Signs opposing the SAFE Act appear along roadsides and front lawns in Monroe and surrounding counties like patches of clover. And chances are you’ve driven behind vehicles with bumper stickers calling for the law’s repeal.
But signs supporting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signature gun-control legislation are harder to find. That doesn’t mean the controversial law, approved in 2013 and considered among the toughest gun-safety legislation in the nation, is unpopular with the general public. Far from it, says Lea Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. Barrett will be in Rochester next month.
A recent survey conducted by Sienna College Research Institute shows that 63 percent of New Yorkers support the SAFE Act, Barrett says, while 32 percent oppose it. Support is particularly strong among Democrats, women, and minorities. More than 60 percent of African Americans and 55 percent of Latinos support the law, Barrett says.
Regionally, however, the numbers change sharply. Only 25 percent of upstate residents support the SAFE Act, the poll says, while a solid 70 percent oppose it.
Barrett says that, in response to the poll, she’s visiting upstate cities to educate people about gun safety. She’s in the early stages of expanding her organization’s reach by forming new upstate chapters of the mostly downstate organization.
“We’re working on developing a more robust presence in Rochester and Buffalo,” Barrett says.
Formed in 1993 by a group of mothers galvanized by the shooting of a Brooklyn teacher, NYAGV was instrumental in the passage of the SAFE Act, Barrett says. The nonprofit has 10,000 members.
The idea that the SAFE Act is largely a political response to gun violence in New York City is inaccurate, she says.
“There is a problem here, but the problem is statewide and nationwide,” Barrett says.
She’ll speak at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, at the First Universalist Church, 150 South Clinton Avenue. The event is free and open to the public.
New Yorkers, like many people around the country, are fed up with gun violence, Barrett says. More than 1,010 people died by guns in 2010 — the most recent year that numbers are available from the Centers for Disease Control, she says.
The SAFE Act is reasonable and rational legislation, she says. And while there is some vocal opposition, she says, the law is working.
“It’s still in the early days; it’s only been 16 months,” Barrett says. “Yet we are seeing some good results from it. Incidents of gun violence have dropped by 4.5 percent since the SAFE Act was enacted.”
More than 2,000 people were charged with crimes under the SAFE Act between March 2013 and April 2014; 77.6 percent were charged with criminal possession of a firearm. The SAFE Act elevates the offense from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony.
Thirty-two people have been charged with possession of a weapon on school grounds — another Class E felony.
But Barrett says that educating people about the SAFE Act is difficult because of intimation and misinformation by the gun lobby.
Guns are the only consumer product exempt from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, she says, which is ironic considering their impact on public safety. This is why the SAFE Act is so vital, Barrett says.
“The new law requires background checks of all gun sales, including private sales, which was not the case before the SAFE Act was passed,” she says. “It closes the private sales loophole so that any gun sales between private individuals except family members must be subject to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check. And that is very significant. If you’re trying to reduce gun violence, you have to keep them out of the wrong hands.”
But the most controversial part of the law deals with assault weapons. Assault weapons owned before the SAFE Act went into effect in January 2013 had to be registered within a year and must be re-certified every five years.
The SAFE Act initially limited magazine capacity to seven, but the law was amended. Magazines can now have a capacity for 10 rounds, but can only contain seven at any time.
“It’s important to limit the magazines so that if you are in a situation where an individual is committing mass murder, they will have to stop to change magazines,” Barrett says. “There’s an opportunity there to stop them from continuing the rampage.”
The SAFE Act also requires background checks on ammunition sales and creates a database for sellers of ammunition. This helps law enforcement identify gun traffickers, Barrett says.
And the “Webster provision” makes murder of a first responder a Class A-1 felony, with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. The name comes from a 2012 ambush in which two firefighters were killed.
NYAGV is now focusing its support on new bills, particularly those ensuring greater protection of children. Gun violence is the second leading cause of death among children and teens in the US, with one child killed or injured every 30 minutes, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
NYAGV supports the Child Access Prevention or Safe Storage bill, also called Nicholas’s Law. In 2010, 12-year-old Nicholas Naumkin was shot in the head while playing at a friend’s house. The gun was not kept in a secure place, Barrett says.
“We secure medicine cabinets and we put gates at the top of stairs for our children’s protection,” she says. “And yet the one consumer product specifically designed to kill people is too often the one we don’t feel it’s important to secure.”
