It seems that everybody who thinks can agree that the Andrew Cuomo S.A.F.E. Anti-Gun Law passed by clear "bi-partisan" majorities in both chambers of the NYS Legislature has a lot wrong with it --- and one of the main reasons, factors and causes of that was the secretive and high-pressure political process by which the bill was brought up, crafted and rushed through passage into law.
Gatemouth's 1/17/13 post "THE GATEWAY (ALBANY DELIBERATE PROCESS EDITION)" [ http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/the_gateway_albany_deliberate_process_edition.htmldeftly ] deftly links a very important item in the ongoing greater gun control -- gun safety debate in New York State and the nation. The New York Times Editorial for January 15th, "New York Leads on Gun Control" impressed Mr. ...mouth and it impressed me. I recommend it to "my brother" Republican, Russell Gallo, who expressed many of the same misgivings on the "Brooklyn GOP [Blog-talk] Radio" program last night.
The Times 1/15/13 editorial dealing with the gun measure recently enacted in New York State
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/opinion/new-york-leads-on-gun-control.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 ] is very thoughtful and thought provoking. Even though I completely disagree with the Times' editorialist's opinion about what he/she/they view/s as meritorious aspects of the so-called S.A.F.E. Law, I do agree that even for those dubious purposes, the law is flawed and in need of immediate revision.
There is one area in which the editorial page TImesman, Gatemouth, Russell Gallo and I are in closer alignment. The process by which this law was conceived, gestated and born was unnaturally tortured and abbreviated , even by Albany standards, and the result was something that some might see as monstrous and others as significantly malformed.
According to the Times editorial, ".... The bill was muscled through with disturbing speed after days of secret negotiations and a late-night vote Monday by state senators who had barely read the complicated measure before passing it. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed it into law on Tuesday, obviously calculated that it was necessary to move quickly before gun advocates could marshal serious opposition. Even so, Albany’s customarily top-down and largely undemocratic legislative methods were inappropriate for such a complex bill."
Aside from a possibly implied excuse for the governor's motives, the Times is completely on point here.
8 comments:
UPDATE: There was an interesting 1/17/13 article by Azi Paybarah "Cuomo confronts Dicker on guns and, of all things, a question about process" posted on his blog, "This Is How New York Works -- Capital" [http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/01/7212775/cuomo-confronts-dicker-guns-and-all-things-question-about-process ]
Of particular note with respect to the post above at this site, "Maybe Gatemouth, the New York Times, Russell Gallo and I can agree about something having to do with Governor Cuomo's S.A.F.E. [Anti-]Gun Law," is Mr. Paybarah's version of an exchange between Fred Dicker and the Governor concerning the governor's use of the legislative process called a "message of necessity" in connection with his proposed gun legislation.
This is how Azi Paybarah reported it:
"When asked by Dicker why he used a 'message of necessity' in order to circumvent the three-day waiting before the legislation could be voted on, Cuomo said he wanted to avoid a rush of people buying the guns that would soon be outlawed. *** ' I'm not going to give the public notice, " I'm going to do an assault weapons ban in three days. Quick, run out and buy an assault weapon before the ban went into place," which is exactly what happened,' Cuomo said. *** That argument didn't apply when Cuomo used a message of necessity to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, formalizing gerrymandered district lines or creating a new, cheaper pension plan for future public employees, Dicker pointed out. *** ' I think it's a red herring in the arguments,' Cuomo responded. ' It's always opponents to the argument who argue process over substance. *** That is a patently false generalization, of course: the pro-gun-control but also pro-good-government Times editorial page, for example, praised Cuomo's bill while saying that it passed with "disturbing speed. *** Cuomo's comment almost seemed to be aimed specifically at Dicker, who, in other circumstances, has been a great admirer of Cuomo's willingness to ignore process-obsessed ninnies to get things done."
So it looks like Azi Paybarah is grouping Fred Dicker with the rest of us, "process-obsessed ninnies." Gee, I hope Mr. AP is being ironic -- I'd hate to think that anybody would characterize me as a "process-obsessed ninn[y]."
The aspect of mental health issues being dealt with by government
agency heads to avoid future school shootings sounds scary. Our civil liberties are always being sacrificed for the good of the children.
Nothing in the S.A.F.E. Gun Law makes schools safer.
If a nut wants to be a mass killer of children, he'll go to schools, or playgrounds or nurseries for the same reason Willie Sutton went to banks. His weapon of choice will be whatever he can get his hands on.
Presidents executive order provides for school police forces. We have over 72,000 police forces. Do we really need one more?
This blog is like Thompson Fish Market. It feels great to woof down a plate of fish and chips, but at the end you have a headache.
I know who you are and where you live, and I've eaten fish and chips from Thompson's there.... Good times, good times....
If anybody wants to have a gun, it looks like they will have to have a badge as well.
It's a good thing that cops aren't prone to violence, are never proven guilty of shooting anybody unlawfully and always handle their guns safely.
Whoever you "guys" are, get real. Thompson's Fish Market is long gone, like a lot of the old Bay Ridge. I used to get bags of fries (chips) there when I went to grammar school nearby.
Post a Comment