GUNS/RLTD NY Governor tells Sherriffs to be quiet about new gun law

jesner

Veteran Member
The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York's gun control law, the SAFE Act. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told them to keep quiet.

Opposition to the new law has simmered in upstate areas since Cuomo signed the law in January. Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state. In January, the New York State Sheriffs' Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.
Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month, people briefed on the meeting said. The group included Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss.

"We didn't get a response (to the analysis) from him, but we could tell after the budget was passed that none of those recommendations were taken into consideration," Moss said. "When we got there, we never got to the contents of the letter."

Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.

"The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law," Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can't do that and enforce the law.

One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state's chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as "cordial."

Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, "strongly" denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.

Last week, the Sheriffs' Association as well as several elected sheriffs filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.
"We're not really protesting the law; we're protesting the methodology in which the law was forced upon the people without input of the people," said Livingston County Sheriff John York, a Republican who chairs the group's executive committee.

Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard has said he "won't enforce" the act.
Cuomo has said the law will "save lives."

The law broadened the definition of banned assault weapons, increased penalties for illegal gun possession, reduced public access to gun permit information and required mental health professionals to report concerns about a gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming himself or others. It bans any magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, and bars people from loading magazines with more than seven cartridges.

The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14 and passed through a "message of necessity" that waived a three-day waiting period. The Senate, led by a Republican-dominated coalition, passed the bill by a 43-18 vote hours after the text became public. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed it the next day, and Cuomo signed it.

In the amicus brief, the sheriffs wrote: "Law enforcement's work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners."
Asked last week about the court brief, Cuomo said, "They're free to litigate — God bless America."

He did not directly say if he thought sheriffs should speak out against laws they enforce, but said, "They're politicians. They run for office, too."
On Monday, Cuomo said Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola was "not upholding the law" when he said last week he would refuse to release permit-holder information. The law allows permit holders to make their information exempt from state Freedom of Information Law disclosure if they apply and meet set criteria.

Merola, a Republican, said that sifting through the applications would take resources his office cannot spare. Instead, he will not release any pistol permit data.
"That's not for a county clerk to do on a blanket basis," Cuomo said. "You can't decide what the law is or change the law — their job is to enforce the law administratively."

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Sheriffs-Cuomo-asked-for-silence-4532930.php
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Cuomo has said the law will "save lives."


It will. Of criminals and GIBSMEDATS. And that's exactly what liberal scum want.
 

Dozdoats

Deceased
We get closer to the edge every day.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Wouldn't hurt Americans to re-read the whole document every once in a while...
 

SusieSunshine

Veteran Member
Now tptb appear to be trying to remove the right of assembly.

http://scopeny.org/
DESTINATION ALBANY TUESDAY JUNE 11, 2013

HERE WE GO AGAIN!



6-11-2013



NO JANUARY WIND, NO SNOW, NO FREEZING RAIN THIS TIME!



CHAPTERS ARE PREPARING BUSES TO ALBANY.

The word is they will not issue us a permit. We are going anyway.
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
This is not going to save lives, this is going to kill a lot of people. There are many, many studies which have proven that guns in the hand of law abiding people saves lives and prevents crimes.

But besides that, at some point they are going to try to be idiots and confiscate firearms. Then someone is going to have to come up with lots of money for the widows and ophans of the treasonous individuals who try to take people's Constitutionally protected firearms. I hope they have a large pot of money somewhere to pay for all that, because they are going to need it.
 

BadMedicine

Would *I* Lie???
It would have been awesome if one of those Sherriffs sworn to uphold the constitution would have pulled his side arm and shot him for Unconstitutionally stripping the rights of unconvicted, law abiding citizens. I wonder what would of happened then? Kinda a "Pre-emptive strike" to save the lives of THOUSANDS of new york innocents they're sworn to protect... Justified? Woulda a tleast been funny. I bet there'd be no rush to arrest the hero... prolly get a summons to appear in court... lol.
 

BL225128

Inactive
It would have been awesome if one of those Sherriffs sworn to uphold the constitution would have pulled his side arm and shot him for Unconstitutionally stripping the rights of unconvicted, law abiding citizens. I wonder what would of happened then? Kinda a "Pre-emptive strike" to save the lives of THOUSANDS of new york innocents they're sworn to protect... Justified? Woulda a tleast been funny. I bet there'd be no rush to arrest the hero... prolly get a summons to appear in court... lol.