Nickolas’s Law would require safe storage of all guns. The bill is at the committee level in the State Assembly, and there is no matching Senate version.
Despite the opposition’s claims that the SAFE Act infringes on the Second Amendment and that its real purpose is to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, the law has withstood two court challenges. The SAFE Act is not about taking people’s guns away, Barrett says. It’s about protecting people, she says, and requiring responsible gun ownership.
“The Supreme Court decision held that the Second Amendment says, ‘the individual has the right to possess a firearm irrespective of whether you’re in the military or not.'” Barrett says. “But they also said, ‘Like most rights, this right is not unlimited; it is not absolute.'”
This article appears in May 28 – Jun 3, 2014.
I do not support the NY SAFE ACT. I find the majority of the provisions in the law unconstitutional and am certain they will have no positive impact on gun violence. The provisions within this act are simply a knee jerk reaction with no empirical evidence to back up any assertion that lives will be saved. In fact, only evidence to the contrary exists. If you want to take away someone’s rights, you need to prove there will be a benefit to society in doing so. I have not seen that proof.
I find the fact that I cannot hand my rifles down to my own children unacceptable. The fact that I have to register rifles I already lawfully own is unacceptable. I feel as though I’m being treated like a sex offender and it’s highly insulting. The fact that NYS is further limiting the number of rounds in a rifle or pistol is proof that the gun control agenda is progressively escalating infringements upon our second amendment rights. Standard capacity in many of the now banned rifles is 30 rounds. NYS had already limited the rounds to ten and is now further limiting them down to seven (then back to 10 by court order). There were already limits on cosmetic features which are also being further limited down to none. What’s next, background checks for ammo purchases? Oh wait, that was included as well.
I and many like me will fight this new law with all of the resources at our disposal. The manner in which this law was enacted and it’s over zealous provisions has polarized opposition to this law. This of course is going to hamper any real attempts at making life saving changes. This law was a mistake, and it needs to be repealed. Let’s focus on the real problems like our revolving door justice system and our mental health issues.
The SAFE act will gone, end of story and hopefully NYC ceded from the rest of state. Ms. Barrett is just another tool for Bloomberg and all they seek is total disarmament of the public and government control of the masses by the elite, the end of democracry. The law is a failure, all those charged under the law were already criminals in the commission of a crime and would have been arrested anyway despite the law, so stop the lies! Lawful gun owners will never comply with any unconstitutional law, not to today, not tommorrow, not ever! Move to North Korea if you don’t like it.
stupid fearful people blame guns, really stupid fearful people join nyagv.
L.G.B. is bought and paid for by Bloomberg to push his gun control agenda. Why would anyone support a super rich downstate white liberal who things he should be able to dictate the lives of all NYers?
Misinformed and fearful people blame guns. Willfully ignorant people join anti gun right groups like nyagv in order to further spread their lies and agenda. (which neither save lives or prevent violence) this leah woman should be ashamed.
1010 people died by the gun in 2010. How many people were killed by drunk drivers? How many were killed with a kitchen knife? These numbers mean nothing by themselves. The safe act is not the answer. Swift and just punishment for any crime against another person, without interference from liberal bleeding heart individuals is the answer. My firearms have killed no one and to punish me for the actions of the irresponsible is unjust. The safe act has to be repealed, we want our freedom back!
Truth be told, all she stands for is total disarmament of the public. I had an argument with her via email . I told her that the UNSAFE Act is a form of registration/confiscation. She steadfastly denies. Once I informed her that certain firearms that meet a “certain” criteria (features that make them “assault” rifles) need to be registered with the state, have to be sold OUT of State, or turned into the police if the owner dies (cannot be left to someone), is a form of confiscation. In essance, in a few short decades, these “certain firearms” can no longer exist in NY State. Her response was that only “these” types of firearms have no place in NY or anywhere else, but it wasn’t really confiscation. Told her to look in the mirror and say that, because no one else is going to believe her. I’ll be there on the 17th of June to protest.
