Now we have Governor Cuomo in New York admitting that if the public had been allowed to review the measure that became the SAFE act, it would have never passed!
“I think we did a great thing,” Cuomo told the Times Union Editorial
Board on Monday. “Nothing like that will ever happen without a message
of necessity.”
and
Unless you call the vote when you actually have the vote, it’s
shifting sands … It will never happen if you put it on the desk for
three days. Well, from a process standpoint, wouldn’t it be better if
you could do it and put it on the desk for three days? Yes! Yes, I
believe that, and that’s why I’ve done fewer than anyone. But if say
we’re going to be slave to a process requirement and not get really big
things done, then I disagree with you.
He flat out admits the reason the "message of necessity" was used was to take advantage of immediate, emotion-driven momentum to get things done and to prevent public review that might kill that momentum in the light of day and with the time to think.
This is unbelievable. And refreshing. It is rare to see someone don the mantle of dictator or tyrant so openly. Usually they couch such ambitions in terms of promises to make people safe, promises of free stuff, open and free elections that are anything but, that type of thing.
I do believe this is the form American tyranny takes. Can't be so overt as to directly threaten rights in the open. Just hijack the legislative process and write your own rules for it since you own it. Once you've done that, everything becomes a "message of necessity" and make sure the People can't mobilize against you.
I am quite sure right now Governor O'Malley in Maryland is taking notes on what such wonderful ideas these are! Why have people come to pesky hearings and make their displeasure known when you can simply ignore them and do what you want.
Nice tyranny you have there, Governor! I sure hope something happens to it. Like the Courts and elections to right this egregious wrong.
Sadly, we're seeing a preview of our future. Here's hoping it can be stopped. I like freedom and rights. I don't want to change that to "I liked the freedom and rights I used to have.".
We're coming over the hump in this ongoing series to transcribe the "lack of sacred honor" among those who supported the NY SAFE act and its champions in resisting it. Here is part eight in this ongoing series with another video of Steven F. McLaughlin discussing the ammunition registration requirements.
Video #8: Steven F. McLaughlin - Ammo Registration
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ammo registration. Already hearing from local gun shop owners. One of 'em, one of whom I've already heard from is the biggest gun shop owner in this area. He's already said, he was on the radio today, I've already gotten word: he's not gonna comply. He will not do these private sale, uh, background checks. That's him. I don't know what's going to happen across the state. I suspect, that these men and women, that adhere to and honor the 2nd Amendment of these United States, will also choose not to comply.
Dick's Sporting Goods may decide not to do it and they're a huge gun seller. There may be a lot of retailers that say "We're not doing it. We're not going to maintain the records. We're not going to go through the background checks 'cause we disagree with them", for whatever reason, and I'm not even arguing that is right or wrong. I'm just saying a lot of them are going to have objection to that and for 10 lousy dollars, they're just simply not going to do it. What do we do then? How do private sales take place if, en-masse, nothing happens. If, if all over the state people refuse to comply with this. What's our, what's our plan then? Joe Lentol: Well, first of all, uh, licensed dealers may not want to participate in a gun show and that's their right. But this bill incentivizes them to do so by allowing them to charge a fee. Steven F. McLaughlin: 10 dollars. Joe Lentol: And there are some licensed dealers that will want to get that fee, and they can probably get a lot of fees at a gun show. So, so they'll be willing to participate. As far as the, uh, ammunition is concerned when you talked about the licensed dealers, again, I have to repeat myself: I believe that those folks are lawful citizens and they will comply with the law. Steven F. McLaughlin: I'm not saying they will not, I'm not saying they won't comply. I'm just saying they may choose not to participate. But I think you misunderstood my question. In a private sale, as is not between family members, when I want to sell my gun to another assembly member. Uh, that would require a NICS check. Correct? Joe Lentol: Right. Just like a gun show sale. It would be the same requirement. Steven F. McLaughlin: Yes. Correct. But, we're not at a gun show. I want to sell it. I then need a NICS check and I cannot find a dealer, anywhere, to do it. None of the gun shops will do it, the major retailers have decided not to do it. It's not a gun show thing, it's just you're gonna bring a stop, virtually, to a lot of private sales that way, I think if they choose not to comply. Not that they're flaunting the law, they're choosing to not to participate. And we can't force them, can we? Joe Lentol: No. We can't. No... Steven F. McLaughlin: Is there any provision in there... Joe Lentol: We can't force it... We can probably rest assured there will be, uh, voluntary compliance because there is a fee involved and I suspect there are a lot of gun dealers who are gonna want that fee. Steven F. McLaughlin: Ya, I don't think they're clamoring for 10 bucks, Joe. With all the record keeping requirements that they're under right now. They're selling guns and ammo like it's going out of style. This 10 dollars doesn't matter to these guys. Joe Lentol: I know if I was a dealer and it brings a customer into the shop that I'd wanna do that. Steven F. McLaughlin: We'll see. I mean we will see what happens. I may be wrong but it's not what I'm hearing so far. Um...
