9/25/2014 Frank Miniter – Forbes

With the midterms just over a month away New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending at least $50 million to make his gun-control agenda part of this election. His gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety has endorsed more than 100 federal and state candidates. They are also running television commercials, holding events and pushing their studies into the newsrooms of a mostly favorable press.

John Feinblatt, Everytown’s president, told USA Today, “We want gun safety to be an issue that people vote on.”

John R. Lott, Jr. says he’s fine with that statement. He just wants people to know the truth about what really reduces violence before they vote. He says, “I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.”

Before getting to the inside story behind the politics, the piles of money being used to shape public opinion and to how the truth is stubbornly winning the debate despite—or because of—Bloomberg’s spin, I’d like to tell you how I first met John R. Lott, Jr. He is an important voice in this debate and this anecdote shows what kind of researcher he is.

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

They were both so baffled with each other that, after an awkward silence, the liberal author shrugged and moved away.

Lott, of course, entered the national stage in 1998 with his groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime. The book details his research that found that, despite what people are often told, violent crime rates actually tend to go down when states pass “shall-issue” concealed-carry laws. (Shall-issue laws force a licensing agent to give anyone a concealed-carry permit to carry a handgun as long as the individual passing certain criteria as stipulated by law.)

As soon as the book was published a lot of academics made it their mission to prove Lott to be the fraud they were sure he must be. The thing is, the researchers kept finding that Lott is right.

A study by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell that was published in Econ Journal Watch in January 2009, for example, looked into Lott’s findings and determined: “Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.”

To continue his detailed search for the truth about guns in America Lott founded the Crime Prevention Research Center about a year ago. Lott has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University and Rice University. He has a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

Lott says a few foundations and some individuals donated “a few hundred thousand dollars” to get his foundation started. His nonprofit “has 501(C)(3) status and does not accept donations from gun or ammunition makers or organizations such as the NRA.”

Lott told me, “The NRA and other gun-rights groups are doing a lot of important things, but we decided to fill an influential niche by not taking money from either side.

“Still,” Lott said, “honest research leads to real answers—not the political spin Bloomberg’s groups prefer.” Lott says because of this “the gun-control groups don’t want an honest debate. I’ve challenged Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun-rights groups [Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns] to debates many times but they always ignore me.”

I’d found the same thing. While doing the investigative reporting for my book The Future of the Gun I spent a lot of time with police officers, gun-rights lobbyists, inner-city gang members, public-health experts, engineers at firearms manufacturers, victims of criminals with guns, heroes who’d stopped a bad guy with a gun … but though I tried and tried Bloomberg’s group wouldn’t even answer an email.

When I told this to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, he said, “If the gun-control groups can’t control the messaging they won’t even talk to you.” Gottlieb knows all about this, as he’s been publically asking Bloomberg and others who fund anti-gun-freedom legislation to debate him for years.

The only responses Lott has gotten from Bloomberg’s people have been some “snarky Tweets from Shannon Watts,” says Lott. Watts is the founder of Moms Demand Action, a campaign funded by Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund.

Bloomberg’s groups might not feel they have to respond because they already have much of the media behind them.

Lott said, “When Bloomberg’s group puts out a press release they get huge coverage from the media and little critical analysis of their claims. When we do research that shows Bloomberg’s group is blatantly wrong we get coverage from FOX News and some other media, but the networks, CNN, the Washington Post and so on often ignore us. When those mainstream outlets do quote our studies they typically include the views of someone from the gun-control groups. I don’t mind that, but why aren’t they being as critical of the gun-control groups? Those groups have official ideological agendas.”

Meanwhile, the anti-gun groups have found some very wealthy people to fund them. CNN reported that Harvard University’s School of Public Health is receiving $350 million donation to study “gun violence” and other “complex health threats challenging the U.S. and the world” from the Morningside Foundation. The descendants of Hong Kong real estate tycoon T.H. Chan run this foundation. Also, Bloomberg has donated $350 million to Johns Hopkins University’s School of Public Health and, according to the Washington Post, Bloomberg “has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune” to build Everytown for Gun Safety. Meanwhile, the Democracy Alliance, backed by George Soros, is giving millions to a variety of groups that support gun control and other “progressive” causes.

