This past week, Wednesday, October 20, 2010 I got a political flyer in my mail box from the NYS Democratic Committee or DSDC, located at 111 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12210.
Titled: "Jack Quinn III Voted To Let Domestic Abusers Keep Guns"
RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Here's a scanned image of the flyer itself (please note I spent 2 hours searching for this flyer on their website and could not find it, so I scanned it into my computer):
Side 1:
Side 2:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Let's deconstruct this flyer:
"Putting Weapons In The Hands of Violent Domestic Abusers
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that expands the list of serious offenses that makes possessing a firearm a class A misdemeanor to include family offenses like domestic violence.
Actual Bill:
STATE OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________________________
7575--A
2009-2010 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
April 16, 2009
Introduced by M. of A. LANCMAN -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Codes -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted
as amended and recommitted to said committee
AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the definition of serious
offense.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY,
DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Subdivision 17 of section 265.00 of the penal law is
2 amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
3 (C) AN OFFENSE WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A FAMILY OFFENSE PURSUANT TO
4 SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED TWELVE OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, WHERE THE VICTIM
5 OF SUCH OFFENSE WAS A "FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER" AS DEFINED IN THAT
6 SECTION.
7 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
This sounds all well and good here, doesn't it? We have to find what is the current legal definition of a "family or household member" is under Section 812 of the Family Court Act, to see if how this bill would have changed the current definitions.
(e)
persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time. Factors the court may consider in determining whether a relationship is an "intimate relationship" include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship. Neither a casual acquaintance nor ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute an "intimate relationship".
So, what this bill would have done is made anyone who has had a roommate, either in college dorms or off-campus housing or even anyone who's shared living quarters and expenses with others become under the control of the family court system. You get into a fight with a roommate who was drinking your milk or eating your cereal, you come to blows, one of you breaks the others nose, they go to the hospital to get it reset and voila, the "perpetrator" is forever more labeled a Violent Domestic Abusers., forbidden to ever own or carry a gun again.
Let's say you have neighbors that have lived next door to you for 30 yrs; you've enjoyed cook-outs, shared birthday parties with your children, you've gone skiing, picnicking and you consider them "just like family". Your neighbor snubs you at a wedding and you slap her after some very terse words. This act is now considered "Violent Domestic Abuse" and you're gun license is revoked and you are forever more labeled a "Violent Domestic Abuser".
From the perspective of RKBA, it's clear this would not deter actual violent crimes or even allow convicted domestic abusers to own guns. It just includes more people that will be disarmed. And by expanding Family Court Authority into another area of our daily lives. Now you could be prosecuted in Family Court where the evidentiary rules are non-existent; hearsay is allowed, there is no due process and biased self-aggrandizing motives of "social workers" is the norm. Where you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Where you could be unconstitutionally gagged by an administrative judge to never speak of what actually happened.
We can't dehumanize then criminalize our entire race, can we? Do we even want to?
The next deconstruction/point of this flyer is:
"Keeping Guns Within Easy Reach Of Children"
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that prohibits the sale, delivery or transfer of firearms that do not have a safety or childproof mechanism incorporated into the design and were manufactured 12 months or more after this provision becomes law. The bill also specifies that a violation of these provisions is a class A misdemeanor.
Text of the bill:
Section 1. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 265.18 to read as follows:
§ 265.18 Sale of child operated firearms; childproofing.
- No person, firm, limited liability company or corporation engaged in the retail business of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms shall sell, deliver or transfer any child operated firearm to another person.
- For purposes of this section, "child operated firearm" means a pistol or revolver manufactured twelve months or more after the effective date of this section which does not contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five year old child from operating the pistol or revolver. Such devices or mechanisms shall include, but not be limited to: the capacity to adjust the trigger resistance to at least a ten pound pull, the capacity to alter the firing mechanism so that an average five year old child's hands are too small to operate the pistol or revolver, or the capacity to require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.
- The superintendent of the state police shall, in consultation with such gun manufacturers as such superintendent deems appropriate, adopt rules and regulations establishing minimum standards for childproofing devices or mechanisms to ensure that such childproofing devices or mechanisms are safe and effective.
Let's look at the title of the bill:
§ 265.18 Sale of child operated firearms; childproofing.
If a child gets a hold of a firearm it is because of the parent/caretaker:
- The parent/guardian intentionally allowed it.
- Was never taught the responsible handling or storage of such.
- Was irresponsible.
Who decided that guns should be designed to prevent a 5 yr old from using them? What about 6 yr old's or 10 yr old's? Would this not open the door to raising the age "prevention/modification" to include ever increasing older children? If it's about "saving the children", then why not? See the deceptive packaging and phrasing of this "issue"? See how it could be manipulated to get people to vote against their own best interests?
Here's what the CDC says on this:
Child access prevention laws. Child access prevention (CAP) laws are designed to limit children's access to and use of firearms in homes. The laws require firearms owners to store their firearms locked, unloaded, or both, and make the firearm owners liable when children use a household firearm to threaten or harm themselves or others. In three states with CAP laws (Florida, Connecticut, California), this crime is a felony; in several others it is a misdemeanor.
Only three studies examined the effects of CAP laws on violent outcomes, and only one outcome, unintentional firearms deaths, was assessed by all three. Of these, two studies assessed the same states over the same time periods and were therefore nonindependent.
The most recent study, which included the states to pass CAP laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut (30).
Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. In addition, although CAP laws address juveniles as perpetrators of firearms violence, available studies assessed only juvenile victims of firearms violence.
So there we have it. ONLY 1 out of 3 States that have CAP laws did it make a difference, with the caveat that studies done were inconsistent with the prevailing mentality and beliefs (that they would reduce accidental deaths) and that further studies need to be done. From a pure mathematical point of view, if there are 500 children dying each year from the misuse of a firearm and there are 50 States, that's about 10 per State per year. Since these studies reveal they only helped in one, that means at most, 10 children didn't die. While I believe every child is important in this world. Being realistic here, billions have been spent on this moot issue. Billions that could be spent educating parents, teachers and our children on the safe and effective use of firearms.
________________________________________________________________________
EDIT & UPDATE:
It has become clear to me that what I meant to say and how it's being misinterpreted must be corrected. Please note that I've left my original wording intact, but have scratched it out so that others can see how not to say things.
I apologize if anyone believes that I was advocating the murder of children, I was not. Nor was I intending to belittle the tragedy at the loss of 500 children per year from "accidental gun deaths". For me, our children are the reason we live, eat and die for.
My whole point was that the billions spent on ineffective laws and their enforcement should be allocated to policies that will actually reduce and prevent any child from being "accidentally" killed by a gun.
Education, training and exposure will keep the many tragedies we face from ever occurring.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Let's not have our children end up there, when there are proven methods that actually work.
________________________________________________________________________
Section 3 of the defeated bill would have given law making authority to the police and private business. Do we not pay our "law makers" very handsomely to do this job? Only to have them pawn off their responsibilities of governing?
Having the State Police decide what they believe is the best for us, is the definition of a Police State, is it not? Having industry hacks (that grease the palms of our representatives) make "recommendations" for a specific mechanism that, oh by the way, only their company makes, is a dereliction of their duties and responsibilities as our State Legislature. Recall the "underwear bomber" and then us seeing on the news Chertoff pushing for full body scanners that only his company manufactured? And guess what they're everywhere now. How convenient.
It would have given only 12 months to comply with and had given the State Police the ultimate power of lawmaking. Least we forgot this very important point. There have been no studies done that show "child safety devices" added to a firearm will stop a child's misuse yet still allow the normal functioning.
Put very plainly, it would be a de facto ban on all guns being sold in NYS, once it went into effect. You could not sell, trade or transfer any of the guns you currently own. They would die with you. Since there have been no studies, we'd have to wait years to buy, transfer or sell guns here again. If those studies were ever actually funded and conducted! If someone claims: "Hogwash, the police know what works and doesn't." How can they if there haven't been studies and testing done? So we'd have them make blind unfounded decisions/regulations? Sure the police have experience with firearms but they were only being ordered only to make sure the "mechanisms are safe and effective." Safe and effective for whom? Only children, right? What about the adults that have to use said firearms? Since this bill's intent was "for the children", adult safety or use wouldn't even be considered. So as long as the gun didn't fire or operate, it would meet the vague dictates of the State Legislature."Well Mr. Intruder, I'd love to defend myself but the child safety mechanism has made my firearm inoperable!"
Here's a short list of problems that I can see with these types of laws and regulations if adopted:
- A person becomes irresponsible and lazy in their handling of their firearm that they falsely believe won't discharge. They leave it around, forget where they put it etc. etc.
- A person suffering from a physical handicap could not pull a trigger set at 10 pounds or higher. What about your retired mother who has rheumatoid arthritis?
- A person who is small in stature, say 5 feet or smaller, could they get their small hands around a firearm designed for "adult" hands only?
- How accurate is one's ability to aim and shoot at a desired target diminished by having to pull harder on a firearm so designed? I could see them killing their neighbor/child/friend by accident and not the intended target.
- If there are multiple steps and procedures to operate a defensive weapon, how protected are you? If you take 5 or 10 steps just to get it to work, when one is in a crisis situation where seconds matter, you'd still be hurt or killed.