End Transcript
Here we see an example of economic incentive in the mind of a liberal. The belief of, you dangle a carrot of a small fee through statutory force against the populace to pay it, that these businessmen and women will throw their doors wide open and stick their money-grubbing paws out for a ten-spot with glee with all the hapless sheep the State has herded their way.
Right....
I agree with Mr. McLaughlin. If the cost of the fee is greater than the record keeping costs, and if anyone who's been to a gun store will likely agree this is the case, it doesn't matter how many transfers they do, it will be a loss for them every time.
And a loss for the citizens of New York unable to even dispose of their property due to fee caps set in place by the State in total ignorance of economics.
And I believe that is exactly the purpose. To force these guys to disappears into more fee competitive states or to lock them in closets and safes, gather dust and become paperweights for their owners. To them, a gun locked away and unsold is a gun not "on the street".
I suspect Mr. Lentol has probably never run a small business on thin margins under huge regulatory burdens like a gun shop or a marina. Then maybe he might not be so eager to put words in their owners mouths.
This is the seventh entry in this series on the NY SAFE act and the "debate" that leading up to it. This entry is the one that made the rounds on the Internet described the final intention behind the passage of such laws.
Video #7:Steve F. McLaughlin - Intent to Confiscate
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: And Joe, I have in my hands here, uh, something that we received from the Senate, which is rejected Democrat proposals, uh, in this gun bill. And I don't if you've seen this or if you know these are there or not. Joe Lentol: No. But we don't have our own list of rejected proposals that the Senate rejected. I don't have anything to show you. Steven F. McLaughlin: Ok. Alright. Then I won't address it then if you haven't seen it. I'll leave that one alone. Uh, ok. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. And, uh, Mr. Speaker on the bill. Joe Lentol: And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to, uh, dampen the enthusiasm to compromise. Steven F. McLaughlin: Well it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons. It absolutely has the ability to dampen a compromise. Mr. Speaker on the bill.
End Transcript
Here we see a rare glimpse of honesty in the true intent behind gun control from gun rights opponents. "Dampen the enthusiasm to compromise" will go down as one the great understatements in the history of New York gun control. Do people like Mr. Lentol honestly believe anyone is going to not fight such proposal tooth and nail after statements like that?
Here we see, again as we have so many times, the anti-rights meaning of compromise: "we won't take as much as we want...this time". If confiscation is your starting position is there truly any compromise from your opponent? Is it any wonder that as these proposals continue to be floated that the intensity of resistance to them only grows and for good reason?
Compromise is defined as both sides walking away from an outcome angry. Anti-gun people don't seem to understand that.
This is my sixth entry in my ongoing attempt to document the shenanigans that occurred in New York in the "emergency" passage of their guns laws meant from prevent another Newtown.
This was all passed with the most thoughtful and reasoned of "debate". Well, reasoned from the side of people like the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin below.
Video #6: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin on Collecting Gun Owner Data
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, let me ask you a question about Federal law. In the ObamaCare legislation, there is a provision in there, it is Senate amendment 3276 section 2716 part C. Some people say it was put in there as a, uh, to quiet down the NRA but nevertheless, it is in there. And it says that the government cannot collect quote "Any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition". So by enacting this law, are we not then violating what is now Federal law? Joe Lentol: I don't know. I think that relates to health care. I don't think it has anything to do with this. Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely relates to gun control legislation because it says you cannot collect any information. Nothing to do with health care. Nothing. So... Joe Lentol: You say that it outlaws our total licensing scheme if you wanted to, uh, (unintelligible) Steven F. McLaughlin: No I can't say that because the law, this amendment is very specific in what it says. It says that the government cannot collect any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. It's very clear. So I'm just... Joe Lentol: It is clear. It is clear that the Federal government doesn't choose to do that but it doesn't say anything about the states. Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I'm just saying. So it's o.., you're saying to me, I didn't go to law school, but you're saying to me it's ok that New York state wilfully violate Federal law. Wilfully violate ObamaCare. Cause that's what's were doing. Joe Lentol: I'm in favor of state's rights. Steven F. McLaughlin: Doesn't answer the question, Joe. But, you're so, there's no legal, there's no legal answer to that just that you're in favor of state's rights? So, that's, that's ok with you, that we're ignoring that aspect of ObamaCare? Joe Lentol: We're not ignoring it. It's just they haven't, uh, they haven't prevented us from taking that kind of action Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I suspect they will when that situation does arise. Joe Lentol: There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the state to take different action that the Federal government. They've not, they've not prevented us from doing that by taking that power away from us. Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely correct. We are allowed to take different action. I don't believe we're allowed to violate Federal law. But we'll see. Uh...
End Transcript
While I admire Mr. McLaughlin's attempt here to inform the NY assembly that their continued attempts at registration of guns and gun owners may violate Federal law, I believe his is incorrect. Based on my understanding, Mr. Lentol is correct that the law in ObamaCare relates to prohibiting medical professions from asking about or compiling records on gun ownership. And from all indications, it was put in there at the behest of the NRA due to publicized attempts by doctors to ask children about their parent's gun ownership or refuse patients if they refused to answer.
That being said, I find Mr. Lentol's respect for state's rights to be a weak argument. "State's rights" is often invoked to allow a state a path to interpret and violate the Constitution as they see fit when the Federal view is one they disagree with. Fascinatingly, most states that have strong abortion rights also tend towards strong gun control. It's almost like they want to kill on both ends of the life spectrum.
It's unfortunate that there's been no attempts to hold state's feet to the fire on 18 USC 926(a):
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of
the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required
to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of
such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned,
managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any
political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be
established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the
Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Emphasis mine.
I would argue that any and all licensing or registration schemes are illegal as Federal law is binding on the States. Too bad no one has saw fit to press that argument forward.
After all, we don't require you to get a license before an abortion, go through a background check before you publish online or pay a fee to vote. All were found to be violations of the Constitution. I hope in time such schemes in New York and other states will fall for the same reasons.
Tomorrow I will get to the final set of videos for Mr. McLaughlin. That puts this halfway complete.
This is the fifth entry in my ongoing series of posts to transcribe and document part of the process that lead to the debacle in New York on the passage of the NY SAFE act. An act that basically was the next step in dismantling the 2nd Amendment in New York state and tightening the noose of serfdom around the necks of innocents.
Video #5: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, couple of questions for you and sorry if they seem a little nitpicky or, uh, detailed but, uh, we didn't get this bill til very late last night and that's what happens when things get rushed through around here so we're not, we're kinda still digesting some of this. So, uh, a couple of questions for you. Um, on the magazines being dropped, uh, the magazine limit being dropped from 10 to 7. Joe Lentol: Yes.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Simple question is "Why?". Why are we limiting law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves in a home invasion by 30 percent? Joe Lentol: I think the short answer to that bill is that, uh, if you have a magazine with only 7 bullets, it will limit the amount of people you can unlawfully kill. Steven F. McLaughlin: Well that's true. It also would limit the ability to defend yourself, would it not, from people that are invading your home? Joe Lentol: Change the clip. (laughter) Steven F. McLaughlin: Change the clip. (laughter) I'm sure the people who are under invasion will be thrilled to hear that. Change the clip. We heard a senator say that the other day on the radio. Change the, change the magazine or change the clip and call the police. That'll work great in rural Albany county or up in the Adirondacks where your nearest police may be 60 miles away. So I don't think they'll be too thrilled to hear that response.
But, uh, does, you know I heard you say earlier, "A part of thing we like is that there's increased penalties for criminals to illegally use weapons". The truth is we already have penalties for illegal use of weapons, do we not? Joe Lentol: Yes. Steven F. McLaughlin: And criminals being what they are don't seem to care too much about any penalty, that's why they are, by definition, criminals. So I'm just wondering why we think that this is, after 600 failed gun laws apparently in this state, why this is the magic elixir that is suddenly going to get criminals to pay attention to a law?
Isn't it kind of a fallacy to think that, and aren't we just infringing upon law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms? And I'm not sure of what part of will not be or cannot or shall not be infringed is, subject to debate, or difficult to understand? But are we not just infringing on the law-abiding citizen? Joe Lentol: No we're not, I think. I think you're mistaken in that this bill has a two-pronged approach. It raises the penalties for criminals, you're right about that. And it also tries, as best we can, as a state, because you know, this province should belong to the Federal government but like other places in our law, they haven't acted. So we believe it's up to us to lead the way.
You know, the border of Connecticut is only a few miles away from the state of New York. And I don't want, I for one don't want to wait for a tragedy like Newtown before we take some action to prevent it. Steven F. McLaughlin: Right. And I don't really want to wait for a potential tragedy of a home being invaded and losing a family because they o..obeyed this law, and only had 7 bullets in a magazine, when there were 2 or 3 animals coming in to do them harm. So it cuts both ways. Make no mistake about that. It cuts both ways. And it mainly impacts the law-abiding citizen.
