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
Great article from Bearing Arms…
If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.
Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.
You can peruse the full ruling here, but the meat of the activist Court’s over-long decision hinges on a single paragraph.
The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify their argument, which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.
The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.
My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.
Today they must.
Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.
God Bless America.
SOURCE :: Bearing Arms
Rochester, N.Y. – The Master Lock Company announced Tuesday it will close the SentrySafe plant in Rochester.
All positions at the Rochester plant, along with the Cannelton, Indiana location, will be relocated to Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and Mexico.
A total of 350 employees will lose their jobs.
The positions will be reduced starting January 2016 and the plants will be completely closed by June 2016.
A statement from Master Lock states the “decision is in no way a reflection of the successes, talents and skills of the SentrySafe team. We’re incredibly impressed with their commitment to build a great company.”
The company said it will provide severance and job placement services. Some employees have already been offered positions and relocation opportunities. Other offers will be made to the most qualified individuals.
A portion of the release reads:
“We continue to believe that SentrySafe is a great fit for Master Lock as both companies deliver iconic brands with strong market share, consumer awareness and significant potential to leverage the brands globally.”
In a statement, Pittsford Town Supervisor Bill Smith said, “Of course, we are disappointed to be losing a business in town as long-established and as prominent as Sentry Safe. I’ll be reaching out to the company to see what role, if any, we can play in helping to facilitate the re-employment of its employers.”
SOURCE :: 13WHAM
Lucky Gunner is donating the legal fees awarded to them by the judge in the Brady Campaign’s failed junk lawsuit against them to pro-gun organizations.
NYSRPA has stated that they will use the money for their lawsuit against the NY SAFE Act.
From the Lucky Gunner website:
The Brady Center recently organized a lawsuit against us. Their stated goal was to put us out of business, and we believe, to outlaw the sale of ammunition online by judicial decree. After several months of spending our own money defending the lawsuit, it was dismissed and the judge awarded us $111,971.10 as a partial reimbursement for our legal fees.
We’re a small team of hardworking people, and we took the Brady Center’s assault against us and the 2nd Amendment very seriously. So far, we’ve spent more than $150,000 of our own money to hire the best attorneys we could find. Our goal was to protect our livelihood and to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to responsibly buy and sell ammunition online.
We believe this lawsuit was just one step in the direction of sidestepping Congress and outlawing the sale of ammunition online. As stated by the judge in his ruling:
“It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants [Lucky Gunner] into the Colorado court… appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order.”
The Brady Center predictably appealed the judge’s ruling and we are prepared to continue defending your rights and ours. While it is not yet clear when the $111,971.10 fee reimbursement will be paid, we are going to donate 100% of what is recovered to groups that support and defend the 2nd Amendment. We will fight to recover these funds from the Brady Center and to hold the Brady Center responsible for yet another frivolous lawsuit.
Please tell us where you want the recovered fees to go by voting in the form below. A number of organizations were added per shooter requests on June 23. We will end the voting on August 1, 2015. Once we have recovered the fees, we’ll cut checks to each organization receiving votes on a percentage basis. In other words, if “Organization A” gets 5% of the vote, it will receive 5% of whatever is recovered.
Thank you for your continued support and interest in protecting 2nd Amendment rights. As we were very recently reminded, these rights are under constant assault and the stakes are high.
Please vote below. To see our most recent tabulated results, head here.
Now if only we could get this to happen in New York…..
Last week, Governor Peter Shumlin signed H. 5 into law, officially making Vermont the 41st state to legalize the private possession of suppressors. The new law, which will go into effect on July 2nd, was the culmination of months of education and negotiation, and a great deal of hard work on the part of Rep. Patrick Brennan (R-Chittenden), the American Suppressor Association, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and many others.
As you might remember from our earlier post, Rep. Brennan successfully lobbied to have suppressor ownership language inserted into an economic development bill, S. 138. When the suppressor ownership provision was later removed from that bill in conference committee, Rep. Brennan went right back to work, reaching across the aisle to work with Sen. John Rogers (D-Essex/Orleans), who inserted the provision into H. 5, a hunting bill, on the Senate floor. Together Rep. Brennan and Sen. Rogers, along with Rep. David Deen (D-Westminster), worked tirelessly to whip votes in favor of the suppressor ownership bill in both the House and Senate. Their efforts paid off, and H.5 passed both the Senate and the House with overwhelming majorities.
