Sheriffs Respond To SAFE Act Law

Thank you to all of you for upholding the oath that you took. Our government seems to have forgotten what that means. We as law abiding citizens appreciate your confidence that we have not all become criminals. We can still act responsibly, which is more than our politically motivated government can say. We applaud your honor in taking this action on our behalf.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hope everyone read the first PJ article "Sheriff Supports Stricter Gun Laws, Second Amendment Rights". Boy is Gerace trying to have his cake and eat it too. Don't you just love the politicians that want it both ways. Gerace is a true Democrat and would really love to take away our 2nd amendment rights. Remember th3e 2nd amendment was not about hunting, it was about citizens protecting themselves from tyrannical government that takes away citizens rights.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I have noticed a total lack of the left wing anti gun group commenting on what the sheriffs said about the new law not making any difference about gun crimes. That it doesn't help at all. Also that they disagree with the magazine changes and saying the new law only hurts legal owners. Wonder why they don't respond and curse the sheriffs for disagreeing with their prince Cuomo.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Once again, first responders are more valued lives than the citizens who pay them. An unarmed citizen killed is less a crime than an armed cop? Why?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thank you to the Sheriffs who are saying the same thing gun advocates have said about magazine capacity and that the law will have little or no effect on gun crimes.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Headlines on MSN say that Chicago had 40 homicides in January. I thought Chicago had the strictest gun laws. It is possible that gang members don’t obey the laws?

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

In the sheriff's letter to the governor, I'm puzzled about a portion found under the section entitled: Safe Storage of Firearms. It reads in part:, "The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony, domestic violence crime.....or is currently under an order of protection." Under long standing federal law(See "Lautenberg Amendment, et al) felons, persons convicted of misdeameanor domestic violence crimes and persons under court orders of protection for matters related to domestic violence, are prohibited from residing or, even being in places, where guns and ammunition are stored. The "owner"/occupant (a classic case would be wherein a girlfriend allows her felon boyfriend to live with her} is not allowed to keep guns and ammuntion in the house, therefore arms can't legally be stored there under any circumstances to being with, even if they are stored "safely".

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The letter they sent is more patronizing than critical and will only embolden a clinical narcissist like Andrew Cuomo.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thank you NYS Sheriffs for standing up and making a unified effort to straighten this mess out. However, I would like to read the Position Statement that, from what I can tell, accompanied that letter.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »