Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Law contains many flaws

January 18, 2013

The state’s rapid-fire passage of a gun law is over, but it left controversy in its wake. Some of the provisions are sensible, but others are questionable or wrongheaded....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

Stackrat

Jan-18-13 10:50 AM

Typical knee jerk reaction. To bad Albany cant move that fast to get any other part of their jobs done! I hope Coumo gets impeached.

10 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RIchard

Jan-18-13 12:00 PM

What ever happened to the unfunded mandate promise from Cuomo?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Jan-18-13 12:30 PM

Well, whaddaya know. A LH editorial I agree with 100%. Must be it was written by local folks and not the corporate office. Good editorial folks.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

Jan-18-13 2:10 PM

there may be minor flaws and tweaks may be needed. but let's not forgo what's good in search of wwhat may be perfect. Perfection in lawmaking will never be a reality anyway.

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-18-13 2:38 PM

Why not? They have plenty of lobbyist's to do it.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daywash123

Jan-18-13 2:50 PM

How about the fact that it still infringes on a constitutional right? Because a gun has a pistol grip it's now illegal. Thumbhole stocks have the same function, will they be outlawed next? This will kill Remington, their R-15 hunting rifle is cosmetically like an assault weapon. We didn't outlaw Mausers that were sporterized in the 20's or M-1 Garands in the 50's or Mini 14's in the 70's. Soldiers returning from war have always hunted animals with their former tools of the trade, they're what they are most familiar with. I don't own any of these types of gun, but my 760 Remington will accept a clip of more than 5 rounds, is this the next thing to be banned? I realize the 2nd amendment is over 200 years old, but I don't think the founding fathers would consider today's electorate very smart if we let the government neuter our ability to defend ourselves against that same government.

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Jan-18-13 3:06 PM

The SAFE Act does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, which are legally interpreted by the Supreme Court, not the NRA. Although you have a right to carry a firearm for self defense, the government may limit what they consider to be dangerous and unusual weapons. They can also legally impose conditions qualifications for sales. From the editorial: "Some experts worry this could discourage some patients from getting help and cause some mental health providers to ignore the law." Doctors and mental health providers already have mandated reported for gunshot wounds and child abuse. This is a preventative measure that may save lives. I don't think these NYS licensed individuals would risk losing their careers over failing to report. "Tucked away in this legislation is another serious concern: It allows local authorities to withhold the identities of registered gun owners, infringing on the public's right to know." FOIL already has provisions that protect individuals p

8 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Jan-18-13 4:38 PM

***********governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-18-13 5:53 PM

Skrocki, the people that should be afraid is the government, Look at the films of the police at sandy hook they were better quipped than any army in the world except maybe ours. We are supposed to have the legal right to equal our government, that is what is supposed to keep them honest. The way that this government at state and federal levels are passing these controversial laws is a testament to the value of the laws. I say if you agree with this law... but it is too late to count on your assistance... government employee or government dependent?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Knickman

Jan-18-13 6:20 PM

Why has nothing been done about mandates; simple, the politicians would have to find the money and pay for it. This gun legislation like gay marriage did not require a major appropriation of funds by the state.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Jan-18-13 7:33 PM

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is NOT to equal our government. The basic problem here is that people are ignorant when it comes to the law and the Constitution. My opinion, your opinion or that of Kathy Marchione means diddly. The only legally binding opinion is that of the US Supreme Court. I worked with weapons for most of my life. I was an Army Infantry Lieutenant trained with both automatic and semiautomatic weapons. I was a NYS Correction Lieutenant required to qualify annually with an AR-15 assault rifle a Smith & Wesson model 10 revolver and Reminton 870P shotgun. The average citizen does not need assault rifles for self defense and the Supreme Court decided that judgement is the job of government, not you, not me or the NRA.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Letscutthebs