As part of the negotiation, the use of suppressors will be restricted to “sport shooting ranges”, which are defined in 10 V.S.A. § 5227(a). Next year, we will be back to remove this restriction, and to legalize their use while hunting.
There are many benefits to using a suppressor, including:
The American Suppressor Association would like to thank all the legislators who worked hard to secure suppressor rights in Vermont, but special gratitude is owed to Rep. Brennan. Rep. Brennan worked vigorously throughout the session for our suppressor rights, not only by drafting the language that would make them legal, but also by making sure the language was attached to no fewer than three bills before finally being approved. The ASA would also like to thank the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the National Rifle Association for their support on this issue. We would finally like to thank Gov. Shumlin for signing H. 5 into law.
The American Suppressor Association is grateful for the support of our members, and we are very excited about bringing suppressor ownership to Vermont. We will continue to work towards our goal of legalizing suppressor ownership and hunting in all 50 states. Special thanks to Vermont for taking us one step closer!
SOURCE :: American Suppressor Association
“According to Bloomberg Business, gun deaths will exceed traffic fatalities in America this year. Can’t put a seatbelt on a semi-automatic,” he wrote on Twitter.
“Too many closed minds on gun control. Worse, far too many PROUDLY closed minds. Meanwhile, the American shooting gallery remains open.
“Until responsible gun owners support responsible gun control laws, innocent blood will continue to flow. How many times must we see this?”
The shooting at the historic black church, Emanuel AME Church, claimed the lives of nine parishioners. Although the gunman, who was allegedly motived by a belief in white supremacy, passed a background check when he bought his .45-caliber Glock pistol, he had recently been arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge.
“The Confederate flag flying over a state capital is disgusting, but it’s a sidetrack. The real problem comes with a 30-shot clip,” King wrote.
King expressed support for gun control measures following other tragedies. A month after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators, he penned an essay calling out gun-rights advocates and the National Rifle Association.
“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage,” he wrote.
King has put his money where his mouth is. In the early 1990s he pulled a novel he wrote under a pen name in which the plot described a school shooting. Once he learned the book was been associated with shooting incidents, King allowed the novel to fall out of print.
Source :: Guns.com
Ride-hailing app company Uber says it is banning its riders and drivers from carrying guns.
Uber Technologies says it is banning firearms of any kind during rides arranged through the Uber platform, and drivers or riders who violate the rule may lose access to the platform. The rules also apply to Uber’s affiliates.
The company said Friday it changed its firearms policy on June 10 to make sure riders and drivers feel comfortable. In a statement, Uber said it made the change after reviewing feedback from both passengers and Uber drivers. Previously it had deferred to local law on the issue.
San Francisco-based Uber lets passengers summon cars through an app in more than 250 cities worldwide, and the privately held company is valued at around $40 billion. However it’s faced legal and regulatory challenges as it expands in the United States and abroad. It has also been criticized over the thoroughness of the background checks it does on drivers and other safety issues.
In April, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit shot a 22-year-old man who had opened fire on a group of pedestrians in Chicago. Court records say the man was shooting at pedestrians who were walking in front of the Uber driver’s vehicle, and the driver shot the gunman. The driver wasn’t charged, as prosecutors said he acted in defense of himself and others.
Competitor Lyft also has a “no weapons” policy. According to Lyft’s website, if a driver or rider is found to have a weapon in a Lyft vehicle they’ll be barred from the platform regardless of local laws on weapons possession.
With two escaped killers on the loose, the Clinton County, N.Y., clerk’s office has seen a rise in the number of requests for pistol permits.
“We typically don’t get more than one a day, but we probably have at least 12 this week,” said Mary Lavorando, of the Clinton County Clerk’s Office in Plattsburgh.
“It seems like more people have been picking up applications,” she said Friday afternoon. “But it can take eight or nine weeks for approval. So it’s kind of like locking the barn door after the horse is out.”