- What if an intruder comes into your home and you get subdued or incapacitated yet your child is not noticed, they couldn't/wouldn't be able to override the "safety mechanisms" to defend you or themselves. I keep thinking of Bruce Willis' movie "Hostage". Except in this movie the kids had the codes.
- Most child safety locks can be over come with a pair of pliers, but in the process making the firearm that much more likely to misfire and would add to accidental gun deaths.
- How are these laws enforced in a home? Mandatory/involuntary/unconstitutional "inspections"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Why are we focusing on closing the barn door after the cows got out and not focusing on the causes of violent crimes and creating a society where people don't believe their only option must be violent? Why are we ignoring our Constitution in the process? What other unalienable right has been so curtailed, manipulated and neutered? Do we have to take public speaking classes? Or writing classes? Or religion classes? All of these other unalienable rights have led to far more deaths, murders and genocide throughout our entire history. See bible; see the published writings of John O'Sullivan and America's "Manifest Destiny." Damn it, see Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council in February of 2003. Awe heck, see any Bush speech where he says or uses the word "terrorist!"
When I compare gun control to the true national tragedies we face; like unfunded and needless wars, unfunded taxes breaks for the most wealthy, the looting of Wall Street and crony capitalism. The failure and corruption of the FDA or the EPA and when I see that we are 18th in education or our life expectancy is 38th. I just want to scream!
So, when I saw and read this political flyer, I was angry. Angry that my Democrats can't focus on the real problems our State and Country face, but they will spend millions on meaningless drivel and useless laws that will not stop children born in America dying from "infant mortality."
From the CDC:
Birth rate: 14.3 per 1,000 population
Infant death rate: 6.7 infant deaths per 1,000
That's 28,918.76 infant deaths each year! Yet we are going to have a national discussion on the sad "accidental deaths" of up to 500 children per year from guns? By they way, in my book, there is no such thing as an "accidental gun death." All are preventable with training and exposure.
Seriously, had I not gotten this flyer, I wouldn't have been prompted to do the research to find out what it was they were talking about. What were my Democrats trying to push through my State Legislature? I never heard about this bill or the many other -"gun control"- gun banning bills that were actually introduced. I was/am shocked.
I seriously don't question why we Democrats lose elections anymore or "They're coming to take your guns away" meme.
It's would appear that yes, in fact, we are!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
And here's yet another political flyer from the same group, I got it Monday, October 25. 2010.
___________________________________________________________________________
And the final section of this diary will be the actual laws of NYS that govern the ownership of firearms and who can and cannot own guns.
There are over 16 pages of laws currently on the books here, so many in fact, that it takes a book to explain them all:
Thanks goes out to Crookshanks for referring me to this book:
"Firearms and Weapons Laws Gun Control in New York"
Doesn't this say something about our current system that we need to publish books to help the average citizen understand the laws that have already been enacted!?
TITLE P--OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE 265--FIREARMS AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS
Section 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree
(4) He possesses a rifle or shotgun and has been convicted of a felony or serious offense;
(6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable to possess a rifle or shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00, and refuses to yield possession of such rifle or shotgun upon the demand of a police officer.
Section 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree
(1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or
(5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or (ii) such person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession did not take place in the person's home or place of business; or
Section 265.03 Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree
(2) such person possesses five or more firearms.
Section 265.04 Criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the first degree
(2) possesses ten or more firearms.
Section 265.12 Criminal sale of a firearm in the second degree
(1) unlawfully sells, exchanges, gives or disposes of to another five or more firearms; or
(2) unlawfully sells, exchanges, gives or disposes of to another person or persons a total of five or more firearms in a period of not more than one year.
Section 265.15 Presumptions of possession, unlawful intent and defacement
- The presence in any stolen vehicle of any weapon, instrument, appliance or substance specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04 and 265.05 is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such vehicle at the time such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance is found.
- The possession of five or more firearms by any person is presumptive evidence that such person possessed the firearms with the intent to sell same.
Section 265.17 Criminal purchase of a weapon.
- Knowing that he or she is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun because of prior conviction or because of some other disability which would render him or her ineligible to lawfully possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in this state, such person attempts to purchase a firearm, rifle or shotgun from another person; or
- Knowing that it would be unlawful for another person to possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun, he or she purchases a firearm, rifle or shotgun for, on behalf of, or for the use of such other person.
As you can see, the current laws, would/could wait do stop any convicted "violent domestic abuser" from owning a firearm.
I'd love to hear opinions on how an assumption of guilt squares with our Constitution and due process. How can one be striped of an unalienable right when the law says you're already guilty? Is this not what tyrannical governments ultimately end up doing? It seems to me that it's a very dangerous and not so subtle seachange of perspective in how our laws are being written today. Very dangerous indeed.