I'd suspect that the Sheriffs were disarmed prior to entering the meeting. Besides, Gov. Lisp has his own security detail courtesy of the NY Staatspolizei (who, like all "professional" police forces owes their loyalty to the politicians, not the citizens), who would no doubt shoot or arrest the guy who dealt aces and eights to Mr. Sandra Lee.
 

Ben Sunday

Has No Life - Lives on TB
This is not going to save lives, this is going to kill a lot of people. There are many, many studies which have proven that guns in the hand of law abiding people saves lives and prevents crimes.

But besides that, at some point they are going to try to be idiots and confiscate firearms. Then someone is going to have to come up with lots of money for the widows and ophans of the treasonous individuals who try to take people's Constitutionally protected firearms. I hope they have a large pot of money somewhere to pay for all that, because they are going to need it.

I predicted on another thread that New York and Connecticut will both have state level gun confiscation next year. Both Cuomo and Malloy are wanna be dictators who operate in contempt of the Constitution at every opportunity. Proof? just look at the draconian gun laws passed in both states this year. Loud voices in CT have promised "much more" next year.

Read between the lines then consider who is making the decisions.

Lawful, legitimate gun owners share the fate of Wild Bill Hickock. All we have left is the historic yet intensely philosophical 'dead mans hand' in the cards.
 

Publius

On TB every waking moment
Hey, Cuomo. Here's an idea. How about YOU shut your pie hole before we remove YOU from office,


Seeing how the sheriffs are doing what they are allowed to do in this country, should not allow the governor to fire them for flexing their rights.
 

jesner

Veteran Member
They need to follow Colorado's lead:

DENVER — Colorado sheriffs upset with gun restrictions adopted in the aftermath of last year’s mass shootings filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the regulations as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado’s 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.

The sheriffs say the new state laws violate Second Amendment protections that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.

The filing targets Colorado laws that limit the size of ammunition magazines and expand background checks. The regulations passed the Legislature this spring and are set to take effect July 1.

It isn’t yet clear whether the sheriffs’ challenge will delay or jeopardize the laws. The filing, however, guarantees the renewal of a fierce debate over gun control.

Colorado lawmakers passed the restrictions in reaction to the shooting rampage at a suburban Denver movie theater last summer, where 12 people were killed and dozens more were wounded, and the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The gun control debate was one of the most emotionally charged of the legislative session, with lengthy debates and national attention. President Barack Obama added to the attention on the Colorado Statehouse, as his administration unsuccessfully pushed Congress to enact similar gun controls.

Sheriffs’ attorneys are considering whether to ask the court for a preliminary injunction, which would block the Colorado laws while the lawsuit moves forward.

The law enforcement community is divided on the issue. In contrast to the sheriffs, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes urban departments, supports the laws. The chiefs said the measures were “common-sense approaches” to protect the public “while not taking guns from law-abiding citizens in any way.”

Unlike sheriffs, police chiefs are not elected.

Democrats maintain the public is on their side, and say legislators carefully crafted the proposals that were signed.

“These laws were not constructed haphazardly,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Hodge, the sponsor of the magazine limit. “They were constructed to protect us from massacres like the ones we suffered in Aurora and Newtown.”

Relatives of victims of the Colorado shooting criticized the sheriffs for filing the lawsuit and accused them of playing politics.

“As a parent who lost my son Alex at the Aurora theater shooting, I ask these people to put themselves in my place,” Tom Sullivan said in a statement. “I do not understand why these politicians are picking guns over people.”

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and his colleagues were “not the ones playing politics with this.”

“We believe that the Legislature were the ones who were playing politics,” he said.

Gun control opponents say the language in the regulations is unclear and doesn’t provide safeguards to prevent people from inadvertently breaking the laws.

Ammunition magazines, for example, are easily converted to larger sizes, which the bill bans. Gun rights advocates also say the law expanding background checks doesn’t provide enough exemptions for temporary transfers and that people conducting private transactions will have a difficult time getting appropriate checks.

Lawmakers allowed several exemptions in the background check legislation, including transfers between immediate family members, shooting events and temporary transfers of up to 72 hours.

State officials, including Attorney General John Suthers, have worked to defend the intent of the laws. Suthers, a Republican responsible for defending the law against the legal challenge, issued a statement Friday giving guidance to law enforcement on how the magazine limit should be enforced.

He said magazine features “must be judged objectively” and that magazines that hold 15 rounds or fewer can’t be defined as “large capacity” simply because it can be modified to include more.

The state has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...7_1_gun-control-debate-colorado-laws-sheriffs
 
Top