New York state police narrowed their search for the escapees Friday afternoon, closing in on an area along State Route 374 in the town of Plattsburgh.
Troopers said they will focus the search for David Sweat, 34, and Richard Matt, 48, on a stretch of Route 374 between General Leroy Manor Road and Rand Hill Road. The road will remain closed on that stretch until the search has been completed.
Some local residents who have armed themselves say they are growing weary of the siege mentality that has sunk into their normally-quiet communities.
Another year down! June, 2015, marks our 7th year in existence! I’d like to personally thank all of our readers, forum members and supporters for all that you’ve done to make this the best community for NY Gun Owners out there! We have a lot of great stuff in store for 2015 and we hope to keep growing at the pace we are to make things bigger and better each year for y’all!
Also, a big thank you to all of my admins and mods, especially Jeff, for helping out so much over the last 7 years. I really do appreciate it!
We are going to try and keep updating the blog with pertinent news and important articles for us here in NY, as well as some upcoming training classes, events, and even reviews on new products.
Last, but not least, we WILL be bringing back the Shooting Range Database this year to add to our blog section, giving you a great resource to find a shooting range in your area!
Have an idea for something new for the community on here? Share it in the comments below!
We have updated our NYS Gun Laws section of our website. The information we had on there was written several years ago and was basically an interpretation of the law from one of our admins. Because of the NY SAFE Act and the numerous changes that it included, we decided it would better server our readers to include the law verbatim from the NYS Penal Code website. We will try to stay on top of any updates that New York State pushes out as this can be a great resource for people who may be visiting for hunting or competition.
If you have any thing else that you’d like us to add, please feel free to contact us!
Assemblyman Pete Lopez introduced a bill last Thursday that would extend New York City’s current rent laws for four years. The best part of this bill is that Part B of the legislation would repeal Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2013, also know as the NY SAFE Act.
In an interview, Lopez said that this was an attempt to draw attention to what he said was “a huge disconnect between cultures,” referring to the people that live in the five boroughs versus the people living in upstate rural New York. He said that upstate residents in general place the same importance on the preservation of Second Amendment rights that New York City dwellers reserve for the preservation of affordable housing.
Lopez also said the controversial 2013 gun control law was a failure as an attempt to stop violence, and said that he’s not ignorant of the root causes of crime.
From the justification memo for the Lopez bill:
The SAFE Act has been surrounded by controversy since its enactment in 2013. The bill, riddled with errors and omissions, was passed with no time for public input or thoughtful consideration by the Legislature. The provisions contained within the SAFE Act, have been roundly criticized as an attack on Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Consequently, it is no surprise that key provisions of the SAFE Act have not been implemented and several court cases challenging its constitutionality are pending. While many agree more needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those suffering from mental illness, the SAFE Act does not, and has not, addressed these societal challenges but instead has targeted law-abiding citizens who use firearms for sport and self-defense. New York City rent regulation has been equally controversial and viewed by some as a violation of private property rights of building owners. The passage of rent regulation legislation has been contentious, with the last four-year extender passed at the very close of Legislative Session in 2011. Missing from any discussion surrounding the SAFE Act has been the collective call to address the root causes of violence in our society. Understandably, urban and inner-city populations might look at a fire arm as a threat but what has been failed to be addressed is the acknowledgment that a fire arm is only a weapon when used as such. In today’s culture of violence, a rock, a stick, or even someone’s bare hands, could have the same devastating impact as a gun when used with malicious intent. The sponsor believes our collective challenge is to provide a framework that gives people hope and opportunity; in combination, education, job skills, job placement, clean decent housing, and mental health and other counseling services, can have a marked impact on shaping people’s lives. This legislation simply seeks to bring the priorities of two very different cultures to the forefront in an effort to get both sides to talk to each other both meaningfully and sincerely. It is hoped the dialogue fostered by this bill can help New Yorkers find common ground that promotes freedoms and offers protections and security to those in need.
We will have to wait and see if this will gain any traction.
From WRGC (Joseph Spector, Albany Bureau Chief):
The Republican-led state Senate on Monday approved a bill that would make a variety of changes to New York’s controversial gun-control law.
