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.
I am not losing sleep over this bill, there legal are ways around the worst most controlling parts of the bill. It is just such classic NY to try to control by force of law everything and everybody. It is no wonder that NYS was the initiator of the Rockefeller Drug laws. But it is the small things that start to make you wonder, the control of minutia is a sign of a bullying state. It is one thing to have broad restrictions on very dangerous weapons, or simply outlaw handguns for heavens sake to me that is better. But no, we don’t do that we want to control the little details of how many shells are in a gun or who is buying what ammunition.
I do think this law or parts of it will not stand court scrutiny however.
I offer this quote from the NY DEC Migratory and Waterfowl Game Bird Hunting Regulations on line at – http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/28175.html – “You may NOT hunt migratory game birds using these methods: With a shotgun that holds more than three shells, unless it has a plug that cannot be removed without taking the shotgun apart.
The first time I ever went duck hunting, as an observer, was about 1953 and I recall that even waaaay back then there was a Federal law directing a maximum of 3 rounds in a shotgun when hunting migratory water fowl. Unless y’all are hunting tame ducks I believe y”all are outside the boundaries of the law if you have shotguns with more than three rounds in the magazines and are hunting migratory birds. This means unless the shotgun you are in possession of whilst duck hunting has the plug in place you may be arrested for non compliance.
If mechanical round capacity limitations (3 each) in shotguns are currently a fact of law for duck hunters why the furor over a 7 round limitation for all others? If Shotguns can be equipped with mechanical round capacity limiters why not other “hunting” or otherwise weapons?
I posted the following comment segment at a previous “in box” blog this day and I believe it applies here as well:
Eric Hoffer’s, (born in NYC 1902 died San Francisco 1983, self educated, laborer, field hand and longshoreman), first and most well known book “The True Believer (1951)” long ago became influential upon my, and many others, concepts concerning the whys and the wherefores of homo sapiens cultural and societal proclivities. Among his voluminous and pithy quotations are such:”A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding, when it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.” “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” A favorite quotation of mine is “It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.”
“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.”
They probably will not make any changes and they will not go out of business. You just will not be able to buy these popular hunting rifles in NYS.
So 10 versus 7 will have a big impact? Why not just say that you can still buy these but only load them with 7? Still have not seen any answer to what is the idea with that arbitrary number. If the answer is three less dead people than why not make the number one or none?
Paul, it’s absurd to think that they wouldn’t introduce seven round versions for the third largest state in the nation, and I think you know it. After all, car manufacturers make much more complicated changes to sell cars in California. You just want to make the gun law seem more draconian than it actually is. Get over it. The courts will reverse it or they won’t. If they don’t, the manufacturers will cope, as will hunters. Life goes on. Freedom will not end. The sun will still rise every morning. The world will not end.
“Life goes on. Freedom will not end. The sun will still rise every morning. The world will not end.”
Nice words from someone who wouldn’t care at all if all guns were banned. Wait until it’s something you believe in or find important or think is constitutionally guaranteed. The sneaky, underhanded way the Safe Act was put in place sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine if conservatives did the same with a law restricting abortion rights. What will liberals say then?
I guess you’re equally horrified by Michigan’s Emergency Manager law, right?
I don’t get the connection, but since you asked, no, I’m not horrified by it. I’m sure you’ll expalin.
No it is not the end of the world to have the state of NY track every single box of shotgun shells I buy. We are getting more and more used to these little details of our lives that the state is involved in we just move forward. I just find it disturbing, then again we live in a state that sends out state employees in tiny little villages in the nc to shut down bake sales.
“Paul, it’s absurd to think that they wouldn’t introduce seven round versions for the third largest state in the nation, and I think you know it.”
Yes, I hope you are correct. And I don’t think the law is draconian just a little arbitrary. Still have seen no good reason for the number 7? Luck I suppose?
There is nothing for me to get over. Just having a discussion here sounds like you are getting a bit frustrated. Take it easy. Tell me what the deal is with this seven rounds that makes many popular hunting rifles illegal to sell in NYS. From your comments it sounds like maybe you don’t support any unreasonable limitations like these. Yet you spend lots of time defending them.
Once they retool for 7 rounds will they need to retool for 6 then 5 then 4. What is the hang up with 7. Seven or Ten tell me the logic and how this will prevent some of these gun deaths and I will probably change my mind.
I guess the logic is that these popular hunting rifles are a problem and need to be changed? If there is something that shows this in the data then fine show me and we are good.
According to Fred Lebrun in the current Adirondack Explorer (p. 31):
“The conservation law already sets a maximum of six rounds for a big-game semi-automatic.”
Not talking about a big game hunters. Talking about a small game rifles. What is the point of making a popular version illegal? Just explain why 7 instead of 10. Not looking for a banana clip here just use your own words to help me understand the limitations on small game hunters and why this will limit the type of killing we all want to see be lowered. That is the whole point of the law.
Fred also doesn’t appear to hunt with a hand gun (nor do I, don’t own any). But lots of folks do. And apparently purchasing many of them with a 7 shot clip is impossible.
Making it so that many hand guns are banned in NYS (maybe all semi auto versions) will help in the legal case against the law. Walker do you want to see the whole thing tossed?
Once we get done with this discussion we can move onto banning pop tarts (from the Post):
“Joshua Welch — a boy, wouldn’t you know; no good can come of these turbulent creatures — who is 7, was suspended from second grade in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County last week because of his “Pop-Tart pistol.” While eating a rectangular fruit-filled sugary something — nutritionist Michelle Obama probably disapproves of it, and don’t let Michael Bloomberg get started — Joshua tried biting it into the shape of a mountain but decided it looked more like a gun. So with gender-specific perversity, he did the natural thing. He said, “Bang, bang.””
They had to suspend him from school.
Seven rounds is enough for hunting, but it is decidedly on the low side for self-defense. Given that self-defense with a handgun has been ruled to be a constitutional right by the US Supreme Court, handgun magazines of 10, and really something on the order of 15, rounds should be allowed. One solution, used in Canada, is to set different size limits for handgun and rifle magazines. Rifles are more powerful and accurate, and not used as often for self-defense as handguns, so their magazines could be smaller.
The assault rifle ban is meaningless. Just to see how meaningless, the SAFE act bans the AR-15, but not the gun used by Breivik in Norway, since his rifle had a sporting look and had no military-style features. I would leave AR-15 alone and focus only on the magazines, doing otherwise lacks any basis in rationality.
Finally, if someone has, say, a 30 year-old pistol with a 13-round magazine for which no one makes smaller magazines since that gun itself is no longer in production, lack of a grandfather clause for such magazines is tantamount to forcing the owner to get rid of the pistol and buy a new one. That seems downright unreasonable.
“Seven rounds is enough for hunting, but it is decidedly on the low side for self-defense.”
Dave, would you please provide a link to a news story where a private citizen exchanged more than seven rounds with a bad guy? I’m sure such a story would receive plenty of news coverage.