwise lawful product, that being a firearm. We have a right to be treated respectfully as the law-abiding citizens we are and not with disdain or disregard.

This was a great conference also because of the number of legislators and want to be legislators that attended. We had quite a few and some have already contacted me looking for support in the upcoming elections. I will bring this issue up at the next regular SAFE meeting and we can go over it and discuss what if anything we can or will do for them. I would imagine it will depend on their strength conviction and support for our Second Amendment. I for one need more than lip service to support a candidate for public office. I need to know quite convincingly that the person running for public office not only understands the firearm issue but is willing to stand up and publicly support it. If they will not do this for us there is no reason why I should support them publicly.

Now for a listing of those individuals and gun stores that supported our conference and for which you should support them at every opportunity. Keep in mind we gave away almost $4,000.00 worth of prizes and these folks donated it all. They deserve our full support because they help to support our individual constitutional rights.

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

We should all thank these folks for stepping up and supporting the firearms community and more particularly the SAFE organization. They helped to make the Conference the success it was and everyone who attended the conference and who is a member of SAFE should make it their business to do your business with them. Thank you all.

Back to top

Sept 2009

Lately there has resurfaced a subject that I brought to the table almost 20 years ago. That is the possibility of having only one Handgun Licensing Agent for all of Suffolk County. It has long been an issue that firearms owners have strongly supported in the past and based on the e-mail, regular mail and phone calls I have been receiving lately it seems to be popular again. Because of that let me give you all some background information and then I'd like to hear from you what you think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

SAFE Firearm Civil Rights Conference

For those of you who are helpers for the SAFE Firearm Civil Rights Conference you need to be at the Hotel between 9:30 AM and 10:00 AM Sunday morning. If you are later than that you are not a helper but just early for the event. Bring your friends.

Back to top

---

Jul-Aug 2009

The New York State Legislature, specifically the Senate is in turmoil. But that doesn't mean you can relax your guard. What it is does mean is that we need to keep the pressure on all NYS Senators and in particular on those from Long Island. Listed below is the phone number and e-mail address for each of these people, please use it. Now is not the time to lean back on what we have done but to keep up the pressure to preserve our rights to own and use a firearm without unreasonable and unnecessary limitations or restrictions on lawful people. Any proposal which claims to prevent criminals from getting and using guns in the commission of a crime is intentionally trying to mislead you into believing in fairy tales. It is the same as trying to keep drunk drivers off the road, it can't be done. The only thing that will keep drunk drivers off the road and guns out of the hands of criminals is severe prison sentences. Only when the punishment is so severe will criminals be persuaded to not use a firearm. Even then there will be those who believe they will not or cannot be caught and so a gun will be used, the same as drunk drivers. Making it harder and/or more expensive for lawful firearms owners to acquire and use a gun for self defense reasons is not the way to punish the criminal who uses a gun in a crime, but is a great way to control the general public. Somehow I think those making these anti-gun proposals already know that and they hope you don't or won't believe that this is their ultimate purpose, to control you. Everyone needs to keep in mind that a criminal by definition is one who breaks laws whenever and wherever they please. Passing more restrictions or limitations on law abiding people and firearms does not and will not prevent criminal use. That is why it is imperative to punish those who use firearms in crimes by guaranteeing long prison sentences without the ability to plea bargain the charge away or to do less time in prison. District Attorneys (DAs) have traditionally used the gun charge as a negotiation tool or bargaining chip with a criminal to lower the charges and reduce the prison sentences for the criminal in order to get them to plead guilty to a lesser crime. This creates a higher conviction rate for these DAs which ultimately makes them appear that they are looking out for your/the public's welfare. District Attorneys often get elected by their conviction rate and the higher this rate the better the record looks when they run for office. In other words plea bargaining on the part of DAs is in their own self serving interest and not necessarily in the public's interest. It is amazing that none of these proposals are creating stronger and/or longer prison terms for breaking the laws already in existence. I realize there are only so many ways to say it is against the law to murder, rape, beat or intentionally hurt someone and because of that I am positive that none of the victims of any of these crimes gives a DAMN about what tool was used when they were murdered, raped beaten or hurt, only that the perpetrator be caught and punished severely for their crime. Please contact these Senators NOW!!

