In an opinion piece published by a major news outlet Monday, Moms Demand Acton founder Shannon Watts used recent events in Tennessee and South Carolina to push new gun control measures.
The 950 word piece for CNN entitled, “Did gun law loopholes enable Charleston and Chattanooga?” attributed to Watts, devotes most of its text to chronicling the Bloomberg-backed Moms group’s campaign against Cabela’s to close the so-called “Charleston Loophole” before turning to the recent terrorist attack that left five U.S. service members dead at a military installation in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
“We’re still learning the facts about what happened in Chattanooga, however, recent media reports indicate the gunman took advantage of the online gun sale loophole and purchased at least one of his firearms where he knew he could buy a gun with no background check, no questions asked,” Watts wrote.
The purchase cited by Watts stems from a July 18 Reuters story, which reported that friends of the suspected Chattanooga gunman, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, purchased an AK-74, Saiga 12-gauge shotgun and an AR-15 via the online gun classifieds site Armslist.com.
Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt followed this up with a statement to Guns.com from his New York office Tuesday, saying, “In the last month we have seen two tragedies in Charleston and Chattanooga that highlight the loopholes that make it easy for dangerous people to get guns – loopholes that the NRA put in place and has fought to preserve.”
Fineblatt elaborated by decrying how easy it is for dangerous people to take advantage of the “online sales loophole” to buy guns.
For its part, Armslist informs sellers that he or she is responsible for obeying federal and state laws before finalizing a transaction, and directs sellers to contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for any questions.
Further, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently held that Armslist was not liable for a gun sold through its platform which was later used in a murder.
However, to cite that Tennessee – or any other state – guidelines for mandated background checks for private gun transfers would have prevented Abdulazeez from obtaining his guns may be a stretch as nothing disclosed by authorities thus far would seem to have prevented the 24-year-old from passing a background check for a firearm purchased over the counter from a licensed dealer.
Watts herself closes her piece with language that dismisses hyperbole in the debate of blame, but still seemingly defends citing the recent mass killings as reason to seek change in the nation’s gun laws and policies, even if the changes sought would not have prevented the very killings used to justify them.
“After tragedies such as Charleston and Chattanooga, as the details unfold about how something so horrible happened, it’s easy to fall into the trap of hypotheticals – the what if we had done something differently,” wrote Watts. “The truth is we cannot change the past, but we can demand a safer tomorrow.”
SOURCE :: GUNS.COM
We need more of these types of Sheriff’s in NY….
Oregon – -(Ammoland.com)- The latest numbers are in from the State Police, and they once again prove what a massive fraud the background check system is and how much worse things will get when SB 941’s firearms transfer provisions kick in in early August.
While 129 transactions were denied in June (including 95 “felons”, 13 people actively “wanted”and 5 adjudicated mentally ill) the number of arrests was a bit smaller.
Of those 13 people actually “wanted” at the time of their denial exactly 1 was arrested. Of the 5 mentally ill people and 95 felons, the number of arrests was a whopping … zero.
So once again, we see the sham that the anti-gunners numbers are. Virtually no one is prevented from getting a firearm because of background checks. They are just diverted from that gun at that time and place. But soon this ridiculous system is going to be used against you for transfers that now don’t require the failed intervention of the Oregon State Police. Keep in mind, the OSP still has a policy of taking a trooper off patrol for every firearm’s transfer denial. What a tragic waste of scarce resources.
Maybe because this system is proving itself each day to be a joke (the shooter in the Charleston murders passed a background check) more and more sheriffs are making it clear they will not enforce the new registration, universal background check bill.
Last Saturday at a firearms event sponsored by the Josephine County Republicans with Rich Wyatt, the new sheriff of the county stated unequivocally that neither he nor his deputies would enforce SB 941. Sheriff Dave Daniel called SB 941 a “waste of time” and a “travesty.”
We will keep working to expose the fraud that SB 941 is. The fight is not over.
About Oregon Firearms Federation:
The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
Senators from Illinois and New York are making a bid to bring back legislation that would make selling guns to a prohibited possessor worth 20 years in federal prison.
The proposal, to be filed this week in Washington, is sponsored by U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. It is a repeat of a failed bid last session to make gun trafficking a crime.
The earlier attempt by the same two lawmakers, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, never made it out of committee but Gillibrand is more hopeful this time around.