On the pro-gun side most of the money is coming from the grassroots. There are estimated to be 100 million gun owners in America. About 5 million of them are members of the National Rifle Association. Millions more are members of other gun-rights groups and gun clubs. These are the people who fund the NRA and these are the people who vote this issue. Though there are wealthy individuals on the gun-rights side, it’s not a stretch to say a few wealthy, out-of-touch billionaires are trying to disarm the people. To accomplish this they have to sway the people to vote away their freedom. This would be democracy at work if it were an honest exchange of ideas leading into another election, but too often the media is simply printing Bloomberg’s studies as if they are not from group’s with official ideological positions.

Lott said, “Still, the truth does have a way of getting through.”

For example, when anti-gun groups and politicians began saying that 40 percent of gun sales are done without background checks Lott dug into the numbers and found that President Barack Obama got it all wrong when he said, “As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check.”

Lott found that the 40 percent figure comes from a 251-person study covering gun purchases during 1991 to 1994. “Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act that started the National Instant Background Check System took effect on February 28, 1994.”

The many anti-gun groups who used this figure also failed to note that the vast majority of these gun sales involved within-family inheritances and gifts. “And,” Lott said, “That survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the ‘gun show loophole.’”

In this case the claim was so egregious that Washington Post’s fact checker weighed in and gave Obama and the many anti-gun groups using this 40 percent figure three Pinocchios. The Post cited the problems Lott noted, criticized the loaded wording of the study and a lot more.

Meanwhile, after Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety put out an info-graphic claiming there had been 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012, Lott and other researchers looked into the claim. They soon found that Everytown inflated the statistic by “including suicides, accidents, incidents related to criminal activity (e.g. – drug dealing or robbery), and incidents that took place outside of school hours or were unconnected to members of any school community,” reported the CATO Institute. For its statistics the CATO Institute relied on numbers from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2013 “Indicators of School Crime and Safety” report.

There are a lot of other examples showing how often the anti-gun movement misuses and spins data. Lott helped to blow holes in Bloomberg’s groups figures on how many mass killers have mental illnesses; his research has helped to explain how gun control made Chicago’s murder rate skyrocket; and he has shown what the political term “universal background checks” really means.

Lott says, “We’re not just responding to errors and lies propagated by the anti-gun movement; we’re also doing new research to inject truth into this debate. It’s critical that we do. I can’t find a Bloomberg study without a lot of errors. We need to push back with honest research. If we don’t people will believe the trumped-up studies from the anti-gun groups. The result of what could happen then can be seen in places like Chicago.”

As the truth has come out on the statistics and studies being pushed by Bloomberg’s groups a lot of mayors have left Bloomberg’s groups Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). So many, in fact, Bloomberg was compelled to start a new group and pushed MAIG under its umbrella. Bloomberg also lost in Colorado and more recently he failed to unseat Sheriff David Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County, Wis. In both of those political battles guns were a central issue.

In 2013 gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by about 7.4 to 1 on TV advertising. This was largely because of Bloomberg’s massive anti-gun war chest. Guns have not been a big issue nationally in this election cycle, but the gun issue is influencing voters in places like Washington State, Colorado, New York and Maryland. These contests will affect the momentum, one way or the other, of how the gun issue affects the next presidential election.

By Deroy Murdock October 29, 2014 6:20 PM National Review Online

When it comes to race cards, Letitia James played the ace of spades.

“We have a far-Right Republican, someone who reminds me of Bull Connor in the 1960s,” New York’s Public Advocate said Saturday at a Bedford-Stuyvesant rally for the Women’s Equality Party. “His name is Rick Astorino, and he is more aligned with the Tea Party than our values,” she added.

James most likely meant GOP gubernatorial nominee Rob, not Rick, Astorino.

In a truly baseless, hideous, and racially incendiary rhetorical flourish, James compared Westchester’s county executive to Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor. As Birmingham, Alabama’s Commissioner of Public Safety in 1963, Connor notoriously deployed fire hoses and German Shepherds against peaceful marchers for desegregation.

“All you gotta do is tell them you’re going to bring the dogs,” Connor said back at the time. “Look at ’em run. I want to see the dogs work.”

Like James and Governor Andrew Cuomo — who stood beside her and has not condemned her slurs — Bull Connor was a proud, lifelong Democrat. In fact, he was a member of the Democratic National Committee. He also led Alabama’s delegation as it stormed out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention after it adopted a pro-civil-rights platform plank.

How did Rick, er, Rob Astorino trigger James’s outrageous outburst?

Westchester County is fighting off the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In what it calls a “grand experiment” that it aspires to roll out across America, HUD essentially aims to nationalize local land use and zoning laws to increase the prosperous suburb’s low-income housing and ethnic diversity.

“We are the fourth most diverse county in all of New York State,” Astorino tells me. “Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester.” What keeps minorities from some areas, he says, is not race, but income. Astorino sees dynamic growth and higher wages as the paths that they can follow into more exclusive addresses. As he puts it: “If you can afford a neighborhood, move into that neighborhood.”

This battle pre-dates Astorino’s tenure. Indeed, according to the New York Observer’s Will Bredderman, when none other than Cuomo advisor Larry Schwartz was Westchester’s deputy county executive, he denounced HUD’s “garbage lawsuit.”

Reasonable people can debate HUD’s policy. But James is not reasonable. Rather than explain why she supports this federal power grab, James swung into the race-baiting equivalent of DEFCON 1. Perhaps she hoped to energize turnout among black voters who may feel disappointed with Obama’s performance.

How despicable.

And how stupid.

James at least should have been savvy enough not to call a bigot a man with so many minority supporters.

If Astorino really were Bull Connor Jr. would he choose as his running mate New York State Sheriffs Association president Chris Moss, who is black? Indeed, Moss is now the first black Republican ever to run statewide in New York.

What sort of segregationist would appear in public to accept the endorsement of state senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a Hispanic Democrat from the non-lily-white Bronx? “In Rob Astorino, we will have a Governor who will be open to all New Yorkers,” Diaz recently e-mailed his constituents. “Women, Men, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Gay, Straight, Religious, Atheists, Conservative, and Liberal. He will never tell anyone they are not welcome in the State of New York.” In contrast, Cuomo last January announced that traditionalists, “if they are extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.’’

When he ran for reelection last year, Astorino earned praise from prominent blacks in Westchester.

“These are tight times, and Mr. Astorino works tirelessly to lessen the pain and support the neediest in our county,” said Bishop C. Nathan Edwers, president of United Black Clergy.

“Westchester County is best served by a leader who understands that safe communities, excellent schools, and good paying jobs are all derived from a steady, responsible leader with the right values,” declared Ronald H. Williams, president of the New Rochelle NAACP. “Rob Astorino has shown those values, and I urge my membership and other Westchester voters — of all political parties — to give him a second term in November.”

“I am a lifelong Democrat and a committed community leader,” said the Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson. “I’m backing Rob Astorino because he has been accessible and supportive of our community.” As chairman of the National Action Network, Dr. Richardson is Al Sharpton’s boss.

Such alliances, and Astorino’s campaigning in minority neighborhoods — including stumping in his fluent Spanish in Hispanic precincts — helped Astorino win four more years last November. He secured 25 percent of black ballots and a majority of Hispanic votes.

Clearly, James’s comments were pure bull.

Because of City Hall’s line of succession, Letitia James is just one heartbeat away from becoming mayor of New York. So, three cheers for Bill de Blasio’s pulse.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. A version of this piece appears in the New York Post.

By Carl Campanile New York Post October 22, 2014

If this doesn’t rattle Gov. Cuomo, nothing will — he’s being accused of being a “big pussy” by the actor who played the mobster with that suggestive name on “The Sopranos.”

Bronx-born Vincent Pastore ­issued the hit job in a video blasting Cuomo for refusing to participate in a one-on-one television debate with Republican challenger Rob Astorino.

“Andrew Cuomo won’t debate Rob Astorino on TV one-on-one,” gripes Pastore in the 15-second video set to be posted to YouTube by Astorino backers.

“And they call me Big Pussy?” said Pastore, who played the New Jersey Mafioso Salvatore “Big Pussy” Bonpensiero on HBO’s “The Sopranos.”

Astorino’s campaign said it was not behind the video — but ­appreciated it.

“We were told of Mr. Pastore’s interest in speaking out through a Bronx Republican with whom he works. His interest in the race is greatly appreciated. There’s something to be said for plain speaking,” said Astorino spokesman Bill O’Reilly.

The video was to be released before the only scheduled ­gubernatorial debate, Wednesday in Buffalo.

Cuomo and Astorino are scheduled to take the stage with Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins and Libertarian Party standard-bearer Michael McDermott.

The Republican contender has been trying unsuccessfully for weeks to lure Cuomo into a one-on-one TV debate, where Astorino can try to score points with voters without the distraction of other candidates chiming in.

Vincent Pastore, who acted in “The Sopranos,” in his video message to the governor.
The Wednesday night showdown will be telecast statewide on PBS.

The “Big Pussy” video is clearly an attempt to try to shake up Cuomo before the key confrontation.

Pastore told The Post “I’ve never been an overly political guy, but what Andrew Cuomo’s doing is wrong.

“This is supposed to be a democracy,” he added. “Consider this video my contribution to the political process this year.”

Cuomo’s camp, meanwhile, basted the clip and Astorino for “appreciating” it.

“Astorino is so unhinged that his vulgarity and desperation are now obvious‎ to everyone,” said Cuomo campaign spokesman Matt Wing.

One GOP insider said the shot from The Sopranos actor may have hit close to the mark.

“Big Pussy raises a good point. Cuomo is playing it safe,” chuckled GOP consultant Ed Rollins.

“Gov. Cuomo should stand up and defend his record. The lack of debates make it look like he has something to hide, something he’s afraid of. It’s not that he doesn’t know state government.”

Astorino declined a one-on-one WNYC radio debate with the governor, charging that the Cuomo campaign was refusing to go before the TV cameras.

The Cuomo campaign countered that Astorino had his chance to go up directly against the governor and declined.

The most recent Quinnipiac University poll shows Cuomo leading Astorino by a commanding 55-34 percent.

Cuomo has an enormous fund-raising advantage, which has enabled him to overwhelm Astorino on the paid-ad airwaves.

By Aaron Short -New York Post – October 22, 2014

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara took an indirect swipe at Gov. Cuomo Wednesday, telling a radio interviewer that it takes independence and longevity by investigators to root out corruption – two things Cuomo’s ethics commission lacked.

“If you want to solve any problem, a corruption problem or anything else, and you decide to employ an investigative body, the only way the body will get to the root of the problem… is if it has independence,” Bharara said on Albany’s “Capital Pressroom.”

“Independence is an incredibly important thing and it is also is true that longevity of a prosecutor’s office matters also. When you’re trying to solve a problem you need some amount of longevity.”

Bharara chided the legislature for not taking any action to clean up its “entrenched” culture of corruption and said a prosecutor by himself “won’t solve the problem.”

“When you talk about corruption in Albany there has not been historically enough policing and there has not been enough self-policing,” he said.“I’m not aware of any effort among the legislature.”

But Bharara assured listeners that his office is pursuing a number of leads after federal authorities took over the Moreland Commission’s files when Cuomo disbanded the panel after only nine months.

“We have the files, we have some of the smartest people in law enforcement continuing what was begun and that’s what we care about,” said Bharara, whose office is also investigating the conduct of Cuomo aides in steering the commission.

The prosecutor refused comment on whether reported political pressure Cuomo exerted on commission members constituted a federal crime or should be a campaign issue two weeks before Election Day.

“I don’t presume to tell the voters what they should or should not think,” said Bharara.

Franco D’Elia Oct 19, 2014 – Daily News “Comments”

1.
How to bypass NY State’s Constitution and encourage lawmakers to vote
on legislation they have not read using message of necessity

2.
How to avoid paying your fair share of property taxes by skipping the
building permit process. Once caught, intimidate and use state workers
(Larry Schwartz) to push back hard, even though you were caught red
handed breaking the law.

3.
Perfecting doublespeak where you say you are transparent, yet you are not.

4.
Allowing illegal use of firearms in state offices by your Homeland
Security Chief, Jerome Hauer. Hauer then used his Glock as a Laser
Pointer during a Presentation. The delegates were none too pleased when
Hauer attempted to point to New York State on a map, and the laser ran
across their heads in the process. Cuomo covered for his pal Jerome and
refused to have charges pressed for illegal possession and use.

5.
Stealing $37,500,000 from homeless Superstorm Sandy victims to use on self-serving TV Ads.

6.
Creating an 8th & 9th month abortion party but selling as a Woman’s
Equality Party thinking New Yorkers are not going to research his
shameless ruse. Oh, the other 9 points were agreeable to everyone and
would have been passed if Speaker Silver and Andy Cuomo let the vote
take place.

7.
Speaking of Silver, Cuomo approved hush money provided to victims of
sexual harassment – he and Speaker Silver are a danger to all women
everywhere.

8.
Intolerant Extremist – Cuomo on a radio show said Conservatives, Pro
2nd Amendment folks & those who are not for abortion are not welcome
in his New York State. Nice having the governor decide who can and
cannot stay.

9.
Provide free college to rapists, pedophiles & murderers while you skimp and save to educate your own children.

10.
Avoid at all costs DEBATING your GOP challenger because if you do, you could be exposed as fraud.

The list goes on forever… most of these are available by a simple google
search or you can head over to the @CuomoWatch twitter feed and search
for more. For example, go to twitter and type this into your search
window: ” CuomoWatch: softmoney ”

By Christopher S. Zaleski

By Sara Foss – Daily Gazette

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Not too long ago, a reader called to suggest I look into how many assault weapons have been registered under the NY SAFE Act.

The topic interested me, I jotted a note to myself and I now have the answer — or at least a partial answer — to the question.

Turns out we might never know how many assault weapons have been registered under the controversial gun control law passed in 2013. Ever since the law was passed, state police have refused to release the information, saying the law does not allow the information contained in its gun database to be released publicly.

Which poses something of a conundrum for those of us who are curious about the SAFE Act: How can we possibly assess the impact of the law if such basic data is kept secret?

Not everyone is buying the state police’s claim that the information is confidential. Earlier this month. the state Committee on Open Government issued an advisory opinion saying state police should release the number of assault weapons registered under the SAFE Act.

This opinion states that while the law makes application records maintained by the state police confidential, “there is no indication that aggregate data or that which can be derived from the records is protected. … Accordingly, it is our opinion that such non-identifying data is required to be disclosed upon request.”

In other words, the SAFE Act forbids the release of identifying information, such as the names and addresses of applicants for firearm permits, but it doesn’t bar the release of statistics related to compliance with the law.

This makes sense. There’s a big difference between publishing the names of individual gun owners and providing a number that can tell us how many guns have been registered under the law. If the state’s reluctance to release the registration numbers seems strange and even a little bit fishy, it’s because state agencies release aggregate data all the time.

The state’s Domestic Violence Dashboard Project provides statistics on domestic violence without listing the names and addresses of victims. The Division of Criminal Justice Services reports arrest data by county without including personal information about suspects. The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance releases regular updates on the number of New Yorkers receiving benefits such as food stamps without disclosing the identities of the recipients. Would it really be so difficult to release numbers related to assault weapon registration?

I’m not opposed to all gun control measures — universal background checks, for example, have always struck me as a good idea — but I suspect that many gun control laws are passed hastily, as the SAFE Act was, with little research into how to effectively reduce gun violence.

Calls to ban or heavily restrict the sale and ownership of assault weapons tend to be popular, but there isn’t a whole lot of evidence that doing so would lead to a big drop in gun deaths.

A recent report by the investigative news website ProPublica found the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 made little difference in reducing gun violence, mainly because “big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.”

The article goes on to say: “More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.”

If the ProPublica report is to be believed, the SAFE Act’s focus on assault weapons will do little to reduce crime or make the state safer, and the provisions of the law that target assault weapons are largely symbolic.

Which brings us back to the lack of information regarding how many people are registering their assault weapons with the state. Gun rights supporters believe most gun owners are refusing to comply with a law they regard as unjust and accuse the state of withholding the assault weapon registration data out of embarrassment.

Should the state release the data, the public would learn just how toothless this provision of the law is, they say. This might be true, or it might not.

But the only way to know for sure is by looking at the data, and the state won’t provide it.

Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 13, 2014

If Governor Cuomo is reelected the framework is all ready in place for passage of SAFE ACT 2. While the Cuomo administration is hesitant to refer to it under that name during an election cycle, it will still be one of the first things he does upon his new term even if he has to manipulate the legislative process again in order to ram it through.

Here are the 10 key points of SAFE ACT 2 that will punish law abiding citizens, legal businesses and in general diminish the sparse amount of liberty that remains in the increasingly appropriate named “Empire State”. My commentary italicized.