End Transcript
I have to wonder what makes Mr. Lentol think that a criminal, being what a criminal is, will, as Mr. McLaughlin pointed out, suddenly obey a law on a magazine restriction? This is the disconnect I have in trying to discuss issues with friends. They seem to operate under the delusion that a law is a preventive measure by way of the penalties it imposes. That the evil person, the criminal, faced with the prospect of a large fine, and perhaps months, years or life in prison, will decide "You know, they've bumped this up from a misdemeanor to a class C felony. If I shoot this person and kill them, that new law is really going to do me in! Time to take up knitting.".
And, always, in the Name of the Children. Couched in that generic phrase "take action to prevent it". What action, Mr. Lentol? What insight do you possess that makes you think this will do anything but criminalize and punish the innocent? Not children but their parents. The people who work, pay taxes in the state and are the ones, whether you believe it or not, who elect you to represent, not oppress, them! Not strip away their rights and limit their choices because you and the Governor know what's best for them.
Mr. McLaughlin is right. What will you do if some law-abiding citizen, being the law-abiding person that they are, obeys this law and has their family hurt or killed as a result?
I'm sure a New York husband will be thrilled, after emptying his gun into one invader attempting to defend his wife and daughter and then being caught by the other while "changing the clip" as Mr. Lentol puts it, to watch them rape her and then his daughter before his eyes, as animals are wont to do for sport, before slitting their throats and leaving his for last. And then take his gun on their way out the door leaving a job well done for the arriving police called on 911 to admire.
And in your universe and that of Mr. Abinanti's, another legal, lawful gun owner will be responsible for letting a gun, perhaps a deadly "assault weapon" onto the streets.
But no one will demand this law be repealed to prevent such a tragedy except for men like Mr. McLaughlin. Because such a scenario is the intention of the law. And to blame the law-abiding for the scourge of violence committed these animals.
Just "change the clip", Mr. Lentol. We'll remember that with the scorn you heap upon us. I hope your constituents do too. I hope they appreciate that if they only walk away with just scars and a bloody reminder that were unable to lawfully kill as many as necessary. After all, how long before you make the killing of a criminal unlawful simply on the basis he or she wasn't offering sufficient harm and you used more than one bullet as Mr. Abinanti believes is enough? That, of course, is the next step. When we can read minds, we'll know how to deal with the criminals before they commit crimes and actually prevent them.
For now, I guess we'll just have to "change the clip" and hope for the best.
I'm not laughing, Mr. Lentol. I'm sure Mr. McLaughlin isn't either.
This is the fourth in a series of posts documenting the passage of the NY SAFE act, crafted on an "emergency" basis and filled with long, thoughtful, rigorous "debate" before its late night, hour's warning passage.
Now I turn towards one of the good guys, in my opinion, to the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin. He is quite articulate in laying out what is wrong with this law and is opposed to its passage. There are five videos total. Like with the previous transcripts from the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, I will do the excerpted videos first followed by the complete video and transcript of his closing statement.
This is also a video where you get to hear some more statements from Joe Lentol, the chairman and sponsor of this law.
Video #4: Steven F. McLaughlin - The Reason for the NY Gun Law
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, so far, there's earlier in the debate, 57 sections of law that were amended, right? Plus various chapter, uh, amendments. So we've got some issues with this bill already which I think speaks to why we don't rush things or why we should not rush things. Would you agree with that or not agree? I mean if, do you think this law as it is written right now is complete? Joe Lentol: I agree that in a perfect world we should have extended hearings, and we should try to have as perfect a piece of legislation as can be had on the books. I also believe that when we have a pile-up of events like what happened in Wisconsin and Aurora and then it strikes close to home in Newtown, Connecticut, that, uh, this cries out for action. And if the Federal government is not going to do, as I said before, then the state of New York has to one again, like it has in the past, lead the way. Steven F. McLaughlin: So but there is no indication that the Federal is not going to take action, they are in fact, on the verge of taking action shortly. Was this not just a rush to get something done so that we could have bragging rights across the state because clearly there's a lot of problems with this bill that could have been taken care of before printing this a couple of hundred times, rolling it out to the population of New York under cover of darkness without the details being hashed out. This is like half-cooking the meal and then everybody gets food poisoning from it because it's not done correctly. There's a lot that could have been done. Joe Lentol: The Governor is trying to save lives and I have to commend him for that. Steven F. McLaughlin: Well let's talk about that. Let's talk about saving lives. As my colleague pointed out, 769 homicides, which have been dropping year after year after year. Now I know next year when they drop again, people will talk about how this ban did it. It won't have anything to do with it, hardly, because only 5 were caused by long guns. Long guns. Not assault rifles, may have been 5 at maximum, might have been 2, might have been 1, might have been none. We don't know. But it was 5. So if this is about saving lives, why aren't you going after handguns, which are by and large overwhelmingly the problem and overwhelmingly the weapon of choice among gang members? Why not? Doesn't that sort of lack a little bit of integrity to going after point f..., (Lentol interrupts) hold on... Joe Lentol: We are going after handguns. I, you know, we are going after handguns. We've done that before and we're doing it again in this bill. Steven F. McLaughlin: What handguns? Joe Lentol: We've made it a C violent felony to have a handgun in the state of New York. Steven F. McLaughlin: Illegally. Joe Lentol: Illegally.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Yeah.