“I am not willing to throw my hands in the air and say nothing can be done while lives are being senselessly lost due to weapons being in the hands of criminals,” Gillibrand told the New York Daily News. “We all have a moral obligation to make our voices heard and say enough is enough.”
The new bill, termed the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act of 2015, is named after two teens killed in New York with guns traced to out-of-state origins.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has agreed to change a part of the SAFE Act that pertains to the Ammunition background check database. According to Senator James L. Seward (R/C/I, Oneonta), the senate republican majority has secured a legally binding memorandum of understanding (MUC) with the governor’s office amending provisions of the NYS SAFE Act.
“This is a clear victory for Second Amendment rights in New York,” said Senator Seward. “While I will continue to work for full repeal of the poorly crafted, over-reaching NY-SAFE Act, this is a significant accomplishment – and constitutes the only modifications that have been made to this law since it was enacted two years ago over my objection.”
The MOU signed by New York State Director of Operations James Malatras and Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan suspends a portion of the NY-SAFE Act establishing a statewide database requiring purchasers of ammunition to undergo a background check.
“The plan to establish a statewide ammunition database has been fraught with problems since it was first conceived, not to mention it infringes on the rights of lawful firearm owners. I successfully helped shut off funding that was being wasted on trying to establish this database and am extremely pleased that the entire idea will now be abandoned,” Seward added.
Along with leading the effort to repeal the NY-SAFE Act, Senator Seward has also blocked other gun control measures advanced by the state assembly and senate Democrats such as microstamping, mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners, and a ban on .50 caliber firearms, which would include many hunting calibers.
Earlier this year legislation (S.5837) sponsored by Senator Seward, amending several of the most onerous sections of the NY-SAFE Act, received senate approval. This was the first time any bill amending the NY-SAFE Act was acted upon by the legislature. The state assembly failed to even bring the bill forward for a vote.
“The state senate took the lead and passed legislation that would erase some of the most burdensome provisions of the NY-SAFE Act while also keeping other gun control laws at bay. While the state assembly failed to join us, the senate Republican majority continued to work to restore Second Amendment rights to lawful firearm owners,” Seward concluded.
In her standard stump speech, Hillary Rodham Clinton talks about fighting income inequality, celebrating court rulings on gay marriage and health care, and, since the Emanuel AME Church massacre, toughening the nation’s gun laws.
That last component marks an important evolution in presidential politics. For at least the past several decades, Democrats seeking national office have often been timid on the issue of guns for fear of alienating firearms owners. In 2008, after Barack Obama took heat for his gaffe about people who “cling to guns or religion,” he rarely mentioned guns again — neither that year nor in his 2012 reelection campaign.
But in a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings — and of Clinton’s determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.
“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City.
“It is illegal to bring a gun across state lines, and yet it happens all the time, and I don’t understand why the federal government is not doing far more to prevent that.”
From the NRA Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms: (found here)
“A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.
Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.
Travelers should be aware that some state and local governments treat this federal provision as an “affirmative defense” that may only be raised after an arrest. All travelers in areas with restrictive laws would be well advised to have copies of any applicable firearm licenses or permits, as well as copies or printouts from the relevant jurisdictions’ official publications or websites documenting pertinent provisions of law (including FOPA itself) or reciprocity information. In the event of an unexpected or extended delay, travelers should make every effort not to handle any luggage containing firearms unnecessarily and to secure it in a location where they do not have ready access to it.”
It seems New York state’s Mr Pataki needs to sit down with his handlers and bone up on the basic laws surrounding lawful gun ownership before he ‘shoots from the hip’ to the rest of middle America in his quest to be the next Republican president.
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
Governor Cuomo will be in Rochester today, July 9th, for a special event for local lawmakers, dubbed “Capital for a Day.” This “day-long” event is a chance for local lawmakers to meet with the governor and other senior state officials to “advance local priorities for growth and improvements in the community.” Additionally, Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul will be in attendance.
What are the chances that they’ll invite me to these meetings to discuss firearms policies in New York?!
He said this in response to Tapper’s question about Sanders’s vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to the misuse of their products. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2005.
Tapper said to Sanders, “Your Democrat rivals are starting to hit you with the fact that you have in the past sided with the NRA on some gun issues.” He then referenced the dismissal of the lawsuit against ammo retailer Lucky Gunner—a retailer from whom Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes allegedly bought ammo and other supplies.