The measure faces an uphill fight in the Democratic-led Assembly as Senate Republicans look to reform the SAFE Act, which Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democrats championed when it was approved in 2013.
Among the changes would include a repeal of 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.
The bill, introduced late Friday, is sponsored by Sen. James Seward, a central New York Republican whose district includes the major gun manufacturing plant owned by Remington Arms. The bill passed the Senate, 35-26.
“These are commonsense changes, administrative changes to the SAFE Act,” Seward said on the Senate.
Seward was one of six Republican senators from upstate who supported Sen. John Flanagan, R-Suffolk County, to succeed indicted Majority Leader Dean Skelos last month.
Flanagan, who voted for the SAFE Act, has pledged to look at possible changes to the law as a nod to the upstate members.
The bill also includes several other reforms to the law.
It would amend the law to allow for the gifting of registered semiautomatic long guns to family members, who would then be required to undergo a background check.
Another change would no longer allow for gun registrations to be made public. Currently, the gun licenses are public unless, as part of the SAFE Act, a gun owner applies to the information kept private.
The change would no longer consider the information public, yet the bill makes it explicit that statistical data on the number of registrations and recertifications would be public. Gun groups have successfully sued to have statistical information made public, but State Police have fought the requests.
Another provision of the SAFE Act that requires reporting mental-health issues involving gun owners would also be clarified. The bill would aim to make the reporting of such cases more accurate by identifying reported people, changing the guidelines and simplifying the appeal process.
Another reform would give counties and the state Division of Criminal Justice Services more oversight of the license recertification process — not State Police. The recertification is required as of 2018 every five years, but State Police handling the process instead of counties has wrangled gun-rights groups.
Sen. Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn, criticized the bill, saying the SAFE Act has proven successful in better reporting and monitoring gun ownership and sales.
“This bill is not a reasoned and considered amendment to the SAFE Act,” he said during the Senate debate. “This bill undermines some provisions that are working, such as the registration of ammo dealers.”
Last month, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, doubted whether Democrats have the appetite to revisit the SAFE Act. Some Democrats want more gun-control laws.
“That would probably be very challenging, but if it comes up, we’ll bring it to the conference,” Heastie said. “But I don’t really foresee too many changes coming from us in the SAFE Act.”
Our friends over at Allstar Tactical have come out with a new options for your “assault rifles” in New York. They have introduced the “SAFEMOD” which permanently locks your magazine in place for your AR15-type rifle. Read the description from their website below:
Introducing our in-house designed SAFEMOD™ mag button. This mag button will modify your AR15 to no longer accept a detachable magazine and permanently affix an AR15 magazine in place. It works by preventing the button from being depressed once the magazine is inserted into the rifle. The SAFEMOD™ is made from aircraft-grade 6061 aluminum alloy and Type II anodized in matte black.
Included with the SAFEMOD™ is a packet of epoxy to make the modification permanent. These are available for the reasonable price of $18, and for a limited time, you can add a second one for just $12 (2 for $30).
Installation is a snap. Just remove your old magazine release button and replace it with ours. Use the two included 18-8 stainless steel set screws and bottom them out into the button. Finally use the included epoxy to backfill in the holes. You now have an AR15 variant rifle that is no longer capable of accepting a detachable magazine.
This seems like it would be a great option for owners to not have to register their rifles or worry about the amount of “Evil Features.” Unfortunately, per their website, they have not received an official letter by the NY State Police.
According to the NY SAFE ACT from the NYS Governor’s website on the SAFE ACT, “Rifles requiring registration are: Semiautomatic rifles capable of receiving a detachable magazines.” According to this definition of the law, but removing the capability of the rifle to receive “a detachable magazines” you no longer have to register the rifle and the banned features do not apply.
Remember, this is our interpretation of the law and we cannot be held responsible for a law enforcement official’s misinterpretation of the law or the legality of this product. We are working diligently to get word from the NYS Troopers that will assure us that this modification does in fact make your rifle legal.
At just $18, or 2 for $30, it’s worth taking a look at as an option for making your rifle legal in New York State. Check it out over on their website here: Allstar Tactical SAFEMOD Mag Button.