The gun debate continued on in Rockland Tuesday night, as the Rockland County Legislature voted on multiple gun-related resolutions in front of a packed crowd.
The legislators voted against a resolution urging federal and state representatives to institute policy and legislative reforms with respect to gun control and increased mental health services. A resolution requesting the state to repeal certain aspects of the New York SAFE Act passed later in the meeting.
One clause in the first amendment seemed to be a holdup for some of the legislators who voted against it. In the resolution, one part asked to reinstate the federal ban on the sale, import, transfer and ownership of assault weapons. Legislator Frank Sparaco proposed an amendment to the resolution removing that clause, but it didn’t pass. More legislators voted in favor of the amendment, with eight voting in favor and seven voting against. Two legislators, Ed Day and Patrick Moroney, were absent from the meeting, leaving only 15 present. Nine legislators must vote in favor of an amendment for it to go through, so the clause was left in.
Sparaco’s problem with that part of the resolution was that he didn’t think many of his colleagues could actually define what an assault weapon is.
“This is a very important issue that you’re pushing forward here, and when a lot of these people spoke today, they used terms that I know a lot of you don’t even know what they’re saying or talking about,” he said.
The legislators who voted against the amendment were Harriet Cornell, Michael Grant, Jay Hood, Nancy Low-Hogan, Aney Paul, Philip Soskin and Alden Wolfe.
With the assault weapons portion of the resolution left in, eight voted against it. Those who voted against the resolution were Legislators Sparaco, Soskin, Chris Carey, Toney Earl, Doug Jobson, Joseph Meyers, John Murphy and Ilan Schoenberger.
The resolution on the SAFE Act was brought to the Public Safety Committee last week and was sponsored by Day and Carey. At Tuesday’s meeting, Sparaco proposed to amend and replace the resolution, but didn’t give his changes to the other legislators until earlier Tuesday afternoon. Legislator Jay Hood, chair of the Public Safety Committee, originally didn’t accept the proposed amendment, saying he’d rather wait on it and vet the amendment in committee before voting on it.
The original resolution proposed a few changes to the SAFE Act, including:
- Active and retired law enforcement personnel will be exempt from provisions restricting magazine capacity to no more than seven rounds
- Common sense exemptions for law enforcement training should be included in sale of ammunition
- Definition of assault weapon is too broad and needs to be more clearly defined
- Local law enforcement should be fully included in review and implementation of school safety plans
Sparaco said his amendment builds off the original resolution. In his amendment, Sparaco asked the state legislature to hold public hearings on gun violence.
While Tuesday’s meeting wasn’t a public hearing, every legislature meeting has 40 minutes in the agenda for public comments. At the meeting, 23 people spoke during the public comments section, all of them speaking about against the SAFE Act. Former legislator Gerold Bierker said the laws shouldn’t come after guns, but instead deal with the debilitated underfunded mental health system and lax judicial activity.
“Incarcerate bad guys and leave law-abiding citizens alone,” he said.
Stan Pascoo, president of the United Sportsmen Association of Rockland, said the cities with the strictest gun laws also have the most gun-related killings.
“Chicago last year had over 500, New York City just shy of 500. That’s 1,000 in two cities,” he said. “In an active warzone, like Afghanistan, there were about 300 combat deaths, so it must be safer to be in Afghanistan than in a gun-free zone like Chicago.”
John Pinto, president of the Rockland County Shields, said the SAFE Act’s lack of an exclusion for new gun restrictions in regards to law enforcement is an oversight that needs correcting.
“This needs to be changed, it needs to be adopted to respect our police officers and law enforcement members,” he said. “I can’t speak for all the non law enforcement members here, we’re on the same page, but I’m speaking for my members.”
Even those who didn’t sign up to speak let their voices be heard at the meeting. Throughout the meeting, many times people in the crowd yelled out, sometimes in support and others times in defense, while legislators were speaking. At one point Hood told the crowd that every time someone yelled out a snide comment from the crowd, it hurt the eloquent and thoughtful reasoning many of their peers were giving up at the podium earlier in the meeting.
Not all legislators support Sparaco’s amendment, though. The amendment itself passed, 11-4, with Cornell, Hood, Grant and Low-Hogan voting against. The amended resolution passed, 10-5, with Cornell, Grant, Hood, Low-Hogan and Wolfe voting against it. Wolfe said he could’ve gotten behind the original resolution, but felt the amended one strayed too far from his thoughts on the issue.
“I don’t have the ability to offer any amendment to this resolution as it’s currently drafted that would make it satisfactory for me,” he said.
He cited a few specific problems he had with the amendment, including wording in the amendment that implied the state legislators were forced to vote on the SAFE Act, and registering firearms is an unnecessary burden. He also took issue with a clause in the amended resolution that asked members who represent any or all parts of Rockland at the state level to write in with their views on the SAFE Act.
Well said!
“By the 2008 report, hospital emergency rooms crowded with mentally ill waiting for psychiatric beds had become commonplace. Police officers and sheriffs reported increased time responding to calls associated with individuals with untreated mental illness. Jails and prisons had become overcrowded with mentally ill , most of them charged with crimes committed while experiencing symptoms of untreated illness, many of which were “public nuisance” offenses . Felonies committed by this population included a small BUT growing number of violent acts, such as MASS MURDERS, that made spectacular headlines and contributed to stigma against individuals with mental illness of all kinds. Given the severity of the situation in 2005 and anecdotal evidence that public bed populations had declined even further since then, likely increasing the consequences of untreated severe mental illness, the Treatment Advocacy Center undertook the current study using 2010 data that became available in May, 2012.” “It is also instructive to compare the bed population in 2010 with 1955, the peak year of psychiatric hospitalization. Based on the U.S. population at both times, the per capita bed population in 1955 was more than 300 beds per 100,000 people in the U.S., i.e., more than 20 times the ratio in 2010.” http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/no_room_at_the_inn-2012.pdf
SCHOOL LOCK DOWN IS NOT A SAFETY PLAN: http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/02/28/part-ii-school-lock-down-is-not-a-safety-plan/
FYI your school plan is ridiculous. Having hundreds of kids trying to exit a school in a mass panic will only add to the death toll. Stick to selling arms on the Patch and leave school policy to the professionals.