1. Safe Storage – Requires that weapons be stored with a safety locking device or in a safe storage depository when left outside the immediate possession or control of the owner or other lawful possessor. Failure to do so will result in a Class A misdemeanor. This includes houses without children and as such only serves to delay the ability to defend yourself against home invaders.

2. Microstamping – Requires all semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in NYS to be capable of producing a unique alpha-numeric or geometric code on at least two locations on each cartridge case expended from such pistol. Class D felony if you “willfully” deface microstamping component. The problems with this are many. First the technology is not practical (read: it doesn’t work) and as such this is akin to requiring firearms to shoot pixie dust, since it can’t it would make all guns illegal. Secondly, like most gun control measures, criminals who are using guns to commit felonies are just going to ignore this. Thirdly the cost of retrofitting all the guns in New York would unfairly fall on the citizen. Finally, even if the technology WAS viable, and criminals DID follow it, all they would have to do is use a revolver and make sure to destroy the shells later.

3. Fifty Caliber Ban – Bans the possession, sale or transfer of 50-Caliber or larger weapons. Permits grandfathering so long as they are then registered, a repeat of the Assault Weapson Ban from SAFE ACT 1.

4. Gun Dealer Insurance - Requires the imposition of restrictive business practices, recordkeeping and reporting for lawful gun dealers including requiring that every dealer carry insurance coverage against liability (at least $1 million per incident) for damage to property and for injury or death of any person resulting from the sale, delivery, lease, or transfer of a firearm, rifle or shotgun. On top of being a ridiculous punitive measure against firearm businesses, the costs will ultimately fall on the law abiding consumer.

5. Prohibits the sale or transfer in NY of guns that are not child proof - Prohibits the sale or transfer of a “child operated firearm” to another person. Defines “child operated firearm” as a pistol or revolver which does not contain a childproofing device, which would prevent an average five-year-old from operating it. This one is so amorphous that is shouldn’t even be considered law. No doubt gun controllers would use a 5 year old prodigy that could unravel the Gordian Knot.

6. 30 Day Limit on Gun Purchases – – Prohibits a person from purchasing more than one firearm from a dealer within a 30-day- period. Prohibits a dealer from selling or transferring a firearm to a person who has purchased or taken possession of a firearm within the previous 30 days. Requires dealers to request approval for sale from the Division of Criminal Justice Services. Class A misdemeanor. Why can’t I exercise my right as freely as I desire? This is like saying one can only pray on Sundays, or limiting the number of newspapers a person can read in a day. On top of the civil rights violations, the added logjam for businesses will slow commerce, raise prices and once again the law abiding consumer is left footing the bill.

7. 10 Day Waiting Period on Gun Purchases – Prohibits a person from taking possession of any firearm from a dealer unless 10 days have elapsed from the date the dealer initiated the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check of the purchaser and has received notice that the purchaser has passed all background checks required by federal, state and local law. Violators would be subject to class A misdemeanor. For victims of violent rape and murders who could have used a gun to stop their attacker, I doubt they appreciate the 10 days that cost them their lives. This notion of a “cooling off” period is more gun controller tripe used to engender fear in the populace that there is a run on gun shops by angry mobs looking to shoot someone down. It just isn’t true.

8. Ammunition Coding – Requires every manufacturer to code any ammunition for handguns and assault weapons. “Coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile. Most bullet makers aren’t going to make special New York bullets so the availability of ammuntion in the Empire State will decrease dramatically. But hey, that’s pretty much the goal gun controllers are aiming for.

9. Mandatory Insurance For Gun Owners – Require persons owning a firearm (not defined in the bill), prior to ownership or within 30 days of enactment for current owners, to obtain a liability insurance policy with a limit of at least $250,000. Failure to do so would result in the immediate revocation of the firearm owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own a firearm. Just look at the wording, PRIVILEGE. That’s what gun controllers think that the right to keep and bear arms is…a privilege. It’s not. It’s a RIGHT. And there is no voter insurance, because if there was a lot of Obama voters would owe me money.

10. Reduces Pistol Permits from 5 years to 2 years - Requires that all pistol permit licenses expire every two years. Note, pistol permits in New York were LIFETIME before the first SAFE ACT. The Act made it 5 years and SAFE ACT 2 is looking to make it 2 years. This is a money making scheme aimed to cash in while stripping the rights of the citizens. A pro gun sheriff might retire and a gun control sheriff might take his place, in that case, when people pay the non refundable fee to renew their permit they can simply be told no. It gives the state more opportunity to deny rights to its citizens while still making a fast buck.