Joe Lentol: Isn't that what you're talking about? Steven F. McLaughlin: So you think that the criminals are going to pay attention to that now it's a class C felony? Joe Lentol: So what do you wanna do? You wanna make it...
Steven F. McLaughlin: I, I'm simply saying that you're making the point that you wanna save lives and if you were truly interested in doing that, you'd be having an argument about banning all weapons, number one, which I don't agree with, but you'd be having that argument... Joe Lentol: (laughter) Steven F. McLaughlin: That would, yeah, that would, that would be an actually valid argument to have that we should ban all weapons, be a complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, but apparently that's trivial any more.
But what I'm saying here is, it, it lacks a little bit, or it smacks a little bit of grandstanding to say that we're gonna to go after these assault weapons, which cause statistically across the nation and it's the same holds true in New York, assault weapons are used in one-fifth, point two percent of all violent crimes and in about 1 percent of all gun crimes. 1 to 7 percent of all homicides in the US are caused by assault weapons. So don't kid yourself that we're going after the real issue here because we're not. (shrugs). Joe Lentol: There's nobody grandstanding here especially not the Governor. Um, you know, I agree with you. I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I'm gonna surprise you. I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I believe that, uh, in the Constitution. I also believe in the preamble that I won't read. But more importantly, we have to remember the Constitution was amended back when they used muskets. Ok? With one shot being able to be fired by a musket and then you had to reload. Steven F. McLaughlin: Yup.
Joe Lentol: Remember that? Steven F. McLaughlin: I absolutely do. Do you know why? Joe Lentol: Remember that because...
Steven F. McLaughlin: Because that was the state-of-the-art weapon of the day, Joe. Joe Lentol: That's right. Our Constitution has to expand. Steven F. McLaughlin: Gotcha. Joe Lentol: As the times call for it. Steven F. McLaughlin: So the Constitution was also rented, written and distributed on a printing press so are we saying we should limit the freedom of speech, because you know, the Internet and text messaging and everything else, that's just not what they intended. Joe Lentol: Supreme Court of the United States renders decisions every day that interprets the Constitution and expands its applicability to, to today's times. Steven F. McLaughlin: Oh, you're right and they've ruled three times now, that the right of the people to defend themselves cannot be infringed. Which I believe is exactly what we're doing. I believe this is just arbitrary... Joe Lentol: There's (inaudible) in the 2nd Amendment Steven F. McLaughlin: Why did we not come up with a 5 round limit or a 2 or a 1. Why 7? What's the magic number there at 7? Joe Lentol: The Governor proposed 7, we thought it was reasonable and so did the Senate. Steven F. McLaughlin: I'll be back.
End Transcript
The contrast between Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Abinanti to be quite striking. I prefer Mr. McLaughlin's speaking style. I also find Mr. Lentol's body language and demeanor to be condescending, like having to deal with this issues is a foregone conclusion and pesky questions such as raised by Mr. McLaughlin need to just go away.
Mr. McLaughlin gets in some good points and I find Mr. Lentol's tone with him to be offensive. As the Governor's spokesman apparently, Mr. Lentol sees no limit on restricting the 2nd Amendment since apparently that particular amendment needs to have a limited interpretation to deal with modern times but the 1st Amendment is perfectly fine to expand beyond the printing press.
This is the problem I find with a liberal reading of our rights. Depending on what you believe in, you favor expansion on one side and contraction on the other. This isn't political thermodynamics here. These are our rights. How can I have an expansive reading the 1st Amendment in keeping with technical advances, keep the 2nd Amendment mired in the 18th century because clearly it was too dangerous to allow modern applicability and find for a right to abortion, which while I gratefully agree with it, exists in the shadows and penumbras of the Constitutional text and requires special insight to divine. And yet we protect that unwritten right more than for someone like me to protect myself from harm. All because men like Joe Lentol feel 7 rounds is perfectly adequate.
Oh well, at least he's not Thomas J. Abinanti, who feels one shot is perfectly fine.