Tapper explained that the suit against Lucky Gunner quickly fizzled out and was dismissed because of PLCAA.
Then Tapper asked Sanders to explain why he voted for PLCAA?
Sanders responded by first explaining that the NRA has opposed him in “virtually every campaign” he’s been in. And he tossed out his gun control bona fides—”I voted to ban semi-automatic assault weapons, I voted to make sure that there’s an instant background check, I voted to make sure that guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them by doing away with the loophole exists in the gun show legislation.”
Then he explained why he opposes frivolous lawsuits against gun makers:
Now… if somebody has a gun, and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.
Sanders went on to say “99.9 percent” of gun owners “obey the law,” and no progress is going to made on gun control until “extreme positions” are abandoned.
Sanders did not address his own conundrum—if “99.9 percent” of gun owners are law-abiding, why do we need more gun control? Why not instead practice criminal control of the .1 percent of gun owners whom Sanders sees as problematic?
SOURCE :: Breitbart
New York, NY – -(Ammoland.com)- Hello Mr Trump. Many of our readers are very excited that you have thrown your hat in the ring to run for president in 2106.
They like the idea that you have nothing to do with politics and that you have real experience running large, successful business, successful being the key word. I hope you and your family are up for the challenges of running for president.
AmmoLand: Speaking of family I know you and your sons recently attended the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting, where you were asked to speak. How long have you been active with the NRA and what do you think about the influence the NRA has in politics?
“I am a Life Member of the NRA and am proud of their service in protecting our right to keep and bear arms. The NRA’s efforts to stop dangerous, gun-banning legislation and regulation is invaluable. The media focus on those efforts overshadows the great work the NRA does on behalf of safety and conservation.
I have a permit to carry and, living in New York, I know firsthand the challenges law-abiding citizens have in exercising their Second Amendment rights. My most trusted sources are my sons, Don, Jr. and Eric. They are fantastic sportsmen and are deeply involved in hunting, competitive shooting, and habitat conservation.”
AmmoLand: The deceptive term “Assault Weapons” has proven to be a buzz word among the anti-gun media. Back in 2000 in your book “The America We Deserve” you wrote “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse to even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” Since that time the AR15 rifle, what the media calls an “assault weapons“, has become America’s most popular firearm with millions and millions of them owned by good people.
Do you still stand by this quote or has your thinking evolved over the 15 years since you wrote that line?
“I certainly stand by my opposition to Gun Control when it comes to taking guns from law-abiding citizens. You mention that the media describes the AR-15 as an “assault rifle,” which is one example of the many distortions they use to sell their agenda. However, the AR-15 does not fall under this category. Gun-banners are unfortunately preoccupied with the AR-15, magazine capacity, grips, and other aesthetics, precisely because of its popularity.”
“To the Left every gun is an assault weapon.”
“Gun control does not reduce crime. It has consistently failed to stop violence. Americans are entitled to protect their families, their property and themselves. In fact, in right-to-carry states the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the United States and the murder rate is 28% lower. This should not be up for debate.”
AmmoLand: You have been a long time resident of New York City and we can only assume that you know former Mayor Michael Bloomberg pretty well. We have followed his efforts to undermine the Second Amendment through his various anti-gun front groups. What does he have against the RKBA and why don’t we see wealthy conservatives making a similar ‘all in’ push to support gun rights?
“Mayor Bloomberg and I are friends. However, on this we agree to disagree. I believe there are two reasons you do not see a similar effort from Mayor Bloomberg’s polar opposite. ”
“First, many wealthy live behind gates, armed security, and away from crime. They may have little understanding of how fellow citizens are challenged in defending themselves and their property. The second reason is that we have the NRA and other groups already in the arena.”
“The Trump family knows these organizations are the best investment if we are to defend the right to keep and bear arms.”
AmmoLand: Karl Rove recently voiced support for a repeal of the Second Amendment as a way to stop gun violence. What do you think of this suggestion or, as our readers believe, is it a God given right that can not be repealed by politicians?
“Karl Rove is a proven loser. He wasted $400 million in 2012 and did not win a single race.
“The Second Amendment is a bedrock natural right of the individual to defend self, family, and property. It is a ridiculous notion to ever repeal it.”