This will all be struck down as you are forcing us to go to higher courts to fight for our god given and Constitution given and State Constitution given rights to self protection . As we have to spend millions upon millions of dollars to bring this to the highest courts this is where it will be set free and when it gets to that place you will be very sorry that you even opened up this can of worms. When we find an honest judge who interprets the Constitution in the way it should be read you will end up nullifying the corrupt Sullivan gun laws that have held us as slaves for a hundred years and on the federal level where concealed carry will be come reciprocal in all 50 states just like driving a car. It only missed passing by 2 votes last time it was brought to the floor for a vote so heed my warning you asked for this and it will be stuck where the sun doesnt shine within the next year or so then everyone will be carrying and you Hoplophobic left wing nuts will live in terror every day. Remember you started this and we will finish this.
New York State Attorney General: Eric T. Schneiderman failed to prosecute Mark Kelly for unlicensed possession of a handgun when Kelly and his wife were at a gun show in Saratoga Springs. Anyone else either would have been refused permission to handle the firearm or arrested.
Meanwhile in NYC (JFK Airport) today an American citizen was charged with possession of a high capacity magazine which was uploaded and in his checked bag. The DA requested a $50,000 bail. Gun rights groups will probably not jump to defend him though because he is a Muslim that was traveling to Yemen. Guess he should have flew out of Atlanta.
And the (un)SAFE act would not have prevented the latest manic massacre.
First of all the polls mean nothing unless you know the exact wording. I’ve talked to a lot of people who say they approve of the act because they support background checks. But when I ask them about the other 55 laws of the act they shrug their shoulders and don’t know anything about it. If you want to pass a law for background checks do it, but let the law stand on its own and be enacted through due process instead of sneaking it through in the middle of the night. And do it in a way that doesn’t amount to back door registration. Additionally, she says we upstaters don’t support the act so she’s making a trip up here to educate us on gun safety. I’m all for gun safety and so is everybody I know. But the unSAFE Act has nothing to do with gun safety. I also like how the only parts of the law they say are working are the ones about increased penalties for gun crimes. That’s the one thing us gun nuts always say we need. But again, it doesn’t need to be tied to 55 other poorly worded and poorly conceived laws. Like making it impossible to buy ammo for my hunting rifle. Nobody sells it locally because all the manufacturers only make it once a year and when it’s gone it’s gone. Yet I can’t buy it online either. So when Emperor Andy says I don’t need 10 boolits to kill a deah, he really means I have to drive to Vermont or Pennsylvania to buy 10 boolits to kill a deah. Yeah, that makes us all safer.
Moonbat gun control logic.
Guns are evil and cause crime, and if we take guns away from people who haven’t committed a crime, then criminals will also not have guns….somehow.
Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we are certain will not enter “gun-free zones” for some reason…unless they do. Which proves that the problem is actually law-abiding gun owners somehow or other. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law.
Silly woman: guns are not violent…it’s the criminals and crazies who are! More Guns = Less Crime is proven fact as exhaustively analyzed in John Lott’s book of that title. Let’s not allow low-information loonies like Ms. Barrett create free fire zones for all the illegal gun owners who do not follow any laws.
“It’s important to limit the magazines so that if you are in a situation where an individual is committing mass murder, they will have to stop to change magazines,” Barrett says. “There’s an opportunity there to stop them from continuing the rampage.”
That is the funniest, more ridiculous, saddest lie I have ever, ever, ever read. We all know criminals and the mentally insane obey laws. Lea Gunn Barrett might be the stupidest person in America.
What about Nancy Lanza, the mother of 20 year-old Adam? The guns that were used at Sandy Hook Elementary School were LEGALLY purchased by Nancy Lanza. Those purchases should NOT have happened.
I support the SAFE act.
“It’s important to limit the magazines so that if you are in a situation where an individual is committing mass murder, they will have to stop to change magazines,” Barrett says. “There’s an opportunity there to stop them from continuing the rampage.”
WRONG. See the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA
We are tired of your snarky, self-righteous elitism. You don’t understand our way of life, you don’t care that you don’t understand our way of life and you simply want to eradicate our culture from the face of the earth. Make all the laws you want for NYC, I’ll happily avoid it; but don’t come up here as a Bloomberg shill and tell us how to live our lives.
Chicago – City w/ most restrictive gun laws in the Country, highest murder rate.
California – State w/ most restrictive gun laws in the Country, site of the crime that these radicals are currently exploiting.
Gun control does NOT work. The gov’ts own statistics prove it.