This is the third in my series of posts transcribing the results of the "debate", which I will continue to place in quotes as you'll see in upcoming entries in this series that no debate actually occurred, of the passage of the NY SAFE act.
This video and transcript that follows is the complete closing statement of the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, representing Westchester County, NY. As you will see and read, he has a definite opinion on gun rights and gun owners. Portions of this video you have already seen in the previous entries.I am sorry for the length at 13 minutes. The transcript is equally long but either provide a glimpse into the mindset of those who dislike gun ownership.
Video #3: Thomas J. Abinanti - Closing Statement
Begin Transcript
Speaker: Mr. Abinanti. Thomas J. Abinanti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, first of all will the sponsor yield for a certain question?
Speaker: Will you yield?
Joe Lentol (bill sponsor, not visible): Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. Thomas J. Abinanti: Uh, Mr. Chaiman, I like to refer to you to the section that deals with, um, safe storage. I just want to confirm that my understanding is (correct), that there is no language here that preempts a locality from having a stronger piece of legislation by local law, um, which would require gun owners to safely store their guns. Joe Lentol: Right. There is no presumption by implication on this issue.
Thomas J. Abinanti: There's no preemption by implication and there's no specific language preempting it. Um, no expressed preemption and no preemption by implication. Joe Lentol: That's correct. Thomas J. Abinanti: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.Speaker, um, in another time and another place, a modern poet named Bob Dylan, if I can call him a poet, said "How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?". Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it's taken far too many deaths to get us to this point. Gun violence is plaguing all of our communities. In many different ways. Whether it's guns on the street or whether it's people with mental problems killing lots people at once. I'm somewhat concerned that I'm hearing from some members here, "Well, it hasn't happened in New York, therefore there's no basis for the law that we're considering today". It happened in Connecticut. It's happened throughout the country. I have lists and lists of kids who've have been killed around this country. And it wasn't just in Connecticut. Going back to 80s, the70s, this is not a new phenomena. It's time we stepped to protect the people in our state. Every one of these incidents affects all of us and every one these incidents sets the stage for the next one.
We need an effective, common sense plan. I would suggest that we need to keep guns away from those who would misuse them. Remove the opportunity. Don't have them there. Ban the military-style weapons. Register all guns. Regulate their transfer. Mandate that the all guns in this state must be securely stored. Carefully license every gun owner. Train them in gun safety and check them periodically to make sure they still qualify. That doesn't repeal the 2nd Amendment. It just makes it work for everyone. Secondly, we use, we need to use more mental health professionals in our communities. To minimize the likelihood of violence. When we deal with budget time, I challenge my colleagues to join me in putting more money in the budget for mental health facilities rather than cutting the government services that are out there today. And lastly, I think we need to change our culture and the political dynamic. Let's stop glorifying violence, guns and those who use them. All I hear, today, is we need to have these weapons to defend ourselves. Well, we're not going to be invaded by an army. The reasonable gun owners that I talk to tell me that they want one gun with one bullet. They're gonna lock themselves in their bedroom and if that guy comes in, that's when they pull the trigger. In the meantime, they are calling the police.
I've been told that by woman after woman after woman. Who is concerned about the violence that we have today. And are reasonable gun owners who have licenses. And who say they not, they don't want further more violence, they just want to protect themselves. They know enough to retreat, and then if necessary if the police don't get there in time, they then have their protection. And they're doing that without endangering the rest of the society. Mr. Speaker, guns are not toys and we gotta to stop treating them like toys. Guns are made to kill people and assault weapons to kill a lot of people. So why are we shocked when they're used for their intended purposes? We allow civilians to arm themselves for war. Why are we shocked when they act like they're in the middle of a war? The answer is not more violence. The answer is to make sure that we have reasonable gun laws. The answer is not to arm everyone so the gun manufacturers can make more money and more people die. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to kill innocent firefighters, teachers and children. And that's the message we have to send. We are under siege by those who misuse guns. No one is safe in this country until we get reasonable gun laws. Lax gun laws are literally killing us. We need to stop the violence now. It's been said that a camel is a horse drawn by committee. Well Mr. Chairman, this legislation was drawn by a big committee. By a lot of people with a lot of disparate interests. We did not get a race horse. We got a camel. And this camel is carrying us in the right direction. And it'll bring us to a safer place. But it's taking us very slowly. Some of my colleagues have pointed out some of the defects in this legislation and therefore they say "Do nothing.". No, I suggest we put in some future legislation. If, if there is a problem, if we are not restricting enough guns because some are still out there, if we're not taking guns away, we're not taking all assault weapons away, well then I challenge my colleagues, join me. I'll put in legislation that says "None of these guns at all. Period.". If that's a problem with this legislation, because those of us that wanted stronger anti-gun violence measures, compromised with those who don't want anything at all and you're saying that's bad? Well then fine, let's fix it. I'll be glad to carry that legislation. But the drafters of this legislation tried to accommodate all interests. And tried to, to quell the concerns of the 2nd Amendment advocates. So you ended up with legislation which is not as strong as it could be. But it's a step forward. We're going in the right direction and we're sending a message. You know, I hear over and over again about lawful