“For Rove to even think it shows a lack of respect for all of the freedoms in our Constitution and a complete ignorance of our shared American inheritance.”
AmmoLand: As we have reported on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, two of your sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., have been the target of harassment by anti-hunting groups after they posted pictures of their successes while hunting in Africa. What advice do you have for other hunters that maybe be being bullied online or elsewhere by this shrill minority?
“My advice is to remain vigilant. Harassment of this nature will always be with us, but we know that Americans have inherited a strong outdoor and shooting heritage that we are happy to defend.”
“The 2nd Amendment is right, not a privilege. The small minority of anti-everything activists may be vocal, but we have facts, and the Constitution, on our side.”
“I would also add that hunters contribute more to the preservation of game animals and their habitat than any of these protesters. Hunters are the original conservationists. To see this historically you have to look no further then Teddy Roosevelt and his creation of the National Parks System.”
AmmoLand: Universal Background Checks to acquire guns is something President Obama has long been pushing for, yet background checks would not or did not stop any of the recent shooters from getting guns. What is your position on Background Checks? And do you see a need for even more government approval for someone to own a gun?
“I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work.”
“They make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms while consistently failing to stop criminals from getting guns. We should re-examine our policy to make sure that these prohibitions do not impede law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
AmmoLand: A lot of Democrats in politics today are crying for firearms magazine restrictions. But as we saw just with the Charleston, S.C. church killer, he used standard capacity magazines and quickly changed them out five or more times. So how does it make any sense to have gun magazine size limits?
“Gun magazine limits do not make common sense. I have long opposed such limits. For instance, I fought the SAFE Act in New York, which I call the “Unsafe Act.” I also spoke at a rally in Albany championing gun rights and protesting the Unsafe Act. The law limited capacity to seven rounds, as if criminals were going to take rounds out of their magazines before committing a crime. It was later changed to a limit of ten rounds, but the entire episode was a complete disaster.”
“Never mindful of the results, this effort was just one more attempt to erode the Second Amendment.”
AmmoLand: Lots of AmmoLand’s active duty readers have complained that many, if not all, of our military bases are “Gun Free Zones” and that these highly trained war fighters are left defenseless and disarmed against murderers, like the Fort Hood Shooter, when they are stationed on U.S. bases. Would you have a problem allowing our military bases to set their own polices with regard to personal weapons and do away with the “Gun Free Zones” death trap?
“[gun free zones] No, not optional. As Commander-in-Chief, I would mandate that soldiers remain armed and on alert at our military bases.
President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.
They will be able to defend themselves against terrorists. Our brave soldiers should not be at risk because of policy created by civilian leadership. Political correctness has no place in this debate.”
AmmoLand: Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions today. We wish you the best of luck in your presidential run. As we leave you would you like to tell our readers what the Second Amendment means to you and your family?
“The Trump family will stay vigilant in our support of right to keep and bear arms. And given today’s threats across the United States it is as important now as ever. National Security begins in our homes. All citizens must have the ability to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. Our safety and defense is embodied in the Second Amendment and I will always protect this most important right.
“Our country is ready for a bold new direction. We can bring common sense to Washington. This is our time to Make America Great Again!”
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
The study was conducted by assistant professor of epidemiology Bindu Kalesan and included an examination of “gun ownership information gathered from study subjects aged 18 years old and above from all 50 US states, including the District of Columbia in October 2013.”
According to Tech Times, the study found that 1 in 3 Americans own guns and that the “percentage of gun owners are highly varied depending on the state.”
For example, the study found that the lowest gun ownership rate in any state was in Delaware at “5.2 percent.” The highest was in Alaska at “61.7 percent.” Divided by regions, Rhode Island had lowest gun ownership in the Northeast at “5.8 percent,” Ohio had the Midwest’s lowest rate at “19.6 percent” and California had the West’s lowest at “20 percent.”
The West’s highest was Alaska at “61.7 percent,” the Midwest’s highest was North Dakota at “47.9 percent,” and the Northeast’s highest was Vermont at “28.8 percent.” The South’s leader was Arkansas at “57.9 percent.”
The study found that most gun owners were white males age 55 and above. “The majority of these gun owners were married.”
The Columbia study presents a conundrum for gun controllers who have, for years, been claiming that rising gun sales, soaring concealed carry applications, and record breaking background check figures all indicated gun ownership was shrinking. For example, a 2014 General Social Survey study claimed that approximately 1 in 5 Americans owned a gun and that the number was diminishing.
None of the pollsters inclined toward gun control seem to take into account that Americans often refuse to admit owning a gun for fear of being included on a government, or government-agency, list.
SOURCE :: Breitbart
Most Americans look at the rerun of the Greek euro crisis with something between smug amusement and condescending disapproval. When will those profligate Greeks get their economic house in order and stop looking to others to bail them out?
But, should people living in glass economic houses really throw stones?
After all, just like Greece, the United States government has been living beyond its means, running up an enormous debt that will eventually need to be repaid.
True, our budget deficit this year will be lower than it has been, just $486 billion compared to $1.4 trillion as recently as 2009. But this is just a temporary respite. Within the next couple of years the deficit will start to rise again. By 2025, we will again face trillion-dollar shortfalls.
And even a $486 billion deficit adds to our ever growing debt. Our national debt currently approaches $18.2 trillion, roughly 101% of GDP. That’s right. We owe more than the value of all the goods and services produced in this country every year. It is as if your credit-card bills exceeded your entire pay check.
That’s not quite as bad as Greece, of course, whose debt exceeds 177% of their GDP. But it is worse than countries like France or Spain.
And give us time! Like Greece, the driving force behind our debt is the growing cost of entitlement programs for health care and retirement. If one includes future unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, our real debt exceeds $90 trillion. That’s more than five times our GDP. Greece is still in worse shape — their unfunded liabilities top 875% of GDP — but we’re gaining.
At the heart of Greece’s problems lies a government grown too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. The Greek government spent nearly half of the country’s GDP last year (49.3%), and that actually represents a decline from the 51.8% it averaged since 2006. The Greek’s may complain about austerity, but they’ve hardly practiced it.
Our government is far smaller than Greece’s today. Federal spending is just 20.5% of GDP. But, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s alternative fiscal scenario, that could rise to almost 34% by mid-century. Factoring in state and local government spending, which already accounts for roughly 14.4% of GDP, total government expenditure in the US could reach 48% to 50% in 2050, roughly Greek levels.
As government grows, the private sector contracts. Greece has one of the most inhospitable business climates in Europe, ranking 84th in the world in the most recent Economic Freedom of the World Index. Meanwhile, as the United States continues to increase taxes and regulations, we have fallen from the second highest economic freedom ranking just 15 years ago to 12th place.
Of course, the United States has some advantages that the Greeks lack. Greece owes a significant share of its debt to foreign governments, while the majority of American debt is domestically held. The United States also faces low borrowing rates, while Greece has been effectively shut out of capital markets. The US debt may be bad, but in many ways we are the fastest horse in the glue factory. As long as the euro remains in crisis, we will continue to be able to borrow money at absurdly low interest rates.
The United States also controls its own currency and monetary policy, while Greece is hostage to the European Central Bank, which must balance its interest against those of other countries in the monetary union, many of which are in far different economic positions.
The danger for the United States is that spending on entitlements will surge in the coming decades, which means that, absent reform, they take over the economy. Investors would respond to the weaker economic outlook by demanding higher returns in order to continue investing in US bonds, which would further drive up interest costs, making our problems even worse. And, of course, unlike Greece, there aren’t other countries or organizations available to bail us out.
Margaret Thatcher reputedly said that the problem with the modern welfare state is “eventually they run out of other people’s money.” “Eventually” has become “now” for Greece.
The United States, on the other hand, still has time. If we act now to reduce federal spending and reform entitlements, we can avoid the crisis to come. If not…Greece beckons.
SOURCE :: NY Post
ALBANY – The state Legislature left the Capitol early Friday without making any changes to the controversial gun-control law installed in 2013.
After some Senate Republicans ran for office last year vowing to seek a repeal of the gun-control law, they were unable to reach a deal to reform the SAFE Act, drawing the ire of gun-rights groups.
“Am I disappointed? Absolutely, and I think the gun owners of New York state are going to be disappointed also,” said Thomas King, the president of the state Rifle & Pistol Association.
Senate Republicans passed a bill to make a variety of changes to the measure, which was championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But Assembly Democrats and Cuomo showed no appetite to follow suit.
The lack of action on the SAFE Act will create further friction within the Republican Party: upstate GOP members loathe the law, but Long Island Republicans voted for it in 2013 — including new Senate Republican Leader John Flanagan, R-Suffolk County.
“Flanagan had a chance to unite the Republican Party, but he didn’t,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, Monroe County, a gun-rights advocate, said.
Nojay said Flanagan should have pressed harder in negotiations for SAFE Act changes, saying Flanagan had leverage when it came to New York City Democrats who wanted rent-control laws.
“This is a huge disappointment for the Second Amendment community, and it’s not a good omen for the Republicans in the state Senate,” Nojay said. “They always ask for our support for the past two and a half years. They have failed to deliver on anything.”
Flanagan and other senators, however, said they tried to get an agreement with Democrats, but were unsuccessful. Some Assembly Democrats want more gun-control laws.
“For the first time since it became law, we’ve made real headway. However, because the bills failed to pass in the Assembly, there is still clearly work to be done to fully restore our Second Amendment rights,” Sen. Sue Serino, R-Hyde Park, Dutchess County, said in a statement.
Serino, along with Sens. Rich Funke of the Rochester area and George Amedore of the Albany area, were among new state GOP senators who pledged to try to get a repeal of the law as they successfully beat incumbent Democratic senators last November.
Among the changes approved by the Senate would have dropped a requirement that every purchaser of ammunition undergo a background check. The ammunition database that was part of the SAFE Act has yet to function, and the state allocated $27.7 million in 2013 to implement the law, including the creation of the database.
“I will be the first to acknowledge that there is unfinished business – further economic development, more mandate relief, SAFE Act repeal and reform – are all issues that I will continue push,” Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, Otsego County, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.
A Siena College poll last month found that 62 percent of voters supported the SAFE Act.
Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the law has worked to limit gun violence, require greater registration of weapons and kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
“None of the parties are inclined to anything about it. And the reason they are not is because it is actually working,” Barrett said. “People support it because it’s commonsense: It’s background checks on all guns sales; it’s an assault weapons ban; it’s a five-year renewable permit; tougher penalties for bringing guns on school grounds. These are all commonsense measure. We have an epidemic of gun violence in this country.”
Flanagan narrowly beat out Syracuse Sen. John DeFrancisco for the Senate leadership post last month after the resignation of Dean Skelos as leader amid corruption charges. Six upstate senators went with Flanagan over their fellow upstate member, which irked upstate leaders and led Flanagan to pledge to revisit the SAFE Act.
The Republicans who voted for Flanagan behind closed doors were: Cathy Young of the Southern Tier; Michael Nozzolio of the Finger Lakes; Hugh Farley of the Albany area; Seward of the Mohawk Valley; and William Larkin and John Bonacic of the Catskills.
Stephen Aldstadt, president of the Shooters Committee on Public Education, said talk of primaries against Senate Republicans who backed Flanagan will likely grow after the SAFE Act was left untouched.
“There are a lot of people angry” over the law, Aldstadt said. “They are still as angry as they ever were.”
SOURCE :: Poughkeepsie Journal
A very interesting article from over on Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership…
Have you had the experience of going to your doctor for a particular problem, let’s say headaches, and been surprised by the doctor asking you about a completely unrelated subject—whether you have a gun in your home?
It’s no accident that doctors’ or health plans’ questions about guns in your home have become routine. In the 1980s and 1990s medical professional organizations declared a culture war on gun ownership in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an official policy (2012 version here) urging pediatricians to probe their young patients’ parents about guns in their homes.
Claiming only to be concerned about “gun safety”, the latest code term for gun control, the AAP pushed its member doctors to advise families to get rid of their guns. One of the authors of the original AAP anti-gun policy, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, was quoted in an AMA journal as saying “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have also mounted aggressive and highly publicized campaigns against gun ownership and advised their member physicians to pressure their patients to get rid of their guns. Other physician specialty groups have done the same.
Many people are rightly outraged by this unprofessional behavior of some physicians. Several states, most notably Florida, have passed laws to stop doctors and other health care professionals from misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control. Such abuse of authority and trust by a physician is called an ethical boundary violation.
You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:
• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.
• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.
• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.
Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a doctor who casually talks with you about guns out of a common interest you both may have. If you and your doc get to comparing notes about your favorite hunting rifles or latest trip to the gun range, that is a world apart from a calculated effort to prejudice you against gun ownership.
