To The Reader's Forum:
I read with much relief the May 10 article on the front page emphasizing the violation of the SAFE act. That a law abiding ... no wait ... criminal was arrested with one of the violations being of the NYS Safe Act. As for the skilled police investigation for crimes he already committed, larceny, possession of stolen property, sale or attempted sale of stolen property, and whatever else - ho-hum not much to see here. After all it was pretty much all about the violation of the SAFE Act.
I'm sure the guy meant to have a backgound check done, after all he had stolen guns in his possession, that he stole. The ex-post-facto charge of a criminal not having a background check prior to selling stolen firearms makes me feel much safer. I will sleep much easier tonight.