The gun-grabbers are quick to point out the number of firearm homicides in the US, BUT if you look at death rate the US does NOT stand out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
We keep hearing from the gun grabbers about how terrible the United States is in terms of gun deaths. Fact is per capita the US does NOT stand out. When you consider nations by intentional homicide rate, the US DOES stand out; as one of the LOWER rates in the WORLD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
“I was so mad, I forgot to even mention that I am required to get a LICENSE to use MY OWN BUICK, THAT I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! This is obscene! And I can’t decide what to put IN MY OWN BODY before using that Buick — DWI, DUI — UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I used that word on the Internet, therefore, it is so!
Cuomo wants to try and tell you that my Buick is a “land yacht” just because it has a fine leather interior and lots of shiny chrome. Looks like someone who doesn’t know SQUAT about Buicks making emotional decisions based on cosmetic elements. “Land yacht” is a nonsense term made up by members of the liberal media, DemocRAT politicians and RINOS to besmirch fine Detroit iron.
report 8 likes, 9 dislikes like dislike
Posted by BUICK RIGHTS on 05/28/2014 at 11:15 AM
New York State forces me to register my car THAT I ALREADY OWN AND PAID FOR, and even have it INSPECTED by so-called “mechanics” every once in a while to make sure it has features THOSE PEOPLE have decided are necessary, like so-called “brakes” and “tires.” All this just because my car goes really fast, and if I lose control of it, it could kill me and a bunch of other people.
WHEN WILL THE NONSENSE END?! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE — CUOMO WANTS TO TAKE YOUR BUICKS!
I find this to be unconstitutional, and since I used the word “unconstitutional” on the Internet, it must be so!”
I love this guy, he has articulated exactly how I feel. I hate that the Constitution includes provisions regulating a piece of property, which at the time was semi-necessary to protect oneself from wild animals and possible invaders. My dream scenario would be that all guns were destroyed and each person was given a single-shot musket, which is what those who wrote the 2nd Amendment were thinking of when they gave the right to bear arms, not high-powered, high-capacity semi-automatic rifles.
Those terrible ” high capacity assault weapons” are just the worst. Anyone who owns one of those is prob actually a serial killer waiting to strike and should be watched carefully by the NSA.
“It’s important to limit the magazines so that if you are in a situation where an individual is committing mass murder, they will have to stop to change magazines,” Barrett says. “There’s an opportunity there to stop them from continuing the rampage.”
My question: Why would a person intent on mass murder care about obeying this law?
trust me…all that oppose the law are extremely educated and informed on the provisions of this piece of toilet paper. They also know everything about gun safety and handling of firearms….if there are any needs for education, the ones who support this law could certainly learn a lot from people who actually own guns. Maybe we should host a “take a liberal shooting day”
If Lea wants to teach gun safety, she should become an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor and teach gun safety. Here is a simple test. Ask her if she supports teaching the Eddie Eagle program in schools. The answer will assuredly be “no.” She opposes teaching kids “stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult” – a simple program that can save lives. She opposes it because she has no interest in safety. What she is doing now has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making it more difficult and perilous to be a gun owner. She knows that she can’t control criminals. She cannot emotionally deal with that fact. So, rather than admit to herself that it is impossible to do so and spend her time productively, working to give police and prosecutors better tools to put bad guys in jail, she has projected her emotional plight onto legal gun owners, because they are an easier target, since they obey the law. Succeeding in passing a law which punishes law-abiding gun owners is more acceptable to her, psychologically, then admitting that we can only punish criminals, we can’t stop them. Unfortunately, she has lost her understanding of what an innocent person is. To her, only a person who is disarmed is innocent. She has been doing it so long, that she has lost that perspective. Tragically, she will continue to waste her time going after the wrong people – people who need to be able to defend themselves and their families. To her it has become okay to sacrifice innocent people to accomplish a phantom objective – a sad and destructive consequence.
There is a difference between gun safety and gun grabbing…the law abiding gun owners know and follow all the gun safety guidelines, it’s part of being a responsible gun owner! The criminals however are the ones who do not know or follow them, that is the problem. So tell me how taking guns and making these ridiculous laws is going to make any difference, when the criminals still won’t abide by them!
