Few bright spots from SAFE Act
This is my second letter regarding New York state’s confiscatory gun act. I know it’s called the SAFE Act, but its goal is to attain full citizenry disarmament and confiscation.
In the first letter which was sent to the OBSERVER in April shortly after the passage of the state’s SAFE Act, I mentioned that the only ones to be affected by the act will be the regular Joe and Jane working stiffs, and not law enforcement.
Over the years many officers have accumulated weaponry now forbidden under the SAFE Act, and would be in violation of the law themselves, and the governor needs them on his side not against him. Lo and behold, in the OBSERVER (July 29) on the front page you have Sheriff Joseph Gerace applauding the exemption of law enforcement personnel from the SAFE Act.
In a carefully, crafted, political statement with an eye on appeasing Albany and placating his fellow police, he says: “You have highly trained, highly skilled people who have served many years as an officer. It makes total sense for them to have these things. ..”
The inference, in my opinion, is that the rest of us are incapable, irresponsible bozos who don’t qualify to have weapons banned under the SAFE Act, and hopefully will be fully disarmed of all firearms in the future.
There are, however, some bright spots like Sheriff Timothy Howard of Erie County, who comes out and says – here I paraphrase – that he doesn’t support the SAFE Act. It’s in violation of the U.S. Constitution and he won’t enforce it.
Now that takes guts, but he’s a brave man speaking for the common man and woman and their rights as citizens of a free country.