There are some other points, expanding on penalties of SAFE ACT 1 and broadening terms therein but this is the meat and potatoes of what a Cuomo reelection will look like for the citizens of New York. Apparently, SAFE Act 1 was only the prologue and SAFE Act 2 will be the further advancement of the radical gun control ideology that Gov Cuomo holds so dear.

To allow Gov. Cuomo to be reelected will be an injustice of the highest order. But it is not only an injustice to New Yorkers but for all gun owners and those who believe in liberty in America.

To quote the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (he himself a victim of gun control like the SAFE Act when he was denied a carry permit):
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

It is for this reason that, even though I am a Pennsylvanian, I am taking a personal interest in supporting the man who has vowed to repeal the SAFE Act, not expand upon it.

Republican Rob Astorino.

Astorino also tapped Sheriff Chris Moss to be his running mate. Moss is the President of the New York Sheriff’s Association and has been fighting the SAFE Act since day one, going so far as filing an amicus brief in a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.

You can learn more about Astorino from his campaign website: robastorino.com

In this David vs Goliath story it is still a tough road to go since Cuomo’s war chest is being filled by the likes of Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Sarah Brady and their gun control philistines as well as Cuomo raising substantial sums outside New York from Hollywood elitists. If you want to help combat the SAFE Act in all its iterations and keep it from spreading to other states you can do so by go going to:

Kick Cuomo Out and support candidate Astorino.

This may very well be the most important New York gubernatorial election in your lifetime…help make sure the right man is elected.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 10, 2014

Astorino’s tax reform would lift the state’s flagging economy.

Democrats are frustrated that voters aren’t giving them credit for the economy, but maybe that’s because growth has been so slow in so much of the country. Take the Northeast, where GDP grew a meager 0.7% in New York in 2013, which almost makes Connecticut’s 0.9% and New Jersey’s 1.1% look good. So three cheers for GOP candidate for Governor Rob Astorino, who is promoting a tax reform to lift New York from the doldrums.

The executive for Westchester County, north of New York City, is calling for a simpler system that cuts the top state tax rate on personal income to 6% from 8.882%. Eight different tax brackets would be reduced to two, with the 6% rate applying to income above $200,000 for individuals and $300,000 for married couples. A 4% rate would apply to income below those levels.

The Republican would also repeal a utility tax, and by 2020 he’d phase out New York’s dreaded estate tax, which runs up to 16% and has sent tens of thousands of New York residents to retire in better tax climates. Mr. Astorino also wants to cut the state corporate tax rate to 5.9% from 6.5% by 2019. A simplified corporate system would eliminate favors for politically popular industries like the film tax credit that subsidizes the millionaires who produce “Saturday Night Live” and “The Tonight Show.”

Democrats will gripe that this helps the rich, but New York needs a big-bang reform after decades of decline. Only New York City is dynamic, with the rest of the state lagging, except for a few growth areas like agriculture and health care. Governor Andrew Cuomo has bowed to rich urban greens by barring the natural-gas shale drilling that has so helped upstate Pennsylvania.

Mr. Astorino says his goal is to make the Empire State competitive with the likes of Florida, which likely surpassed New York in population this year. Florida has no income tax and grew its economy more than three times as fast as New York’s last year. For that matter 44 other states also grew faster than New York. The exceptions were Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and Alaska, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

We’d argue that Mr. Astorino has already had a positive impact on state tax policy. Concerned about his looming re-election challenge, Mr. Cuomo this year signed a cut in the corporate tax rate to 6.5% from 7.1%. He’s also promoted a 10-year tax holiday for businesses willing to jump through various bureaucratic hoops.

But New York still has far to go. The Tax Foundation noted that this year’s tax cut would have moved New York’s place on the foundation’s annual business tax climate index from dead last among the 50 states to 48th. Whoopee.

The polls aren’t giving Mr. Astorino much chance against Mr. Cuomo, in part because the Republican lacks the money to get his name and plan before the voters in a very expensive media market. He deserves a better hearing, and the state deserves the jump-start to growth that his tax plan would provide.