So what can you do when your doctor or your health plan starts asking you about guns in your home? Your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization, such as the AAP or ACP. One survey showed that although many doctors agree that guns are a public health problem, only a minority feel it’s right to ask their patients about guns in their homes. Many doctors sense that it’s wrong and don’t allow themselves to be recruited as gun control activists by their medical organizations.
A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.
1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.
2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.
3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on theDepartment of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.
4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.
5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, andRateMDs.
6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.
7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.
Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:
• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms
• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business
• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.
Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.
SOURCE :: DRGO
Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed Sunday to make a major push to get new gun control legislation through Congress, connecting the Charleston massacre to other mass killings that have rocked the country.
“Everyone in the world scratches their heads and says what is wrong with America here,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, listing the Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo., and Virginia Tech mass killings.
Schumer proposed three components of “common-sense” legislation: increasing the strength of gun background checks, particularly to weed out mentally ill individuals; requiring background checks at gun shows, and cracking down on the flow of guns from the South to cities in the Northeast.
SOURCE :: NY Daily News
Whether to capitalize on a tragedy for political purposes, or because their urge to “do something” isn’t tempered by a sense of reality, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) reacted to the deplorable murders at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week by saying that they may reintroduce so-called “universal” background check legislation to require background checks on private sales and trades of firearms, including those between many family members and friends. NRA members and supporters will recall that a previous version of the Manchin-Toomey “universal” background check legislation was soundly defeated in the U.S. Senate in 2013.
As we noted at that time, such a system could only be enforced through national gun registration. But don’t just take our word for it, even Obama administration “experts” wrote that the effectiveness of “universal” background checks “depends on . . . requiring gun registration.”
Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Manchin wants to focus on preventing the acquisition of guns by people diagnosed with a mental illness. However, the person who admitted to the South Carolina church shooting had no such diagnosis in his background. Like the perpetrators of a large percentage of other multiple victim shootings, he passed a background check to acquire a gun because there was nothing in his record to prohibit him from doing so.
Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the black market, as noted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Table 14 of a May 2013 report. And they don’t stop criminals from getting guns through straw purchases—using people who can pass background checks to buy guns for people who cannot pass them—as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicated in a separate report.
In addition, there is another reason to oppose expanding the scope, intrusiveness and record-keeping practices of so-called “universal” background check systems. Giving in to what gun control supporters call “common sense” restrictions would simply take us closer to their ultimate goal.
Last year, Hillary Clinton said that people shouldn’t be allowed to even have an opinion in opposition to gun control. And just last week, former president Bill Clinton, who would presumably wield significant influence over public policy if Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2016, said people shouldn’t be allowed to “walk around” with guns in public. At the same time, the Violence Policy Center encouraged people to believe there’s not much to be gained by carrying guns in public in the first place, falsely claiming that “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
And then there’s former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, who’s made it very clear that he supports a ban on the private possession of firearms. O’Malley’s position reflects gun control supporters’ refusal to recognize that people have a fundamental right to possess guns for self-defense; that guns are often used for self-defense; and that criminals would reap an enormous advantage from any gun-ban that is effectively implemented. As civil rights attorney Don Kates and Professor Gary Mauser have noted, “violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians . . . . [I]ndividuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use.”
Indeed, the FBI reports that one-third of murders, 59 percent of robberies and 78 percent of aggravated assaultsreported to law enforcement agencies are committed without firearms. As an example of the first of those statistics, Charles C.W. Cooke noted for National Review earlier this month that a woman was brutally killed by a knife-wielding attacker recently, unable to defend herself because her pending New Jersey handgun permit application hadn’t been approved.
Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that President Barack Obama, always enamored by gun bans in other parts of the world, cited, as he has previously, Australia’s massive gun ban and confiscation via a mandatory “buy-back” in the 1990s as an example of what he’d like to see happen in America.
Obama also blamed the Senate’s rejection of his 2013 gun control proposals on that perennial anti-gunner bogeyman, “the grip of the NRA on Congress.” What he fails to realize is that the NRA’s strength comes from its millions of members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country. As a result, to gun control supporters’ everlasting regret, public opinion places more faith in guns and gun ownership than in gun control.
SOURCE :: NRA-ILA