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

---

The future of the 2nd Amendment depends on our actions regarding the appointment of the next US Supreme Court Justice. And in this case we must let your Senators (Schumer, Gillibrand) know that we OPPOSE the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court appears to hold a very negative view of the Second Amendment, one that contradicts the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A heated debate has already begun in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This subject which has helped decide the fate of presidential elections and could/should also decide her nomination. Firearms owners and especially the members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) and SAFE must aggressively oppose the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor's record clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy on the Second Amendment, and even some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous as we all should be. Last year, the Supreme Court held in the Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms, but that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. My main concern is the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights. The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right" which means does it apply to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting our firearm civil rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city tries to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and/or self-defense, such as New York is trying to do, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can't help you. As a matter of fact, Judge Sotomayor wrote only a single paragraph when deciding a New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo where she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She offered no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms. The Senate will begin hearings in July on Judge Sotomayor's nomination and she will be given an opportunity to explain the statements she has made about the Second Amendment and how they differ with the Supreme Court's statements about the Second Amendment in Heller. I for one want to know why she thinks the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. This is important because next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up the case of NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact on our firearms civil rights everywhere in the future. Contact our 2 US Senators from New York and urge/request them to Vote No on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Scott L. Bach	D. Cynthia Julien	Wayne Anthony Ross
Robert K. Brown	Tom Gaines	Ronald L. Schmeits
John Burt	David Keene	Steven C. Schreiner
Joseph P. DeBergalis	George K. Kollitides	John Sigler
Donn C. DiBiasio	Edie Reynolds	Robert L. Viden Jr.

Firearms Industry Lauds Development of Electronic Form 4473

Next time someone says there are no laws preventing criminals' access to firearms tell them about this recently updated requirement which has been in the law books since 1968. Speaking at a press conference recently the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) announced the launch of an electronic Form 4473; the Firearms Transaction Record which must be filled out any time a person buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) the trade association for the firearms industry hailed the development of the electronic document. As part of the announcement, the ATF issued a ruling allowing firearms retailers to choose between a free downloadable version of the Form 4473 from the ATF Web site or, an alternative commercial software based version of the Form 4473, provided certain requirements are met by the vendor.

"The E-4473 will help all firearms retailers, especially small independent retailers, by giving the federal firearms licensee an opportunity to reduce costs and further enhance compliance issues by eliminating or at the very least reducing innocent mistakes caused by human error," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. The E-4473 will be entirely voluntary, voluntary for the dealer and voluntary for the customer. Furthermore, the E-4473 is not part of a government database, and it is not connected to any government computer or exchange. "Clearly NSSF would never support a database of law abiding Americans choosing to exercise their second amendment right to keep and bear arms," continued Keane. "The E-4473 does not infringe upon this most profound freedom."

For those who did not know, (and that includes many Federal and State legislators) the Form 4473 is the federal document that must be completed prior to purchasing a firearm from a licensed firearm retailer. The document asks for the purchaser's name, address, driver's license or identification number, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) transaction number (authorizing and approving the transaction to the buyer), serial number and the make and model of the firearm. The Form 4473 includes a federal affidavit to be completed by the purchaser stating that he or she is eligible to purchase the firearm(s) under federal law. The purchaser also affirms that he or she is the actual buyer of the firearm. Lying on this form is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison, in addition to fines, even if the firearm is never transferred. The firearms dealer is required to keep the Form 4473 for 20 years, and all records are subject to inspection by the ATF. The licensed dealer must also record information from the Form 4473 into an "A & D book" a bound book of acquisitions and dispositions of all firearms sold and acquired by the retailer.

ANTI-GUN GROUPS MAKE OLD CLAIM, BUT NOW WITH A NEW FRIEND

For your information it is being circulated around the internet that Sarah Brady is asking President Elect Obama (who they believe is an anti gun friend), to close the so called deadly loopholes in our current laws that allow terrorists to buy guns. This is a solution in search of a problem, since terrorists already can not legally buy guns. This is nothing more than a back door way to vastly expand the NICS Index which is the list of prohibited possessors that reportedly includes more than ten million Americans. Once you're on, it can be next to impossible to get off, so making it larger serves the goal of the gun banners wonderfully. Many (but not all) currently in the NICS index are violent felons who belong there. It's not completely clear who they'd like to add, but in the past, an effort was made to grant arbitrary authority to the Attorney General to add names to terrorism "watch lists. This would prevent those people from air travel and place other restrictions on civil liberties. Sort of like Guantanamo detainees except you didn't need to be caught shooting at Americans on a battlefield. Anyone on that list would be automatically banned by a NICS check, and those checks would no longer be limited to retail purchases from dealers.

FYI, if you're placed on the NICS list, it suggests you're a prohibited person whether you really are or not, so any guns or ammo you already own or even touch could then constitute a felony. To an overly zealous cop or judge, a NICS listing might require you to prove your innocence, which can be a nightmare of legal problems. That list should be scrupulously accurate and easily corrected… a task the government is known to screw up regularly. And just for the record, any actual terrorist is already totally banned from buying or having guns in this country, but they could care less about lists kept in West Virginia by the FBI. Terrorist by definition means "We smuggle weapons you can't even get, easier than you can buy a bag of cocaine in any America city."

