Buffalo News Columnist very good NY SAFE Article

[BerettaGuy]

Rod Watson: I stand with Collins on SAFE Act 'abomination'

Last Winter we were shooting against another club in the Niagara Frontier League. The guy next to me was a Black guy. He handed me his score card prior to the match and I noticed the name. I said are you the Buffalo News Rod Watson? He said yes. I thought Gee I thought being an anti gun liberal freak was a prerequisite at the Buffalo News.
Nice guy and a shooter.
Here he writes an excellent article articulating our plight and Cuomo's phoniness.
I hope he doesn't' get fired.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

It's time for an amendment to the Constitution that mandates states to adhere to the Bill of Rights as it's written (no more arguing over the placement of a fucking comma). Instead of states being able to pass laws stricter than the Feds as far as regulating rights, states should only be allowed to pass laws that are less strict than the Bill of Rights, IE) States are only allowed to expand on rights, not restrict. The Federal Bill of Rights is a bare minimum framework of basic human rights and the states are free to expand upon those rights not restrict beyond the bare minimum.

 

[Deplorable Me]

A few veteran members of SCOPE befriended Rod years ago and introduced him to shooting. Several years ago I met him at the annual SCOPE banquet. A ray of hope.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I'm stunned.

I thought all buffalo news columnists and reporters were far left whackos. I cancelled my subscription over their extreme political bias. I still don't agree with 95% of what rod Watson usually says but I applaud him here. Good for him for not toeing the company line. I might not usually agree with him but at least I can respect him.

 

[Saltwater60]

While I like getting rid of the safe act I don't like mandating states to do anything. Now the republicans are in control, but this opens the door for the dems to put limits on guns later down the road. Just like the dems opened the nuclear option for the republicans. I don't like messing with this stuff even though it may help us temporarily. I agree the Feds should maybe define an assault riffle and makes states accountable to that standard, but anything else scares me.

 

[BerettaGuy]

While I like getting rid of the safe act I don't like mandating states to do anything. Now the republicans are in control, but this opens the door for the dems to put limits on guns later down the road. Just like the dems opened the nuclear option for the republicans. I don't like messing with this stuff even though it may help us temporarily. I agree the Feds should maybe define an assault riffle and makes states accountable to that standard, but anything else scares me.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to those provided for in the Constitution and its amendments, with all other powers being "reserved" to the individual states and "the people."

What part of "all other" don't they understand.
......and don't forget Amendment number 9

 

[BerettaGuy]

This is one of the best articles on NY FE that I have seen, so I will post the article here with all credit to Buffalo News' Rob Watson.
Hypocrisy never sounded so good.

But let’s not quibble now that Rep. Chris Collins has finally hit on something I can agree with: New York’s SAFE Act is a useless abomination.

From the silly attempt to limit magazine size to seven rounds (firearms manufacturers laughed!) to the so-called "assault weapons" ban that is actually just a cosmetic features ban, the law was always designed more for PR than anything else.

Like those commercials of yore encouraging kids to "Be the first on your block to ....", Gov. Andrew Cuomo wanted bragging rights for having the nation’s toughest gun control measure, as if banning bayonet mounts and thumbholes in the stock will stop crime. Some provisions may have real pros and cons and be worth debating. But in his overreach to ban all such features, Cuomo played to the crowd that doesn’t shoot and doesn’t know any better.

Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act would undo much of that foolishness by preventing states from putting any restrictions on long guns that exceed those imposed by federal law. That means, for instance, that AR-15s and AK-47s that function like any other rifle no longer would be deemed "assault rifles" just because they look scary.

Collins’ bill would not affect states’ ability to regulate handguns, meaning New Yorkers would still face interminable delays in getting a pistol permit. They also still would have to get the permit before being allowed to touch a gun and actually learn to shoot. To understand how ludicrous that is, imagine getting a driver’s license before ever practicing how to drive. This is what passes for "common sense" gun control in New York.

But the biggest problem with the SAFE Act, and every other such law, is that we have free travel between states. As The Buffalo News documented in its 2005 series "The Damage Done," homegrown thugs just drive down the highway to states like Ohio and Georgia and bring back whatever guns they want for use or sale on Buffalo’s streets.

Yet the SAFE Act merely hassles New York’s law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to prevent such trafficking. The most it can do is tack on an additional charge when some hoodlum shoots at someone – as if murder or attempted murder isn’t already a crime.

That’s why a federal response makes sense. States are limited in what they can do, and New York already was doing all it reasonably could before piling on with the SAFE Act.

The irony, of course, is to hear a Republican like Collins argue that the feds should step in – even if it means doing less, not more. This is someone who rails against the "federal government knows best" approach, yet now he wants Washington to overrule New York. Apparently, just as some people employ situational ethics, he employs situational federalism.

But when it comes to the SAFE Act, at least he’s right – even if political hurdles mean his measure may never become law.

Other article from 2015 SAFE Act is off-target on basic rights