Gun poll, passionate protests highlight challenge for NY Republicans
Can Republican majority leader Sen. Dean Skelos balance public opinion and a passionate base?
Nowhere in the US is the political challenge facing Republican leaders more stark or more poignant than here in New York.
In recent weeks, the state has seen an explosion of grassroots conservative activism aimed at rolling back Andrew Cuomo’s tough new gun control law.
North Country political leaders are all but unified in opposition to the SAFE Act, with a growing list of counties passing fiercely-worded resolutions calling for its repeal.
Politicians stand in the path of that kind of zeal only at great peril.
But here’s the twist.
A new poll released this week by Marist — funded by the Wall Street Journal and NBC — found that a strong plurality of New Yorkers think the new gun law is “about right.”
In all, sixty percent of New Yorkers told Marist that the law was either the right approach, or didn’t go far enough.
Meanwhile, only 30% of those contacted by the survey think the ban on assault rifles and new restrictions on gun sales went “too far.”
That thirty percent support for gun rights tends to be localized in Upstate in communities that already lean Republican, so the political landscape is more or less in sync with voters’ attitudes.
But that arrangement makes it tough for Republicans to appeal to a wider pool of voters.
The challenge, of course, will be for the GOP to try to hold their base, while also finding ways to appeal to a winning majority of New Yorkers statewide.
They’ll have to balance those two priorities if they hope to win back state offices, like the governorship or a US Senate seat.
In the heavily gerrymandered state Senate, even many GOP lawmakers come from purple or blue-leaning suburban districts, meaning they too have to lean toward public opinion.
Which reveals — in part at least — why Republican majority leader Dean Skelos allowed the SAFE Act to slide through, why he voted for it, and why ten other GOP state Senators also signed on to support the controversial measure.
This poll also suggests that overturning the SAFE Act through legislative action will be nearly impossible. That means the court cases now being filed against the gun control law may be the last, best hope for gun rights activists.
Last week I sent the following reply to a postcard I received from Assemblyman Dan Stec.
Dear Assemblyman Stec;
I received your post card regarding repeal of the recently passed gun control legislation. The photo of the father and son returning from an apparently successful hunt is exactly the tradition that we want to continue and encourage. They are NOT carrying ASSAULT RIFLES with LARGE CLIPS. As skilled and responsible hunters they don’t need them, and neither does society in general.
There is no such thing as an absolute right. All rights come with restrictions. Gun control that does not infringe upon legitimate sporting firearms is entirely appropriate for the lives it will save. Last year, there were 11,000 gun murders in the United States, but less than 100 gun murders in England or Japan where firearms are strictly controlled. I am not proposing controls that strict, but if reasonable gun control could over time cut that number in half, that would mean 5,500 fewer senseless deaths each year. What could be wrong with that if fathers and sons could still hunt?
“I am not proposing controls that strict…”
Sure you are, otherwise why make the argument for something you say you don’t want?
The fact of the matter is that most people do believe there is a need for gun control. Even up here in the Republican north Country, not everyone is against the Safe Act.
Most people up here did vote for Cuomo and Obama.
Those that didn’t just want to nullify reality by screaming loudly that the truth isn’t the truth.
They don’t believe the polls on gun control just as they didn’t believe the polls saying Obama would win.
Well the thing with polls and public opinion is that they don’t trump the constitution. At least 65% of individuals in Alabama in 1965 supported segregation, did that make it constitutional?
“Well the thing with polls and public opinion is that they don’t trump the constitution.”
Fine, Mervel. Thing is, it is well established that placing reasonable limits on gun ownership is constitutional.
The polls show that most people favor stricter guns laws.
To paraphrase the Speaker of the Hosue. “The American people have spoken…”
Why don’t we actually listen to them?
Well, the Constitution guarantees me the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think there’s room for interpretation, don’t you? There are a few things that might make me happy that are downright illegal, but, I’ll warrant, don’t violate my rights.
After all, it would make me happy if assault weapons were illegal.
“I am not proposing controls that strict…”
No? How then did we get from machine guns, 30 round magazines and “assault” rifles to semi-automatic shotguns, hunting rifles and 7 round handgun magazines? All the nonsensical and phony rhetoric does not disguise the fact that liberals cannot be trusted to keep their word. They’ll use any tactic, advance any argument and trample anyone’s rights to get what they want.
Larry – if only I could get what I want simply by trampling your rights….
Walker yes placing reasonable limits is constitutional. The whole argument with the NYS law is to find out if it is reasonable. From my perspective some of it is and some of it is not.
Mervel, I am curious, because you seem like a reasonable person (as far as I can tell from your comment history) – what parts of this law, exactly, do you find unreasonable?
I read through the law, and while I recognize there are some inconveniences for people, and people will have to do things differently now (that is what happens when new laws are passed!), I see nothing that reaches a level of unreasonableness and nothing that would significantly impact the vast majority of un owners (at least the ones I know and am aware of)
I don’t like the tracking of hunting ammunition, simple shotgun shells etc, I also think the capacity limits are way off in that they don’t seem to have anything to do with the assault rifle large capacity issue, but mainly impact hunters.
I understand not having the giant clips and understand outlawing assault rifles, but the law mainly seems to impact your average hunter, which I think is just misguided.
Mervel, specifically, which capacity limit will impact your ability to hunt?
How many bullets do you you need in your gun to be able to hunt, and how many bullets does this law tell you can’t exceed?
Back in the day, a guide driving deer toward a client generally found that if they heard a single shot, they’d find the client with a bagged deer. Two or more shots — no deer.
If you need more than seven rounds to bag a deer, you shouldn’t be in the woods– you’re just shooting wild.
Hi Dave,
Under the law you can legally only have seven bullets or shells in your weapon at one time, I think this is too restrictive and way to micro-managing. I also object to the electronic tracking of any purchase of any ammunition I may buy. I can understand that say someone comes in and wants to buy 2000 rounds or some crazy amount, that would raise red flags. But even here we are now not talking about assault rifles or even pistols we are talking about a box of shotgun shells, once again way to micro-managing way to involved in my life and frankly liberty.
For me, I will likely avoid this whole thing and simply load my own shotgun shells in the future.
I guess they could start tracking shot next and shell casings, control is a never ending problem for control freaks, and I think NYS is a control freak government. One thing just leads to the next, we ban one drug someone figures out a new one we ban one weapon someone comes up with another type, we ban one sugary drink and people get two cups and on and on.
Consider all of the new criminals that are now created with this law, more people for law enforcement to track more people to keep a database on more stores that the NYS government has to inspect and so it goes.
The bill could be a job creator if they fund the extra inspectors, probation officers, and data management people it will take to track all of this, from that perspective I guess there is some positive things about it.
“Fine, Mervel. Thing is, it is well established that placing reasonable limits on gun ownership is constitutional.”
This is true. I think where they have kind of run into a problem here in NYS is that the SAFE act basically says that there are almost no modern clip style hand guns that are legal in NYS. Almost all of them have a 10 shot clip (many small game hunting rifles as well). The sale of those guns is (or will be) made illegal by this law. Just like the DC law banning all handguns was found to be unconstitutional this law seems to fall into that unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership catagory as well.
I also think that this law may run into issues with the 19th as well. There are some serious privacy issues that I think will probably discourage many individuals from seeking mental health care when they need it. It seems to me that the last people you want avoiding seeking mental heath treatment are the ones that own guns and need help. My overall assessment of the law is pretty poor. I think if many people understood that the polling might look different. What people are reacting to is the kind of stuff that Brian Mann had here yesterday: “2500 people killed with guns since Newtown”. Fear is not something that helps people think logically.
Sorry I should have said that the guns with 10 shots clips are not legal TO PURCHASE after that part of the law kicks in. You can keep the ones you have now. But if you are looking to buy one in NYS you will be out of luck. Since they don’t make them with a smaller clip those guns are essentially banned.
“Consider all of the new criminals that are now created with this law, more people for law enforcement to track more people to keep a database on more stores that the NYS government has to inspect and so it goes.”
That is what the drones are for!!
Mervel, how does only having 7 bullets in a gun at one time affect your ability to hunt?
Do you often have to shoot at something more than 7 times?
Is reloading not possible?
I get that you may not like that part of the law, that maybe it is an inconvenience – although, I honestly don’t even understand that – but I do not see how this impacts your ability to hunt in anyway what so ever.
You seem unable to offer any specifics about how this actually, to quote you, “impacts hunters” – so it is hard to consider your opposition to this as reasonable.
When they decided to classify Marijuana as a Class 1 Narcotic, they “created” a lot of felons for no good reason whatsoever. This law does not create criminals, and it’s dishonest to say it does.
dan, I think that you can argue that narcotics are not the same as a more durable good like a gun.
“Mervel, how does only having 7 bullets in a gun at one time affect your ability to hunt?”
Hunting in NYS with a handgun is perfectly legal. Most hand guns that have a clip are manufactured with a 10 shot clip. Selling or buying a gun with a 10 shot clip will be illegal. If you can’t purchase many of the guns you need for that type of legal hunting don’t you think it will affect your ability to hunt if you don’t already own the gun.
The 7 shot limit is a silly arbitrary number that was either done arbitrarily or was done specifically to make many popular hunting implements illegal for purchase in NYS. I just can’t see it any other way. Why does the Governor have this problem with 10 versus 7? Does it really make any other difference? Seems dumb to me.
It could also have been done to make many handguns specifically illegal to purchase in NYS.
After 9/11 laws were passed that restricted the sale of nitrate fertilizers even more than they had previously been restricted. The FBI was tracking the books some people borrowed from the library. Citizens were wire-tapped. Police spied on gatherings of Muslim citizens at home and at worship.
There was a time in this country when you could walk into many hardware stores and purchase dynamite.
I understand that it may be an inconvenience to have someone track your purchase of ammunition but it seems fairly innocuous compared to all the things that many non-white, non-middleaged, non-Christian men have had to deal with.
Sorry to nit-pick but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. But I get the point.
Dave, these popular small game hunting rifles all have a 10 shot detachable clips, you can’t get them with anything else. Don’t you think that this is more than an inconvenience?
http://www.ruger.com/products/1022/index.html
Not even sure if these ones are legal, better figure it out since I own one:
http://www.remington.com/en/products/firearms/rimfire/model-552/model-552-bdl-speedmaster.aspx
http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/SelfLoading/60.asp
I think that these may be okay but only with them loaded half way.
Dave is this really what you support with this legislation?
The tracking of ammunition sales kind of reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie where they tried to arrest folks before they committed a crime. So, yes I guess here the terrorist thing is a good analogy. How does this work exactly do we tell the FBI man to stop his surveillance of that guy and focus his attention on the guy who does a lot of target shooting? There are thousands of people who buy lots of ammunition will this really work?
Does it work pretend to supply shoulder fired missiles to some 18 year old kid who says “if I only had a shoulder fired missile I’d shoot down a plane” but has no possibility on earth of ever getting one on his own?
What the liberal anti-gun people say and what they do are two vastly different things. There’s a trust issue here.
Larry – The restrictions that I am NOT proposing are as follows:
England, no handguns allowed unless the buyer can prove they have a “genuine need” – and personal protection is not considered a “genuine need”. This most severe restriction was instituted after England’s one mass shooting where the shooter killed many school children using four hand guns. I am not aware that this restriction resulted in a wave of English emigration to the US where they could legally buy handguns.
Japan, gun ownership so restricted that the only “tolerated” .22 caliber target rifles for the Biathlon events in Nagano in 1998. As soon as the event was over, they sold their state-of-the-art electronic targets to Mt. Van Hoevenberg because Japan would never allow even that level of gun ownership.
Now do you understand what level of gun control I am not proposing?
“I think that these may be okay but only with them loaded half way.
Dave is this really what you support with this legislation?”
Those are not the only guns one can use to hunt. So if you are buying a new gun, buy a different one.
If you happen to own one of these guns already, keep it but obey the ammunition limit.
I fail to see the problem.
This is another example of how this law bends over backwards, it contorts itself, to make reasonable exceptions for hunters.
Again, I’m open to hearing the argument why 7 bullets instead of 10 has an unreasonable impact on hunters. But I’ve yet to see anyone even put one forward. So absent that, I have to assume there is no argument and opposition to it is unreasonable.
Dave when hunting birds particularly ducks etc having 7 shells loaded is very normal. You are not shooting one thing seven times you are shooting and missing a lot, at least I am. I thought the point of this law was to stop the extreme AR and these huge clips, now we moved to telling a duck hunter he can’t have more than 7 shotgun shells loaded, if is a level of state control that seems bizarre to me. Particularly tracking any and all sales of shells that seems really about control of hunters and not about trying to control crazies with assault rifles. It plays into what the NRA was saying that they really want to get rid of all guns and get rid of hunting. The main people impacted by this law are hunters.
I don’t think the law is constitutional it is invasive and controlling. We will see I think it will certainly get a court challenge, I could be wrong.
Now we are being told what is and isn’t reasonable by people who don’t own guns, don’t hunt and don’t care a bit for the rights of those who do. After all the “pro-hunting” nonsense from Cuomo, he enacted a law that places severe restrictions on hunters. After all the “let’s be reasonable about assault weapons” BS, we have restrictions on many sporting firearms that weren’t part of the reasonable debate. Why would anyone trust another word from the anti-gun people?
“Dave when hunting birds particularly ducks etc having 7 shells loaded is very normal.”
Right. And this law allows you to load 7 shells.
I know duck hunters, and have asked them this exact question, and even those who do not like the law admit that they rarely, if ever, have the need to fire off more than 7 shells without reloading. So this part of the law does not affect them unreasonably.
I am not trying to pick on you. The reason I have pushed you for specifics on your opposition is because I suspected that you, like everyone else I have engaged on this, could not really come up with any exact details of how this law would unreasonably burden you as a hunter. And it seems I was right. As we talk this through, your opposition to the law has changed from a very specific statement of “it burdens hunters” to a much more general and theoretical “it is too controlling”
Now, opposing the law because you think it is somehow too controlling is an ok argument to make. But what I take exception to is when people make statements like you did when you said “the law mainly seems to impact your average hunter” yet are unable to communicate, in any way, how it actually does so. It is a misrepresentation of the law that we really shouldn’t continue to allow, as it does nothing to advance the conversation.