Just as a personal aside these "terrorists" (which is generally a code name for radical Muslims) are determined to kill and blow up everything they can, and they prove it again and again around the world, constantly, you needn't take my word for it. They haven't done it here since 9/11 for one main reason, President Bush, although he is and has been killing them off as fast as he can, before they can strike us here and even though he has been hampered with constant attacks in the media which have now swayed large swaths of the public. He may take a lot of flack, and be looked down upon by many, but he just may turn out to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents we have ever had the luck to have. I'm just noting here that the Muslim extremists are killing everywhere in the world but here, and President Bush is the reason. For that he is entitled to a big "Thank you!" I clearly know that doesn't go along with public perception but just because it isn't plastered all over the front pages of the news media doesn't mean its not so! Happy New Year.

Governor Lauds Interior Secretary's Firearm Decision

Unlike the anti-gun organizations Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin also lauded the decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior that will allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges. The new rule only applies if the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. "The possession and use of firearms is especially critical to Alaskans," Governor Palin said. "We will continue to protect gun rights. The ability to carry a firearm can define a life or death situation, especially for protection against surprise encounters with wildlife, mainly bears. I appreciate the Interior Department recognizing this is a step in the right direction." Within Alaska, most of the national parks and refuge areas are open to various forms of hunting, so possession and use of firearms is already widely allowed under both state and federal law. The new rule will take effect in January.

Back to top

For the past 5 years and the 10 NRA/SAFE "Women On Target" (WOT) Clinics we have held teaching just over 500 women the safe handling and marksmanship basics is indeed something we should all be proud of. Few organizations have done as much depending almost entirely on our own resources, meaning money and volunteers. This last WOT Clinic was even written up in the October 12th, 2008 edition of Newsday. Considering how anti-gun Newsday traditionally is, we were quite surprised the article was not only objective but almost congratulatory. In other words it was upbeat and positive, two things we are not used to from Newsday.

This month will be our annual meeting which coincides with the New Year and the beginning of the New 2 year Congress and 2 year NYS Legislatures business session. That's really not as dull and boring as it sounds. At our Annual meeting we take care of all our legal obligations making yearly reports to the members, answering any questions and holding elections for Directors to the Board and to the SAFE Nominating Committee for next year. We try to make this portion of the meeting as quick and painless as possible so that we can move onto more serious business of the organization. While this meeting is required by law it can be quite informative and enjoyable.

---

At this time last year then Governor Spitzer proposed giving all illegal aliens a governmental identification (ID) document. What he and the US Congress should have been doing is finding a way to get all these ILLEGAL ALIENS out of our country and who by the way have still done nothing one year later. What bothers me is that the US Congress (both houses) have been controlled for the past 4 years by the Democrats and the NYS Legislature, the Assembly and the Executive branch of government are Democrats for the past year and they too have done nothing about the illegal alien problem. Why Not? Thank goodness because of a major outcry by the public that proposal was withdrawn. My question was and still is; what the hell took so long to realize the dangerous precedent this would have created? I never could fathom the idea of any governmental agency giving KNOWN criminals (illegal aliens are KNOWN criminals) the ability to conduct business as if they were legal. That includes the ability to buy firearms and use them in whatever other illegal activities these people engage in. Normally I would defend the presumption that any lawful citizen who wants a firearm and has a record of being law abiding should get one without any prior restraints imposed on them by any government agency. I firmly believe that with regard to firearms no citizen should be denied the right to own and use firearms for any lawful purpose. That includes the ability to be able to acquire a firearm in a timely manner and carry it anywhere they choose until proven otherwise, not presumed otherwise. But that is another issue to be discussed at another time. But in the case of these illegal aliens they have already proven that they will break any law they do not like or disagree with. I am as pro-gun, pro-civil rights a person as you will ever meet but I am not in favor of giving illegal aliens the ability to purchase a firearm through legal channels. In order to buy a firearm through any legally licensed firearm dealer in New York State all that's required is a government issued identification or a New York State Drivers License. When this ID is given to the federally licensed dealer he/she calls the Feds for a background check to see if this person is one of those people who are prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. Guess what happens next? Because this person is an illegal alien, he/she has no background to check. According to all of the records this person does not really exist. So if there is nothing to show that they are a prohibited person the dealer would be required to sell them a firearm. For all we know this person could be a mass murderer or a rapist or bank robber or any other kind of criminal. The issue here is, because they are in our country illegally, there is in fact no way for anyone in our government to know whether or not some or all of these people are criminals where they come from! This required background check by the way is our national standard for the purchase of firearms for all lawful citizens and I for one believe this standard should be the very least all immigrants legal or illegal should be required to comply with. I want to make it clear that I am in favor of immigration but only the legal kind. I am not in favor of people breaking into my home (the USA is my home) and then demanding I treat them as equals. I have no obligation to provide these people with anything a natural born citizen or legal immigrant has a right to expect. With the rights & privileges of citizenship goes the responsibility to abide by and obey all laws, not just those we like. By definition illegal aliens have already violated the laws of our land and I have no reason to believe they will change their ways now. Providing them with any form of legal identification is a dangerous thing to do.

This brings me to the question of why would a person/s some call intelligent (and please do not confuse intelligence with wisdom) be willing to place so many good and lawful citizens in jeopardy? One possibility would be to get these illegal aliens to feel beholden to that person/s who was giving them legitimacy and the right to vote because this governmental ID could also be used to establish residency for voting purposes. I would hate to think that any Governor or the Congress is merely pandering for more votes by trying to appeal to an unlawful group of people instead of strongly representing the will and opinion of the majority of lawful and honest citizens of this State and the country. Another possibility could be that if illegal aliens could get access to guns and then the crime rate goes up here in New York it would justify the introduction of more restrictive firearms laws up to and including limited prohibition for all citizens including the 99% of the firearms owners who do not violate the law. We have always held the position that criminals should be punished for their criminal behavior and not the law abiding firearms owners. As a matter of fact and I have stated this before, I distrust any public official who does not believe in my constitutional right to own and use firearms because if they don't trust me in the exercise of my most basic constitutional rights then there is no reason to trust them. These public officials have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and are supposed to make sure these rights remain my rights, to be exercised when ever I choose and not taken away or limited in any way or under any pretense what so ever. Remember on December 15, 1791, the new United States of America adopted the Bill Of Rights and we should celebrate that day every year, not shun it as some try to do.

---

On the next page is the Official SAFE Nominating Committee Report. You should use it as guide in the upcoming SAFE elections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their time and diligent work. What I am about to say may not be politically correct and I hope no one gets offended but I wish everyone to have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year. I wish everyone an enjoyable Holiday season with family and friends. I hope everyone gets the gifts you want and deserves the gifts you get.

Back to top

November 2008

THE FRAUD OF OBAMA

In battleground states Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, the National Rifle Association is taking aim at Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., with this new ad and for good reasons. "Imagine your child screaming in the middle of the night when a convicted felon breaks into your home," the narrator says. "Worse, he comes back a second time. You use a firearm to defend yourself and your family. Unbelievably, Obama voted to make you the criminal..." It goes on from there. This ad refers to a 2003 incident when a Wilmette, Ill., restaurateur named Mr. Hale DeMar shot and wounded a burglar who broke into his house. DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette, which had, at the time, a ban on the possession of handguns, so some Illinois lawmakers introduced legislation to offer legal protections to individuals who use firearms in self-defense. The bill passed the Illinois state House by a vote of 86-25, and the Illinois State Senate, by a vote of 39-20. What is generally not known is Mr. Obama voted against this bill which would have made Mr. Demar, the original victim in this case, has become the criminal. Does that sound like the act someone who is trying to protect yours and my civil rights to self protection? I don't think so!

ELECTION DAY 2008

By the time you get this issue of the SAFE legislative Report and newsletter there will be about one week left for campaigning. It is now or never. From here on out the election is all about the grassroots organization and hard work, the type of roll up your sleeves, shoe leather politics that is the strength of our SAFE organization. We are up against a political and fundraising machine the likes of which we have never seen before in modern politics. This machine is designed for one purpose: to aid the Obama-Biden Democrats' power grab. From vicious attack ads smearing our candidates to pouring thousands of paid operatives into crucial battleground states, these anti-gun fanatical groups will spend over $1 billion to elect the most liberal Democrat presidential ticket in our country's history to the White House and expand the Democrats' majorities in Congress. Remember the Democratic Party Platform is one that endorses firearms registration, licensing and ultimately total confiscation. The really scary part is the liberal mainstream media is also doing their part. In the daily newspapers and nightly news programs, they have condoned the misleading distortions and dishonest attacks against Republican candidates through their slanted reporting in favor of the opposition. The news media has stopped being an objective reporting agency and become one that interprets and tells you what the news means. Just give me all the facts and allow me to decide for myself what it all means. Our Second Amendment Rights have never been in so much danger as it will be if Obama becomes President. He has outright lied during this campaign by saying he supports the Second Amendment while voting in the US Senate every time against it. If elected he will be the one appointing the next couple of US Supreme Court justices and with a Democratic controlled Senate he will appoint the most radical anti civil rights, anti gun court in our lifetime. That truly scares me and would be a disservice and betrayal to my children. I said it at our Right To Carry Conference and it is still true now, the media is lying and intentionally misleading the public about the so called lead of Obama over McCain. It is not true and it should not be trusted. We must fight back if our Second Amendment Rights are to continue into the next generation.