gun owners. Who have legally owned guns. It strikes me, that all guns
somewhere along the way, started off as legal and in the hands of a
lawful gun owner. But somehow it ended up the hands of someone who
misses uses it. So enough with the legal gun owners. I am tired of
hearing about legal, lawful gun owners. Some legal, lawful gun owner allowed her kid to get his hands on her, uh, assault rifle in Connecticut. And everywhere else, these little kids who are shooting other students, who going in the classrooms with guns, didn't buy these guns themselves. They got them from lawful gun owners. Supposedly responsible gun owners. And every one of these crimes that we're talking about are done with guns that started off legally. The problem is, we as a government, have not kept them in the hands of lawful people. We've allowed them get out their, other hands. We in Westchester County have a law that says every gun owner has to have every gun safely stored. So that it cannot be stolen, that it cannot get into the hands of someone with mental problem, it cannot get into the hands of kids. Why are we not considering that for the entire state? Why do we have this narrow, narrow exception in here? Why? Because the people who, are supposedly 2nd Amendment believers have blocked us from putting that legislation forward. That's why. You know there are some other problems with
this, Mr. Speaker as well. Um, some people interpret the 2nd Amendment,
which is, uh, which they claim protects their right to, uh, to uh, to
be armed. They also believes it gives them the right to secrecy. Uh, a
newspaper in Westchester County actually revealed, put on-line, the
list of all, the legal gun owners in Westchester County. And they got
excoriated for it! Because somehow, the mantra of the NRA, that your
home is safer if you have a gun and it will deter somebody to come rob
your house if they know you have a gun, now all of a sudden that doesn't
matter any more! Now all of a sudden you have a right to secrecy. What's going on? What's really going on is people believe, somehow,
that the 2nd Amendment is going to protect them from some excess of
government out there. That this government is going to come in and lock them up. And they need to be armed. Well Mr. Speaker, I prefer to use the power, not
of the 2nd Amendment, but of the 1st Amendment. I believe freedom of
the press and freedom of speech is the true champion and the true
protector of democracy. And to say to the newspapers that they can't
publish information that the public wants to know, I think is the true
violation of our Constitution. This bill contains restrictions which I think are
intolerable. But I am going to vote for them because this is a
compromise. I believe the newspapers should be able to list all of the
people who have guns.
I would recognize some exceptions for undercover police officers and people like that who have put themselves on the line for our community and who really need to, to be, continue to be undercover. But I believe this is an infringement of the 1st Amendment. I prefer to rely on the 1st Amendment. And the newspaper I believe did us a favor. Look, what is, how do we know about excessive government? How do we know that the persons issuing permits is not issuing them (phone rings) to someone who has a mental problem? Who is someone who should not have a gun. The only way we, we can control government is to know what it is doing. And now we're going to have this process which, which makes gun permits secret. First and secondly, allowing public information enlists the public in the enforcement of the statutes. I'll will tell you right now, I looked at that database that the Journal News published in Westchester County. And I identified inaccuracies in the database. People who have moved still have guns registered at their old address. That is, the public now, can say to, to the officer who is licensing, you better send out a police officer and check that out. You know, we passed a law in Westchester Country that requires recertification. We did back in 1995, 97. And the purpose of it was, so that the end of five years or any time in between, a police officer could go out and make sure the gun is there. And I'm not going to suggest to you that this recertification process is perfect. Cause it's not. But we had a situation in Westchester County, where if it had been done properly by the police department, it would have saved some lives. We had a, a gentleman who is a lawful gun owner. Had his license, right up to the date he left the state of New York. And left the gun behind in the closet. Where it was found by the next person who sold it. It ended up being the weapon that killed somebody. The police, when they found out that this gentleman did not renew his license at the end of five years, went looking for him. And instead of tracing him to Florida and asking "Do you still have your gun?", they said "Case closed.". Well, this law is going to, we're passing now is going to rely on the police department and individual citizens, to make sure, that those who lawfully have guns, follow and do, and perform not just their rights but their responsibilities as well. Guns are dangerous and innocent people suffer when they're misused. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation, um, hopefully this will bring us forward to a little bit of a better place. I think there's still a lot more that needs to be done. Those of us who want to stop gun violence are going to continue the efforts to move forward. But I urge an affirmative vote because I think this a very good piece of legislation, and deserves the support of this legislature. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Abinanti.