Some misconceptions may be avoided by simply reading the FAQ here http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq
There is no trust issue involved. There is a radical misrepresentation issue. I can walk into Walmart tonight and walk out with a 22 or a shotgun or 30-06 no questions asked and I don’t expect any change in that any time soon.
Wait, I take it back. There is a trust issue. Forty years ago the NRA could be trusted to give us relatively unbiased information. That is no longer the case.
“The reason I have pushed you for specifics on your opposition is because I suspected that you, like everyone else I have engaged on this, could not really come up with any exact details of how this law would unreasonably burden you as a hunter.”
Dave, the point I tried to make above is that many hunting rifles that are very common are being made illegal by this law. Explain to me how that is not an “unreasonable burden”. You won’t be able to buy them here in the state. I don’t have a huge problem with the law, but why not make the limit for clip size 10 so there isn’t an issue (even if you want to be silly and keep the load limit at 7)? It sounds like there is another agenda? Help me out here?
“I can walk into Walmart tonight and walk out with a 22 or a shotgun or 30-06 no questions asked and I don’t expect any change in that any time soon.”
That isn’t true. Have you bought a rifle or shotgun in the last I don’t know how many years here in NYS?
I bought a shotgun for my son at Dick’s this fall here in NY, here (from Yahoo answers when I asked about the process at Walmart) is what you do at Walmart just like Dick’s.
Knuck I have no idea what you are talking about?
” The next step was to provide my identification and fill out federal background check paperwork. It’s a fairly long and arcane form that is completed by the buyer and the gunshop. Basically, the form provides the information required to perform the “instant background check” and ensures that the buyer attests to not being a felon, a mental patient, or under a restraining order for domestic violence. One innovation that Walmart has brought to the system is computerization of the form. The clerks computer is on a swivel and he can simple turn it to the customer for completion of the buyer questionaire. I really liked filling out the form online via this process. It saves time and ensures that the form is legible. When the customer has completed the form, the clerk can print out the form and call the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to get the background check and approval.”
“This most severe restriction was instituted after England’s one mass shooting where the shooter killed many school children using four hand guns”
Maybe what you might see in the US later. If you can’t use a 30 or 40 shot clip if you are a wacko maybe you will need 4 guns. The root of the problem has little to do with guns.
Knuck, here is the info from the FBI on how Walmart handles a gun sale:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet
This idea that we are living in the Wild West is baloney. It is something like 60% or more of all current gun sales that include a BG check, please stop trying to pretend otherwise.
But Dave it impacts every single person who buys shotgun shells, this will mainly impact hunters, I notice that you have not mentioned that part of the bill. The broad impact is indeed hunters, it does not actually change very much from NYS’s old law when it comes to large clip magazines and Assault rifles. So no I stand by my statement that the main people who will be impacted by this are hunters.
From a hunting perspective it IS to controlling to follow around individual hunters tracking their every purchase of every single shotgun shell to every shotgun to telling them how many shells they can have in their gun when they are hunting, come on that is nuts and importantly it has NOTHING to do with preventing gun violence.
A poll. With questions unknown. With no knowledge of the familiarity of the participants with the law. With a large portion of the citizenry residing in a politically narrow and geographically narrow and media centric region. Its “results” mean nothing without knowing what was asked and who was asked.
Why did the precipitating event mean so much more than Columbine or Waco or the theater? In this New York focused news region and its axis with Albany and tie to Boston it shook the tree.
The law ignored, obviously did not research or intentionally intended to curb most existing pistol clips on the market. It increases the expense of purchasing ammunition because additional labor is involved to register each purchase. It is the backhanded, dark of night method in which that act was created that discredits it. If it was a safe act, it would have been done in the sunshine. It was a lack of respect for the process and the citizens. It lacked knowledgable input.
Right, ” no questions asked” is hyperbole.
” You won’t be able to buy them here in the state.”
Paul, manufacturers are in business to sell firearms. If they don’t come out with seven shot magazines to sell in NY state PDQ, they don’t deserve to be in business.
“This idea that we are living in the Wild West is baloney. It is something like 60% or more of all current gun sales that include a BG check…”
Ah, that’s good, so only 40% of all gun sales are wild west stylee. That’s great! Let’s see, if I were a nut job or a convicted felon, where would I go to buy a firearm?
Jeff asks:
“Why did the precipitating event mean so much more than Columbine or Waco or the theater?”
Because it was little freaking kids!
My. God.
Also, too, you can probably do a Google search and find what questions were asked. It’s called reading. Humans invented it several thousand years ago.