Right To Carry Conference & Women On Target Shooting Clinic

I would like to take this opportunity to THANK everyone who helped out in making the SAFE Right To Carry Conference (RTC) and the Women on Target (WOT) Shooting Clinic the success they were. Without the full support of the Board of Directors of SAFE and the membership this would not only be unsuccessful it wouldn't happen at all. What makes it run so smoothly is that everyone does a job and they do it extremely well. From the distribution of literature on each and every seat to the setting up of and running of all the tables in the back for membership activities and prize displays and book sales to making sure I am kept informed when public officials and candidates for public office arrive so I can announce them to the attendees to the hanging of SAFE's Banner and other SAFE signs to every other little detail, all this happens because of the volunteers. And just for the record, each time we do one of these events we start off by being $3,000.00 in debt. But because it is such a success it pays off all of our financial obligations for the RTC Conference and also pays for the 60 women who participated in the SAFE WOT Shooting Clinic. We also achieved in bringing in 90 renewals and 50 new memberships for SAFE as well as signing up 45 new NRA memberships. All of these are important and you should all be proud.

SAFE nominating Committee Meeting Nov 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 PM

The SAFE nominating Committee will be called together 1 hour before our next regular SAFE meeting on Nov 3rd, at 6:30 PM so they can deliberate on candidates for the SAFE Board of Directors. Because I am not up for re-election to the Board I will be acting as Chairman to the Committee and the rest of the committee members are as follows; Appointed Board members, Richie Snizek and Bill Raab. Non-Board members are Eric Collins, elected by the members and Bill Kirchhoff and Georgia Maas who are appointed by the Board from those nominated by the membership. So as you can see the Committee is composed of 2 Board members and 3 Non-Board members with the chair, voting only in the case of a tie. The 3 current Board members up for re-election are Richie Fahie, Lou Giordano and James Kelly. Mr. Fahie and Mr. Giordano are asking to have their names removed from consideration because of their job requirements that will not allow them the opportunity to give the necessary time to the position in SAFE. Everyone should keep in mind that December will be our Annual Meeting month where SAFE Elections take place.

For those of you who were unable to make last months regular SAFE meeting and did not get the chance to see the article in the Sunday edition of Newsday October 12th, 2008 on page 14, you should go to the following web-site to read it for yourself; http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lijoy5880552oct12,0,4892446.column. I believe what we did at the SAFE WOT Shooting Clinic should make the members proud. I was especially pleased because I am told that this particular reporter is extremely tough on organizations and in particular gun groups. Knowing that, the published article was exceptionally good for and about us. And once again I have to thank all off the volunteer NRA instructors, especially Tony Giammarino the lead classroom instructor and all of the volunteer assistants in making it run as smoothly as it did. This is good public relations for the firearms community in general and in particular for SAFE. The women who participated in the clinic were all very pleased about their attendance.

Back to top

October 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Won't See This In Your Local Paper

New York criminal defense law firm Tilem & Campbell announced today that all charges were dismissed against a client charged with possessing a loaded firearm in Bronx County, New York. The firm relied on the largely unknown federal travelers' defense which grants a defense to state gun charges for those traveling interstate with their firearms. The client was originally charged with a class "C" violent felony and was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in state prison and up to fifteen years in state prison if convicted; he was needless to say ecstatic with the outcome.

The Federal Travelers' Defense permits a citizen who is not barred from possessing guns to legally transport one or more guns from one state where he legally possesses that gun to another state where he may lawfully possess that gun, without regard to the gun laws in every state he passes through on the trip. The defense is only available if the gun is unloaded, and if neither the gun nor ammunition is accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

In 2006, New York State amended its gun laws, increasing the penalties for possessing a loaded firearm outside a person's home or place of business to a minimum sentence of three and one-half years and a maximum sentence of fifteen years.

Back to top

Sept 2008

I hope all of you have had an enjoyable summer with family and friends. But now it is time to once again get back to work. I must admit I have done more traveling this past summer than I have in quite in quite a few years but I have also attended and been a part of many more meetings regarding firearms and ownership, use and transportation. I have also been more active in communicating with legislative candidates who want to be our elected representatives at all levels of government. My hope is so have you, because whether we like it or not, it is the elected officials who govern every aspect of our lives and we must and should be involved with them as much as possible! To that extent please read the 3 page letter to Suffolk County Legislator Jack Eddington with regard to a bill introduced to ban certain colored firearms as if a color should determine how dangerous a firearm is.

I am going to be looking for some volunteers to work a phone bank with me to help get elected a strong pro-gun candidate to Congress. If you are interested let me know and I will fill you in on the details. It will require a few evenings making phone calls from their office to voters, including gun owning voters. It is one of the ways that we at SAFE can and will make the difference in who represents us.

Because there is way more information that I would like to share with you than can possibly fit in this newsletter I hope you all show up for the meeting. We are getting down to the wire with final arrangements for the Right To Carry Conference (RTC) and the Women On Target Shooting Clinic (WOT) and I am in search of volunteers for each. See me at the meeting, email me or call me so I can get your name and phone number so I will know which event you are willing to help out with. With regard to the WOT, the class is filling up again so if you have someone who wants in please get them to contact me right away at jcushman@juno.com and give me full name, address and phone number and which class they want to be in AM or PM. I will call each and every student 10 days to 2 weeks before the clinic to confirm their attendance. If they need any info regarding either event refer them to the enclosed flyer or send them to our web-site at www.nysafe.org. Normally I use two pages for my column but this month I am giving one page to Mr. Bill Raab, one of SAFE's Board members. He is the contact person regarding a new program that SAFE is sponsoring with the Boy Scouts of America. So please read his article.

Morton Grove, Illinois finally sees the light!

In 1981, a quiet northern Chicago suburb made history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the possession of handguns. Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove, Illinois has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed a homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense. Though Morton Grove's gun ban is five years younger than Washington, DC's, it's considered the first in the country because the village is a municipality, whereas D.C. is a federal district. Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense. Some thing we've been saying all along.

Wilmette, Illinois, another northern Chicago suburb, voted to repeal its ban also. Officials there said they believe they weren't sued by the NRA because the village stopped enforcing its 1989 ban after the high court ruling. "In my mind we had to repeal," said Wilmette Village President Chris Canning, who is also a lawyer. "I knew that our ordinance would not survive constitutional scrutiny." Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist in Illinois, said communities working to repeal their gun bans simply see the writing on the wall. "Some communities are truly seeing what is contained in the Supreme Court decision and they're reacting appropriately," he said. The pressure that Morton Grove is feeling is because the NRA and the gun-lobby lawyers are pushing these issues, basically forcing them to make a decision on where to spend their taxpayers money.

SAFE's Youth Group Takes Off
by Bill Raab

For the past few months, the SAFE Board of Directors has been talking about the possibility of forming a Youth program. It is a given that today's youth do not get the necessary exposure to civil rights and responsibilities they need to prepare for an informed adult life. Firearms are typically only portrayed in a negative light, and the thought of individual initiative is almost never discussed. We have been in contact with the Boy Scouts of America in reference to starting a Venturing group, known as a Crew.

Venturing is a youth development program of the Boy Scouts of America for young men and women who are 14 (and have completed the eighth grade) through 20 years of age. Venturing is based on a unique and dynamic relationship between youth, adult leaders, and organizations in their communities. Local community organizations establish a Venturing crew by matching their people and program resources to the interests of young people in the community. The result is a program of exciting and meaningful activities that helps youth pursue their special interests, grow, develop leadership skills, and become good citizens. This seems to fall into place with what we do at SAFE and it would give us some support for the new Unit through printed material, training, and both volunteer and professional staff to help us.

Venturing's purpose is to provide positive experiences to help young people mature and to prepare them to become responsible and caring adults. Our group would be based on the shooting sports, with civil rights and government study as part of the program. Our group had several planning meetings, and we have enlisted the support of some local ranges to help bring a quality experience to the young people we will be working with.

The Crew has elected their Officers, and recruited more new members. They are supported by seasoned Adult leaders with more than 200 years combined shooting experience. We currently have 12 youth, with a varied degree of abilities. We're sure they will all improve to some degree.

One of the more notable shooters in the Crew, Vice President in charge of Program Nolan C., has just won both individual and Team Gold Medals at the Empire State Games. If he improves much more, you may see him at the 2012 Olympic Games. A tremendous achievement and one that merits our sincerest congratulations! Should anyone have questions for me see me at the meeting or contact me through SAFE.

Back to top

---

Jul-Aug 2008

Great news!!! Today June 26th, 2008, a date that will go into the history books. The US Supreme Court has given us an opinion and a decision which basically acknowledges the Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights is and always has been a Constitutional "individual" right. Generally this legal opinion says that the Second Amendment is clearly a right of individuals, not of states and or militias and that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional and so is the requirement to keep guns locked up. As we used to say in the Corps, OUTSTANDING! I have not finished reading the opinion yet myself but I wanted to get this out to you as soon as I possibly could.

You can be sure you will hear tons of comments and commentaries by those in the media and especially those who will try to convince you this is really not a big deal. But make no mistake about it…it is a big deal, a very big deal. They will try to put their own personal slant on the decision and the best way I can think of to make sure you are not fooled or intentionally mislead is to read the decision yourself. Once you have armed yourself with the knowledge of the actual wording of the decision you won't be so easily led astray. To be sure the major pro gun groups like NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA and more will all have their own individual interpretations out soon. My advice is to read them all and add this information to your personal arsenal of knowledge. By being an informed and educated group of gun owners you all will be our best defense and offense against anyone who would try to destroy our Second Amendment Rights.

A word of caution is now in order. I have been raising this issue since before this case went to the Supreme Court and that is, now that we have a favorable decision to lean on it is the beginning of the real fight to overturn or repeal a lot of the bad firearms legislation currently on the books, not just here in New York but in jurisdictions all over the country. Now that we are armed with a decision that gives us a clear right to challenge unconstitutional gun laws at all levels of government you can sure be no legislative body in the US will admit they did anything wrong or that their law violates your constitutional rights.

My advice now is to stay tuned for not only more interpretations of this decision by everyone and his brother but also for the next steps that need to be taken by us now that we have the necessary ammunition to fight. If anything, we need to make sure we are all members of SAFE, the NRA and other pro-gun organizations and if we are not we need to join now. We need to get our gun owning friends and relatives involved in this fight by getting them to join or by giving them a membership as a gift. Get every gun owner you know involved in our cause. Keeping ourselves informed of what is going on is the first step towards winning this battle. For example what do you think of creating a SAFE Firearms Legal Defense Fund? Would you support it and get others to do the same? Keep in mind it will only be as effective as you the supporters are. There is no way to say this other than directly and that is, in order to make the SAFE Legal Defense Fund work requires MONEY. We must all dedicate ourselves toward raising the funds necessary to take these people to court especially in the Long Island area.

---

Suffolk County Legislators Eddington and Horsley Introduce RESOLUTION
NO. 1506-2008, A Local Law To Prohibit Deceptively Colored Handguns

Section 1. Legislative Intent. This Legislature hereby finds and determines that real guns, when painted with non-traditional handgun colors, resemble toy guns, and can confuse law enforcement officers and the public at large. (FALSE, I don't believe that law enforcement is as stupid or naïve as these legislators claim they are) This Legislature further finds that deceptively colored handguns pose a danger to law enforcement personnel. (LIE, inanimate colored objects don't represent a hazard to anyone) Law enforcement officers who sometimes must make split second decisions on the use of force could perceive a deceptively colored handgun to be a toy and, as a result be seriously injured or killed. (Only if you don't trust your police officers or they are unsure about what that person is doing in the alley at 3:00 AM when the store alarm goes off) This Legislature also finds that a child may mistakenly attempt to play with a brightly colored handgun and seriously injure themselves or others. (FALSE, we already have child negligence laws in place) Therefore, the purpose of this local law is to safeguard the public from the unreasonable risk of death and injury that may result when real handguns are mistaken for toys by banning the distribution and possession of deceptively colored handguns within the County of Suffolk. (The true purpose of this proposal is to allow anti-gun fanatic legislators to attempt to misrepresent and lie about guns and their owners in order justify their perverted real purpose that is to harass law abiding gun owners because they are legislators and anti-gun. There is not one documented situation that any of these unfounded allegations and fears of these legislators is true. They are attempting to fix a problem that is only in their own head.)
Section 3. Prohibitions. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to modify, attempt to modify, or offer to modify any handgun so as to make it a deceptively colored handgun except as authorized by Section 4 of this law. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a deceptively colored handgun or a deceptive coloring product except as authorized by Section 4 of this law or for any person to attempt to possess a deceptively colored handgun or a deceptive coloring product except as authorized by Section 4 of this law. C. It shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of a deceptively colored handgun except as authorized by Section 4 of this law.
Section 4. Exceptions. A. within thirty (30) days after the law goes into effect such person either: (i) surrenders such deceptively colored handgun to the Commissioner of Police for disposal in accordance with the provisions of Section 400.05 of the Penal Law;(destruction) or (ii) modifies such handgun to be in conformance with this law. B. This law shall not apply to federal or state agencies or by a peace officer or police officer, acting within the scope of his or her duties.
Section 5. Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this law or of any regulations issued pursuant to it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more $1,000.00, or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. (simple possession only can fine you and /or put you in jail or both, no crime need be committed) Everyone of you needs to contact all members of the Suffolk County Legislature and oppose this proposal.