Jan-18-13 8:17 PM

I don't care if there is a law on the books or not regarding a therapist reporting a person unfit to carry a weapon. DUH!! I'd hope they didn't need such a law to be written. And then a law to say any person who shoots a first responder will get life!?! Really?!?! 3 square meals a day, a bed, free health care, all the luxuries the rest of us work our *** off for ... How about the death penalty! I come to your aid when their is a car accident, you drive your sled through the ice, your house is on fire in the middle of the night on a -20 degree night and this is all we get? That's a slap in the face! Common sense laws? not by far. A first responder can not have a weapon by state law. We are unarmed peopel being drawn into an ambush, let'em stand trial and execute the SOB.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-18-13 9:12 PM

So thank you for the answer, GOVERNMENT worker, retired.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jan-18-13 9:38 PM

Skrocki, have you been hanging with swizzeer?? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of that is complicated???

Therte is no such thing as an assault rifle. An AR15 with a black menacing looking stock suddenly becomes a scarry assault weapon. All you learned from your training was to use the weaponry efficiently, effectively, and safely. You deserve a nice pat on the head like a good emplotee.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-19-13 7:50 AM

Thank you skrocki for raising the bar for the discussion of this issue. I too am a gun owner and staunch defender of the 2nd, and in no way do I regard this as any kind of "constitutional infringement" issue. And as I mentioned on another post, the NRA should consider ousting Keene and LaPierre...

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 8:08 AM

I say lets ban cars for everyone at a midnight session so drunks can't drive them. That will solve the dwi problem. YES this is sarcasm. But the comparison is the same.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-19-13 10:03 AM

THANKS TO KILLER ALCOHOL . . .

There are over 18 million alcoholics in America Cirrhosis of the liver kills over 30,000 each year and rising 50 percent of the people on welfare are due to killer alcohol 80 percent of all fire deaths are due to killer alcohol 65 percent of the drownings 22 percent of home accidents 77 percent of falls 36 percent of pedestrian accidents 65 percent of all murders 40 percent of all assaults 35 percent of all rapes 30 percent of other sex crimes 30 percent of all suicides Over 80 percent of all arrests are linked to killer alcohol!

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:05 AM

Well said tot. Lets have another prohibition on alcohol also. And ban the sale of tobbacco products as well. Communist Mario lets get it done. Sarcasm, can't do that. The state makes to much of of them

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:08 AM

on oops sorry for typo. Need to get a lobbyist to proof read for me lol

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:14 AM

got to go a rally to attend to

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-19-13 1:06 PM

Wow can't believe all the people talking about the rally!....Have a great time at President Obama's inauguration everyone.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-19-13 2:22 PM

I have a slightly different take on this. I believe this law is flawed on purpose. Forgetting an 'exemption' for off duty police is one way to open the door for further 'exemptions', modifications, clarifications, and other motions that will keep counter lawsuits from going forward due to the ambiguity of sections of it thus dragging it out. Meanwhile were stuck with it, even if only for awhile, as planned. The sad part of this is that none of these or any other gun control measures or legislative pieces of paper will stop a bullet or the insanity that causes one person to kill many.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-19-13 9:28 PM

Bob....I agree in that there will unfortunately still be unspeakable tragedies like this in the future. But murder is against the law and there will still be murders. The argument that criminals will still obtain guns....does this mean that we still continue to make it easy for them. Answer this question, how many tragedies may be PREVENTED through these regulations?? Yes, it's naive to think this will stop all future incidents, but its also naive to say we do nothing re any gun control measures with AR. And as I said, the NRA leadership needs to be replaced, they're hurting their own cause.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jan-19-13 10:31 PM

laker, please explain how the "new" law makes it tougher for criminals to get guns. Or did you forget that criminals don't care about laws

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-19-13 11:11 PM

These new laws are not directed at crimes they are aimed at limiting the previously legal owners of rifles that are used in less than 3% of crimes involving guns. If he actually cared about saving the children then they would have addressed school safety, not self defense weapons.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web