You're not starting to follow the typical Liberal way of handling a debate are you ? --when they don't have the facts and can't prove their point , they resort to insults ...I don't think you'd have to use those tactics though because , you have the facts to prove you're right ..don't you :) Well then , let's Leave your paranoia out of this for a minute and , show me some of those facts/studies ( with links ) that prove that all CCW's are "ego driven gun toting narcissists" Also , let's avoid private studies done by or connected to the Brady group or MoveOn . Stick with Government Studies that are fair and unbiased.
Your Post expanded the issue from Schools to the “safety of everyday citizens” Anti Gun people don’t know what CCW is (you probably even had to look it up) so , I’ll explain –it refers to a Citizen Licensed for Concealed Carry …also referred to by some as “Gun Toting”. Since you did not differentiate between an armed Criminal, armed Lunatic or Legally Licensed Civilian, what you wrote clearly labels anyone carrying a Firearm as “gun toting narcissists who think life is a Bruce Willis movie. ..You said it , I called you on it , then you deny saying it--This is starting to sound like a Monty Python skit. Did you ever see this -- http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/i-swear-it-s-like-being-in-a-monty-python-sketch
I would suggest that you read my comments again, but it seems you are more interested in telling me what I believe rather than 'listening' to what I actually said.
And then you can explain how based on that post , it was "pretty obvious" that you knew what a CCW was ...a Criminal wouldn't have a concealed Firearm would they ?
You obviously have good intentions & would like 2 see a measure of control 2 help save lives, especially innocent lives. I would also like 2 see the same thing. I think that having 2 register rifles & background checks 4 private sales makes sense. But the laws rushed in by Cuomo r wrong. There is no provision in the laws about passing on rifles in the event of the owners death which means that if you die, the gun has to be surrendered?So my kids can't own them,or sell them 2 receive fair value?just 1 example of how ridicules some of the new laws r. Cuomo is yelling bout gun control 2 get people rallied behind him,truth is he is doing it in the wrong way. The crimes committed with these types of rifles is the exception not the rule.Obama talks about the crime of that innocent girl being gunned down not far from where he lives in Chicago, & it is awful, but there r restrictions in Chicago & it doesnt stop criminals,it infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens 2 protect themselves there. A criminal can break into a home with an ar15, pocket full of 30 round mags,&u cant shoot that criminal with a hand gun?u would be arrested 4 even having a hand gun. This is asinine.Problem is the restrictions would only work if the criminals adhered 2 it.This ONLY effects people who r willing 2 abide by the law. This sucks and needs to be fixed
The mass shootings that Cuomo is trying to prevent were not performed by known criminals, but by (until then) law abiding citizens who had access to assault style weapons with large capacity clips. His laws will not necessarily prevent such crimes, but may help to reduce the severity. However until groups like the NRA put aside their dogmatic position and come to the table, then it is up to people like Cuomo to take action, however flawed it may be. Because to do nothing is insanity.
All, without exception, of the anti 2A rhetoric posted here is wrong, factually and morally. "assault" and "defense" are human behaviors, that an inanimate object is unable to perform without the hand it is in. None of the proposed laws will stop the behavior nor the object because criminals do not obey laws. Every victim of a criminal use of a firearm had one thing in common, they were all unarmed, and in context, disarmed by their government. Commonsense absent of reality is useless. To do more of the same and expect a different result is the definition of insanity.
Commonsense says we have comprehensive background checks to prevent criminals getting hold of guns through loopholes. Common sense says that we limit clip size to reduce the impact of mass shootings and to make sure our police are not outgunned. Common sense says that we can have a rational conversation and enact gun regulation that protects the second amendment and reduces gun related crime. Every illegal gun was once a legal gun and to not enact laws to prevent criminals from getting guns is true insanity.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
If you live in Rockland County and YOU SUPPORT the NY SAFE Act, sign this petition and tell Rockland Legislators they should too. Last month in a 10-5 vote a resolution to repeal the stricter gun laws was passed. Gun rights groups are mobilized and vocal - but you can make your position heard too. These are the legislators who are IN SUPPORT of the stricter gun laws Harriet Cornell, Alden White, Jay Hood, Jr. Michael Grant and Nancy Low-Hogan. http://signon.org/sign/rockland-county-legislature
Your "demands" are based on fear - Our Rights are based on Facts. Look at how many NY Counties have passed Resolution AGAINST this Cuomo Law - http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/ . Find another "Think of the Babies" issue to Champion ...but study up on the issue before you do.
But none of that seems to concern you, instead you seem more concerned about your right to bear arms regardless of how may gun related deaths there are, more concerned about ,sell guns on the patch and relating fantasies about the r@pe of my daughter. Mele quotes 3/18 "if two drooling, armed miscreant r@pist entered his home in the dead of night, with the intent of r@ping his family,....." Mele on 12/21 on an article about gun control you posted this in response to a question about selling guns. "steve:...... do. Great period stuff. 914 329-xxxx feel free to call and I ll give you the details off line" MELE on 1/18 you posted a link on the Patch to your website where you were selling assault style weapons including the same one used in Newton. You are living proof of why we need commonsense gun regulation to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans.