|
|
|
President's
Message
|
|
|
Great
news!!! Today June 26th, 2008, a date that will go into the history
books. The US Supreme Court has given us an opinion and a
decision which basically acknowledges the Second Amendment
in the US Bill of Rights is and always has been a Constitutional
"individual" right. Generally this legal opinion says that
the Second Amendment is clearly a right of individuals, not of states
and or militias and that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional
and so is the requirement to keep guns locked up. As we used to
say in the Corps, OUTSTANDING! I have not finished reading the opinion
yet myself but I wanted to get this out to you as soon as I possibly
could.
Section
1. Legislative Intent. This Legislature hereby finds
and determines that real guns, when painted with non-traditional
handgun colors, resemble toy guns, and can confuse law enforcement
officers and the public at large. (FALSE, I don't believe that
law enforcement is as stupid or naïve as these legislators claim
they are) This Legislature further finds that deceptively
colored handguns pose a danger to law enforcement personnel. (LIE,
inanimate colored objects don't represent a hazard to anyone)
Law enforcement officers who sometimes must make split second
decisions on the use of force could perceive a deceptively colored
handgun to be a toy and, as a result be seriously injured or killed.
(Only if you don't trust your police officers or they are unsure
about what that person is doing in the alley at 3:00 AM when the
store alarm goes off) This Legislature also finds that
a child may mistakenly attempt to play with a brightly colored handgun
and seriously injure themselves or others. (FALSE, we already
have child negligence laws in place) Therefore, the purpose
of this local law is to safeguard the public from the unreasonable
risk of death and injury that may result when real handguns are
mistaken for toys by banning the distribution and possession of
deceptively colored handguns within the County of Suffolk. (The
true purpose of this proposal is to allow anti-gun fanatic legislators
to attempt to misrepresent and lie about guns and their owners in
order justify their perverted real purpose that is to harass law
abiding gun owners because they are legislators and anti-gun. There
is not one documented situation that any of these unfounded allegations
and fears of these legislators is true. They are attempting to fix
a problem that is only in their own head.)
|
|
June 2008MY
NEW PRO-GUN HERO IN THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
While
I have never met this man the fact that he is such an outspoken
in your face supporter of our lawful right to own and use firearms
is refreshing to say the least. State Assemblyman Greg Ball from
Carmel, NY made his feelings known recently on a piece of legislation
that would require every semi-automatic firearm in the state capable
of stamping a unique code onto the cartridge case of fired ammunition
known as micro-stamping. These anti-gun fanatics claim it can
help police link the ammunition to the gun it was fired from without
having the gun. Assemblyman Ball showed up at an event at a State
Police HQ firing range, which was hosted by Assemblywoman Michelle
Schimel, D-Great Neck. According to a newspaper article upstate
NY he brought along Jake McGuigan of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation (NSSF) and Greg Costa, a representative of the National
Rifle Association (NRA) and a board member of NYS Rifle and Pistol
Association (NYSRPA). Although the event was held at a public
building and Assemblyman Ball was invited by Ms. Schimel, members
of the manufacturing sector and other second amendment advocates
were not invited. For the record, Ball's guests were actually
refused admittance to the event. Raising this issue to the invited
media, and after his guests were asked to leave, Ball pointed
out the hypocrisy of this event and why this measure infringes
on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. I would like to take this opportunity to Thank everyone who helped in my re-election to the NRA Board of Directors. Without your support I would not be able to continue the fight to Keep & Bear Arms in the same way as I have the past 15 years. Yes you heard that right, I have been serving on the NRA Board of Directors with your help and support for 15 years and now I have 3 more years. Those of you know me know I will never stop fighting for our firearm rights for ourselves and our children and grand children. Thank you again, I truly appreciate it. Back to top |
|
May 2008One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. After looking it up I found out this saying came from Plato who was born on May 21, -428 BC and was known as an ancient Greek philosopher who was considered by many to be the world's most influential philosopher. According to the records he lived from 428 BC to 348 BC, 80 years. This saying seems to be as true today as when it was first said and that was a long time ago. I bring it up now to once again remind everyone to get involved and stay involved to any level you can. The more the involvement the more influence we will have and need in the days ahead. See the legislative analysis of the latest from Albany. There is no more fundamental right than the right to self defense. While other states seem to clearly understand this principle New York State seems to want to make it even more difficult or bureaucratic for lawful firearms owners. To prove this, Florida lawmakers took another step recently toward recognizing that fundamental right by passing a bill allowing people to carry firearms to work in their vehicles. I say good for them. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has now signed it into law. The only question I have is why it took three years to pass a bill that only protects the rights of law-abiding citizens. As in most cases involving gun rights, you can thank the hysterical scare tactics of the anti-gun fanatics for standing in the way of common sense. Opponents said the law would lead to disgruntled employees, angry at a co-worker or the boss, heading for the parking lot and returning, gun in hand, to extract vengeance. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and business interests said the law trumped private property rights and would keep them from guaranteeing the safety of employees and customers. These same types of false and misleading claims were made when trying to stop the original shall issue state law regarding concealed carry of firearms. Fortunately the lawmakers saw through this smokescreen. Prior to passage of the bill, someone who wanted to carry a gun in their car during the work week was at a disadvantage. And if they worked where firearms weren't allowed on the property, it had the effect of keeping them from being able to have the firearm pretty much anywhere except at home. After all, if your end destination is the workplace and you can be fired for having a gun in the car, you have to leave it at home along with all the protection it affords at every stop along the way or from some wacko motorists who suddenly takes exception at your lane change. Don't even suggest that never happens. Marion Hammer, Past President of the National Rifle Association and a lobbyist in Tallahassee, summed it up best: "The people have won a big victory. This is about people," Hammer said. "What you have inside your personal private vehicle, as long as it's legal property and lawfully possessed, is nobody's business no matter where you park your car," Hammer said. What about those who claim the law tramples on property rights? "Nonsense. Tell me where in the Constitution it says corporations or big businesses have the right to supersede individual and constitutional rights," she said. "I asked opponents to the bill that question and they couldn't tell me," Hammer said. Hammer said the law protects people from having their vehicles illegally searched by an employer and fired for having a firearm. "If an employer doesn't want guns on their property and you have a concealed permit he has no say. He can't ask you if you have a gun or a concealed carry permit and he can't take action against you based on the word of a third party," Hammer said. There are exceptions. You can't take a gun in your car to school if you work there, nor can employees of jails or prisons, airports or businesses involved in defense contracts. I could make a case for responsible firearms owners being allowed to keep guns in their cars on school grounds, but that's another day. In the end, this was lawmakers doing one of the things the state should do: Protecting the rights people already have. This law allows people with a concealed weapons permit to keep firearms in their locked vehicles at work. Employers can't search a vehicle for a firearm, ask employees if they have a firearm or concealed weapons permit and can't fire someone for having a firearm in their vehicle at work. Exceptions: Schools, jails or prisons, defense contractors, nuclear power plants. NRA's American Rifleman Readers may know the background behind the emergence of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), an outfit that shamelessly promotes itself as an "alternative to the NRA." But this claim reminds me of the old adage: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" The AHSA staff and leadership roster reads like a Who's Who of the gun ban lobby. AHSA's introduction was in the 2006 Missouri Senate race, when the AHSA Foundation financed a direct mail attack on NRA with a piece that screamed from its headline, "The NRA Is Selling Us Out!" It falsely alleged that "NRA is supporting politicians who are trying to take away our access to public lands" when in fact NRA is leading the charge to protect hunter access to public lands. Ironically, Missouri is a showcase of NRA's conservation work. So is it mere coincidence that recently yet another group has formed to promote itself as an "alternative to NRA?" A recent article in The Washington Post announced the formation of the Union Sportsmen's Alliance (USA). A joint effort of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and some 20-odd labor unions, the USA is intended to lure the political allegiance of gun owning union members away from the NRA and its political agenda. The NRA has been accused by this new group of communicating anti union sentiment to rank and file members to support anti-union candidates. There is not one instance of an "anti-union message" from NRA. As for supporting anti-union candidates, that is purely the result of political reality. The truth is that the vast majority of union political support goes to candidates who actively work against our personal freedoms. We should continue to oppose all candidates who would diminish our Second Amendment rights and continue to speak the truth to all union members. Here's the issue, the unions conducted a poll and told the Post: "The poll found that about a quarter of the union members said they belonged to the NRA, an affiliation that displeases some Democratic union leaders." The substantial support that NRA enjoys from America's working families is not something that is a problem. What is our problem is the growing field of entities, even if they exist just on paper, who claim the support of gun owners and hunters, while quietly admitting their true agenda of working against our Second Amendment mission. Stay alert! Back to top |
|
APRIL 2008 On
March 18, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District
of Columbia v. Heller, (07-290), a case the Court has stated is
"limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s
bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home
and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment
rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated
militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private
use in their homes."
