Quantcast
Skip to main content

Sheriff Maha issues statement on passage of SAFE Act

Submitted by Howard Owens on January 26, 2013 - 12:58pm

From Sheriff Gary Maha:

I have been receiving numerous inquiries in reference to what is the New York State Sheriffs' position with regard to the NY SAFE Act.

Fifty-two of the 58 Sheriffs met during our annual winter conference last week in Albany, NY, and discussed this legislation at length. There are a number of provisions in the law that the Sheriffs find to be helpful to law enforcement and to our citizens. However, there are also a number of provisions which cause us concern, and which we think should be revisited by the Governor and State Legislature. The Sheriffs of New York State are willing to work with the Governor and State Legislature as revisions and additions to the NY SAFE Act are considered.

Attached is the position statement of the New York State Sheriffs with regard to the NY SAFE Act. This position statement was sent to the Governor and State Legislative leaders.

Click here to read the position statement (PDF).

January 26, 2013 - 4:19pm
#2
Dann Neale
Dagine01's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 14 2011

It would appear the sheriffs have a good view of Prince Andrew's totalitarian approach to this matter. Hats off Sheriff Maha and the NYS Sheriffs. Let us pray " his majesty" puts wisdom to this one.

Top
January 26, 2013 - 7:13pm
#3
Kyle Slocum
Kyle Slocum's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 30 2012

Imagine if a bill restricting abortion or our right to petition our government for redress of grievances had been passed in the manner that this bill was. Think about it.

Suddenly, for the media and our democrat friends, it would be, in the words of our eloquent Vice President, "A big f***ing deal".

As it is, it's only those who actually know something about guns, crime and law enforcement who are gravely concerned about this obscene abuse of the Constitution and law abiding citizens. Gun control only has one actual effect on crime: It disarms the victim.

Top
January 26, 2013 - 8:08pm
#4
cj sruger
cjsruger's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 18 2009

I think he speaks the opinion well of the people that elected him.

Top
January 26, 2013 - 8:37pm
#5
david spaulding
chunky's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 12 2011

all i read was.... we don't think the SAFE ACT will do anything to stop somebody hellbent on dieing and taking as many ppl with him,but we will enforce SAFE ACT, and law enforcement must be exempt from any of these SAFE ACT provisions.

hypocrisy..the professing of virtues and beliefs that one does not possess.

Top
January 27, 2013 - 11:15am
#6
Bob Harker
Bob Harker's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 2009

Howard, how about a poll for those of us that own so called "assault weapons". How many are going to comply with our out of control government and "register" their weapons and how many are going to refuse to.

Side note: Do any fellow readers know of any mass murders committed by a person who legally owned an AR, AK, or similar weapon?

Top
January 27, 2013 - 11:19am
#7
John Stone
Papa-san's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 4 2008

"...Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation
to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so."

So, what are they going to do in regards to safeguarding that no-one ELSE does so either?!?

(And Bob... I do not know of any.
As far as the poll, I am not sure this would be wise at this juncture.)

Top
January 27, 2013 - 11:30am
#8
Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

I think the real eye-opener for me (although I shouldn't be surprised) is that these overpaid, empty suit clowns who rammed this through, didn't bother to consult with law enforcement professionals, such as the NYS Sheriffs group. What a bunch of self promoting dolts. I also believe the Sheriffs are correct about continuing to review and advise on emergency plans for schools at the local level, instead of taking yet another "one size fits all" approach for the whole state which always works so well. AARRRRRGGGGHHH!!

Top
January 27, 2013 - 12:25pm
(Reply to #8) #9
John Stone
Papa-san's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 4 2008

And how do you feel about the erosion of our Constitutional Rights in this matter, Dave? Requiring the registration of guns was one of the early steps taken by Hitler in his rise to power. What makes anyone think that this type of thing cannot happen in this country?

Top
January 27, 2013 - 12:27pm
#10
Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

I am upset about that as well, John. As everyone should be. We have the right to defend ourselves, our family and our property. We have the right to own the personal property we desire and obtain righteously. Government from local to state to federal encroaches ever so steadily upon the rights of all. This whole SAFE act was politically motivated, railroaded through, and doesn't make 1 person any safer, which shouldn't be the first consideration anyways.