I cannot find any specific section of the NY SAFE Act that would have prevented the Santa Barbara shooting. The facts at this time are:
1. The shooting took place in a state that already bans high capacity magazines, just like NY.
2. Elliot Rodger possessed only ten round magazines, just like NY.
3. Elliot Rodger passed background checks before purchasing each handgun, just like NY.
4. The police interviewed Elliot Rodger in person, yet no action was taken.
The NY SAFE act was a knee-jerk response by Cuomo to the Newtown shootings (never letting a good crisis go to waste) so he could be the first to “get tough” on guns for his political aspirations. It was passed quickly, literally under cover of dark, without any discussion or debate by a bunch of legislators who know almost nothing about firearms. It’s no wonder the law is flawed.
The definition of features that make a gun an “assault rifle” – and thereby illegal – were shown to be illogical with the creation of a rifle that is completely compliant with the NY SAFE act and yet performs exactly like ‘banned’ assault rifles (Black Rain Ordnance Neosho Mo.) Memo to Cuomo et al: duh.
Speaking of flaws in the law, there is the Erie County man who was wrongly and publicly accused of being mentally ill and on anti-anxiety medication by the NY State Police who forced him to surrender all of his firearms as well as his pistol permit. His property was eventually returned to him and the State Police still haven’t explained contradictions in their side of the story. He has filed a lawsuit against the state for violating his rights and his privacy under the federal HIPAA law.
As for public support for the SAFE Act, if a person doesn’t exercise a particular right it’s probable that they don’t care if that right is restricted. The gun control law affects only those who wish to legally exercise their 2nd amendment. If you don’t care to own a gun you don’t care about how difficult the state makes it to own one. Criminals don’t care how difficult it is to legally obtain a gun either.
“If you are for gun control, then you’re not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You’ll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it’s not that you’re anti-gun, because you’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns, so you’re very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there’s no such thing as gun control, there’s only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.” -Stefan Molyneux
“The SAFE Act initially limited magazine capacity to seven, but the law was amended. Magazines can now have a capacity for 10 rounds, but can only contain seven at any time.”
So the good guys (law abiding gun owners) will limit themselves to 7 rounds, only to be out-gunned by bad guys who won’t abide by either the 10 round magazine rule or the 7 round limit. What kind of sense does this make?
In my first & last attempt top talk to NYAGV, the gentleman (and I use that word loosely) said Pataki CoBIS would have many hits of violent gun owners within 5 years. 12 years out, only 1 hit, and it didn’t pan out, because the gun had been reported stolen. CoBIS proved that registering the guns of law abiding gun owners doesn’t do spit to stop crime. It does, however, make elites who wish to disarm the populace so only crooks, cops, and military, have guns. But, if military, or para-military (cops, except elected sheriff’s and their deputies) groups, are used against the populace, this is unconstitutional, and illegal (Habeus Corpus). Thus, State Police, and local constabularies legislated for mayor’s to run, have no right within the U.S. to do anything. If policing is needed, the sheriff & his/her deputies need to take charge. If localities wish more police, they should pay higher taxes for more sheriff deputies. The sheriff is answerable to the people. The mayor’s, and CoP’s, are not. In fact, unionization of Police has resulted in their number growth, even tho’ they are, as I noted, illegitimate, and illegal.
Pataki CoBIS cost NYS $4M/yr. for 12 years plus Total was well over $48M. How many more deputies, how many more crimes solved, if that money were used appropriately, instead of being used for an unconstitutional law?
Since the federal government is tasked with protecting & defending the Constitution, why are 150 NYS legislators not now in jail for violation of it’s Second Amendment provision? I’ll tell you why. Because the feds are just as into the scheme as the locals, and it’s not just Dems, but both major parties who need the anti-constitutional whack jobs removed, by force if necessary, through law, if sheriff’s and their deputies would actually uphold the law. Instead they run around saying (U.N.)S.A.F.E. is unconstitutional, but arresting based on its provisions. Why do these legislators not sit in jail today for their treason? Where are the sheriff’s on this? Almost every county in NYS has taken a vote stating the law is bogus, and not one sheriff, or his deputies have arrested one perpetrator of the crime of treason since the January 15 vote on this unconstitutional civil rights violation. I say sheriff’s must shit, or get off the pot. If you aren’t willing to go to Albany to make the arrests, then you shouldn’t be in office. That’s all there is to it. UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION! It’s you sworn duty!
Thank you for your participation. We are no longer accepting comments on this story.
Chris Fien
City news editor