Back to top

June 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here is a sobering (and scary) statistic: There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 40 months, and a total of 3,567 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq. The obvious conclusion from these FACTS is; the U.S. should pull out of Washington DC and save lives, keeping in mind that even if it means just saving one more life as the anti-gun fanatics love to say.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly Parker v. District of Columbia), which struck down three D.C. gun bans as unconstitutional, many newspapers are publishing editorials, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor that read suspiciously like the anti-Parker "essays" that the Brady Campaign has been posting on its website for the last few months. In spite of what you will read and hear in the general media over the coming months, and you will hear plenty, the vast majority of historians and Constitutional scholars have always believed the Second Amendment was and is about an individual's right to own firearms. The concept of a "collective" right of gun ownership is really a recent idea. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Until the 20th century, a state's militia was considered every able-bodied male. The framers of the Constitution believed that it was every citizen's job to defend his home and country. So the first part of the amendment merely reinforces the idea that citizens, the people's militia, have the right, the obligation even, to bear arms because we are all ultimately responsible to protect our freedoms.

That idea has become unpopular in some elite circles today, but it doesn't change the framers' intent or how the relatively conservative and a strict interpretation on today's Supreme Court will probably/hopefully rule to strike down the DC gun ban and uphold a recent lower court's decision. The average American has always understood the Second Amendment. Anti-gun positions have cost more than one politician his seat, and it's the very reason Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and the presidential race because he advocated more gun control. For many Americans, how a politician stands on gun control defines his whole character. If you are for gun control, you probably don't support all the other important rights of our Constitution. You simply can't be trusted.

Inner-city violence and rioting, the breakdown of social order after natural disasters such as New Orleans, and the general fear of crime have made a whole generation of urbanites recognize that they needed firearms to protect themselves and their families in times of crisis. The police weren't going to be there in time, if at all. People understand that our fore-fathers idea of "militia" still applies in a modern world. It was and is up to each and every one of us to defend and protect that which is ours, including our lives. In New Orleans, groups of neighbors protected clusters of houses from looters and criminals after Katrina. Store owners defended their shops from rioters in Los Angeles and Chicago. Home-invasion robberies are thwarted by little old ladies. The common denominator is that all of these people were armed.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the D.C. gun ban case, on which it will probably rule by next June, will make the issue a political hot potato in upcoming presidential primaries and in the final race next November after a decision is rendered. The losers will say the Second Amendment does or should be amended to allow for citizens to be disarmed, wholly or partially as they do in Washington, D.C. The winners will realize that Americans whether liberal or conservative do in fact understand the Constitution is indeed a living document, but some of its basic tenants shouldn't be trifled with. And the Second Amendment's guarantee of individual gun ownership is one of those.

---

MORE BLOOD ON HANDS OF 'GUN FREE ZONES'

EXTREMISTS AT OMAHA MALL

Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness at Omaha's Westroads Mall recently, and the citizens everywhere should feel outrage at this crime because it happened once AGAIN in a "gun free zone" where the law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. To add insult to injury the gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation. Why don't they understand the prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rage.

Alan Gottlieb, co-author of the recently released book called "America Fights Back: Armed Self-defense In A Violent Age", said the common link between virtually every mass shooting in recent history in this country is that they all happened in so-called "gun-free zones" such as shopping malls and college campuses. He and co-author Dave Workman detail the colossal failure of this "Gun Free Folly" in their new book.

What happened at the Westroads Mall can happen anywhere and usually what follows is political hysteria that results in more laws aimed at victim disarmament. Blaming firearms for this crime is like blaming cars for drunk driving. To borrow a well used but accurate NRA expression: "That Dog Won't Hunt". Published reports all suggest that Hawkins was troubled and had emotional problems, and he reportedly had a felony drug conviction on his record which prohibited him from owning firearms. This only proves that restrictive gun laws do not prevent determined perpetrators from getting their hands on guns, but they do prevent law-abiding citizens from having the tools necessary to defend themselves. Remember that a similar shooting at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square earlier this year was interrupted by an armed, off-duty police officer from another city. That man was an armed private citizen. In Tacoma, Washington two years ago, an armed citizen confronted a gunman at the Tacoma Mall and although he was seriously wounded, his intervention brought the shooting to a halt. Gun owners, the gun industry, nor our constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms are at fault for any of these shootings and the gun control lobby knows it. Restrictive laws that disarm honest citizens and provide risk-free environments for criminals and lunatics are at fault, and so are the people responsible for passing such laws and enforcing such prohibitions.

Back to top