The Sheriffs are absolutely correct when they wrote:
"Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process."

Couldn't have said it better if I tried.

Top
January 27, 2013 - 5:44pm
#11
John Stone
Papa-san's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 4 2008

Thanks. I had to check, because I hear a lot of people who have said the police limitations are a problem to fix, but the other stuff is optional. There has to be a stand, and this is a good spot for that, I believe!

Top
January 27, 2013 - 2:50pm
(Reply to #5) #12
david spaulding
chunky's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 12 2011

minus 2 as i write.nobody else has a problem with law enforcement personnel being exempt from the laws they are suppose to enforce?they can lie,they can talk on cell phones while driving,they can drive without a seatbelt but if the sheep taxpayer does it,you will be prosecuted....hypocrites...."do as i say,not as i do"may work when you are a child,but as an adult,i can't respect it...
as far as the door to door statement,he's talking about now,because he hasn't been ordered to,once he gets the instructions,he and his deputies will be making a "no knock" visit to you and take your "registered" firearm.

Top
January 27, 2013 - 5:56pm
#13
John Stone
Papa-san's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 4 2008

No, they shouldn't be exempt. If they are acting as if they are exempt, then it needs to be able to be proven, I guess. Then you are quite welcome to visit the offices of the appropriate law enforcement officer in the county. (I believe that would still be the District Attorney, but if a more knowledgeable student of local law knows better, please correct me.) I believe that someone there would at least be able to point you in the right direction for your queries. We are supposed to be able to redress our governing bodies for grievances, and I believe this could qualify as such. It would not take too long for the character of the local law enforcement to become apparent. I personally know a few deputies, and as far as I can tell, they know the law as well as the difference between right and wrong, and seem pretty professional.
Another consideration is to try finding out what kind of federal money is coming in to each local office. There is no way to know for certain, but it may have a possible influence in how loyalties lie. Just a few things that should be contemplated regarding those concerns...

Top
January 27, 2013 - 11:46pm
#14
John Woodworth JR
Wooddawg914's picture
Offline
Joined: May 28 2009

Well Dave(#8) that is because, political motivation was behind this BILL and no actual safety concerns. This BILL just protects the criminal element of society and makes the victim of their crime more vulnerable. Remember the Second Amendment is not just the "Right to Bear Arms" to protect yourself. It's to protect against foreign attacks and against tyrant style government. BTW, for those who do not believe the government will go door to door, you might want to see "NYS Dream List." It may not happen but, they wanted to.

I listen to Sandy Beach/WBEN tonight with a few of my officer and GOV. Cuomo wants to ban all weapons and is wanting to go house to house without warrants and confiscate firearms in five years.

Top
January 28, 2013 - 2:15pm
#15
John Stone
Papa-san's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 4 2008

Personally, I have to agree with the majority of NY firearms owners who appear to have enough common-sense to have decided to follow a course of peaceful civil disobedience regarding the registration part of this unconstitutional set of 'laws'.

The ignorance required to believe that this legislation is actually for "the good of the people of NYS" is amazing to me: The liberal mind is a really frightening thing! They will be the first and loudest to explain how 'prohibition' of weed and alcohol are a lose-lose situation... They will clearly and accurately describe exactly how the prohibiting of alcohol and M.J. have led to the incredibly prevalent and lucrative underground trade of these things. Yet they can (and will), without batting an eye, tell you that the prohibition of "assault-rifles" will lead to the exact opposite. smh...

The clearest and most accurate method of understanding that mindset was explained by a child-psychologist I know: Small children, when faced with facts that don't suit them will engage in something called "Magical-Thinking". This is a method that is used which enables them to alter their 'reality' by changing facts in their mind to suit their ideology. It doesn't matter to them that it has no real basis in reality, just so long as they can believe it is the way they want it to be... Truth be told, the liberal mindset ought to be classified as a mental illness, as this trait is nearly identical to the thought processes used by people diagnosed as psychotic...

Top
Premium Drupal Themes