End Transcript
I would like to apologize to anyone who cares about gun ownership who read this and/or watched that. Some of the contempt that I sense from Mr. Abinanti here is palpable. Remember, he is an elected representative.
I am very thankful to carver6666 on YouTube for uploading these videos! They provide a rare window into legislative process and debates I think more people should witness and listen to. If you're not upset by some of the things you hear in these conversations, regardless of what side you are on, you're not paying enough attention. There is enough in these videos to anger anyone who values and cares about their individual freedom.
I promise the acid taste you may feel in the back of your throat will be dealt with. The next series of videos will be from the Honorable Steven J. McLaughlin. This is a man after my own heart and whom should be held as role model for gun rights representation in any legislature in the country.
This is second in a series of posts documenting the "debate" that occurred over the passage of the BY SAFE act. This video is from the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, one of the SAFE act supporters. In it, he describes his views on gun owner privacy and completely misses the point, in my opinion.
Video #2: Thomas J. Abinanti, Westchester County, NY
Begin Transcript:
You know there are some other problems with this, Mr. Speaker as well. Um, some people interpret the 2nd Amendment, which is, uh, which they claim protects their right to, uh, to uh, to be armed. They also believes it gives them the right to secrecy. Uh, a newspaper in Westchester County actually revealed, put on-line, the list of all, the legal gun owners in Westchester County. And they got excoriated for it! Because somehow, the mantra of the NRA, that your home is safer if you have a gun and it will deter somebody to come rob your house if they know you have a gun, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter any more! Now all of a sudden you have a right to secrecy. What's going on? What's really going on is people believe, somehow, that the 2nd Amendment is going to protect them from some excess of government out there. That this government is going to come in and lock them up. And they need to be armed. Well Mr. Speaker, I prefer to use the power, not of the 2nd Amendment, but of the 1st Amendment. I believe freedom of the press and freedom of speech is the true champion and the true protector of democracy. And to say to the newspapers that they can't publish information that the public wants to know, I think is the true violation of our Constitution. This bill contains restrictions which I think are intolerable. But I am going to vote for it because this is a compromise. I believe the newspapers should be able to list all of the people who have guns.
End Transcript.
Mr. Abinanti feels it is "intolerable" (his word) to not allow the press complete freedom to paint scarlet letters, metaphorically speaking, on gun owners and out them like some type of shameful deviants. I wonder if his desired provisions would include exceptions for law enforcement, judges and important people or would be lump them in with women who have orders of protection from stalkers and abusers, people under threat of death for testifying or victimized women trying to hide from their rapists?
It is apparent in my listening to his voice that he considers gun owners equal to any criminal who needs to be registered and tracked and for their neighbors to know what type of person lives next door.
Was this the representation you voted for, Westchester County?
I have stumbled across a series of videos from the New York State assembly from the debates on the "emergency" passage of their new gun control law. A law that others hope will be emulated to disarm myself and others as too dangerous to remain so in society.
In these videos we get a rare glimpse of both how those opposed to gun rights and ownership view those who value and those who defend the rights of those to own guns for lawful purposes.
Having watched these videos and both been inspired and felt like retching at the contempt some of these people exude, I have decided to transcribe all of these videos. It is one positive thing I can do to let others see and read the words of those who both hate gun owners and those who try to look after them.
I will try to do one or two a day for the next several days.
Let us start with the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti of Westchester County, NY.
Video #1: I am Tired of Legal Lawful Gun Owners
Begin Transcript:
You know, I hear over and over again about lawful gun owners. Who have legally owned guns. It strikes me, that all guns somewhere along the way, started off as legal and in the hands of a lawful gun owner. But somehow it ended up the hands of someone who misses uses it. So enough with the legal gun owners. I am tired of hearing about legal, lawful gun owners.
It seems Governor Cuomo, in his zeal to shove New York residents further down the road to government serfdom, forgot to put an exemption in the new law for police. So as it stands, police officers are being held to the same standard as the laws that were imposed on the citizenry-at-large.
That pleases me. I think it a wonderful expression of Peel's Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public
that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the
public and the public are the police; the police being only members of
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and
existence.".
In my world, if it is good enough for us, it is good enough for them.
What is telling is the gem of a quote:
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to
push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the
high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to
the criminals"
I find myself wonder which criminals he was referring to? The citizens they just criminalized? Is it me or is this also a tacit acknowledgement that gun control doesn't work against, gasp, those who don't obey the law?
I think we need more "open mike nights" in legislative chambers across the country. We'd get a clear picture about how those who are supposed to represent us really feel about us.