Most in attendance in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment. This is and will be a landmark case because it will be the first time in the Supreme Court's history that they have ever had the benefit of the volume of information and wisdom available on the Second Amendment, including most if not all of the scholarly works written in law school journals in the past 10 years. No other previous Second Amendment case has ever had so much factual information available. You may read some or all of the 68 Amicus Curiae Briefs (friend of the court) filed in this case and/or read the actual transcript of the case before the Court or/and you can listen to the roughly one and a half hour presentations by the attorneys from all sides of this case. Please take advantage of this opportunity. All of this information is available by going to; http://www.nraila.org/heller/ and then going to the individual links. There are 19 Amicus briefs plus the brief by Washington DC itself in support of their ban on handguns and extreme limitations on rifles and shotguns ownership and use and their claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual one. There are 47 Amicus Briefs plus the brief from Mr. Heller's attorney in support of the individual right point of view. If you get the opportunity, and you should all really try, you will get one of the most thorough educations on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment that has ever been assembled. Something I might add that is barely touched on currently at law schools throughout the country but because of this case may become a much larger part of the law school curriculum. At the very least you should read the list of who has filed a brief and on whose side the various players really are. For example, did you know that our very own New York State Attorney General (AG) has filed an Amicus Brief in support of the collective rights theory and of the right to ban and or severely restrict firearms ownership and use? My immediate question is; who asked him to do that? Was there a request by the Governor or of either the Assembly or the Senate in our legislative branch of government? Was there a referendum that I missed asking the citizen residents of New York State to authorize the AG to insert him-self and indirectly all of us into this case? I for one did not want him spend the time and my tax money putting together a legal brief and taking a position in opposition to our opinion that we have an individual right in the Second Amendment. Now that it is done is there anyone in the state who will make him accountable for his actions. I personally believe he, the AG has, is and will continue using his position as the Attorney General of New York State to further his personal agenda of firearms prohibition and failing that, severe firearms restrictions. Unfortunately we will all pay the price for any such stupidity because as anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows, only the law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals will merely take advantage of our defenselessness. We the law abiding will become the victims of bad public policy once again. I am both excited and concerned over this Supreme Court case. Like most of you who read this I am looking forward to a once and for all clear decision that the Second Amendment is exactly what I and millions of other rational and reasonable people believe it to be. That is, an individual right that cannot be messed with and by that I mean limited or restricted by wrong headed legislators and or administrators such as pistol licensing authorities. That it is a right that predates the US Constitution and the reason it was put into the Bill of Rights was because the citizens at the time of creation of the US Constitution insisted that the newly formed government acknowledge this right and that they could not limit or restrict the American citizens right to firearms ownership and use. Everyone clearly acknowledges that this right does not in any way protect criminal misuse. And only criminal misuse should be addressed by legislative bodies, not crystal ball assumptions about future firearms ownership by the trustworthy people. While excited about the potential positive outcome of this case I am also very concerned the court will write a decision that may be very narrow in scope and limit themselves to just answering the question of whether or not the Washington DC law oversteps the Second Amendment boundaries, which it does. I am concerned that without a clear, all encompassing and unambiguous decision by this Court we will win only part of the battle. I am afraid we will have to continue the daily fight with legislators, state and local courts, bureaucrats and other administrative people who are anti-gun and don't believe, won't believe in the Second Amendment. To be sure we will continue this fight, we will not go away. It would just be nice if we could get some reinforcement in our battle to preserve the rights for the next generation. I wish to Thank Mr. Lee Zeldin, candidate for the 1st Congressional district for taking the time to appear before us and answer all the questions put to him on his knowledge and understanding of the controversy regarding the Second Amendment. Normally we get a brief 5 minute speech and out the door to another meeting by legislative candidates, so it was very refreshing to have someone spend over an hour and a half answering questions. What made this meeting even more effective and meaningful is the room was packed with SAFE members who could benefit from the dialogue with the candidate. If you didn't make it you missed a good speaker. The SAFE Women On Target Shooting Clinic on May 3rd, 2008 will be here before you know it and as Clinic Director I need to know exactly who I can count on as NRA instructors, range personnel and clinic assistants. Anyone wishing to be a part of this clinic in one of those categories mentioned I need to hear from you in person at the next meeting or by phone at 631-475-8125 or by email right away at; jcushman@juno.com. Please don't assume I have this info already. Back to top |
|
March 2008 Someone
once asked, is property worth taking a life? Well, throughout history,
it has been. When one seeks to take what is yours unwarranted, by
force, or through coercion, or subterfuge, they are breaking the law.
Throughout the history of our country we have had the ability to stop
anyone from doing so, and even to hold them, at gunpoint, for the
police when necessary. Where the perpetrator does something menacing
or threatening to the owner of the property being stolen, we have
always determined that it was the perps fault, for if he/she hadn't
been trying to take what was not theirs, they would not have been
shot at, or injured. Just something to think about. The Nassau and
Suffolk Police issue handgun licenses for those who carry large amounts
of cash or valuables so property is worth taking a life if necessary.
For those of you wondering about the effectiveness and clout of the NRA and the pro firearms community, read the following. On December, 13-17, 2007, an interactive poll was conducted and surveyed 6,072 likely voters nationwide. The poll asked the following question of voters: Q. Considering the presidential election and messages that may be sent to you from the following people or groups, how important are those messages to you when considering for whom to vote? Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, National Council of LaRaza, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association, National Right-to-Life, Oprah Winfrey or Barbra Streisand? Twenty-seven percent of all likely voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association. The NRA topped other prominent political figures, organizations and celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey who recently gave her backing to Barack Obama. In fact, voters were three times more likely to support a candidate backed by the NRA than Ms. Winfrey. In terms of potential voters, an NRA endorsement could translate into 56 million eligible voters (those who are capable) or 40 million potential voters (those who do vote) vs. 19 million eligible and 13 million registered voters for Ms. Winfrey. I wonder if the candidates know this stuff. Because of all the recent shootings at/on college campuses, otherwise known as "gun free zones" you know, the place where only the bad guy has a gun, the students themselves have decided to take action. To Whom It May Concern: During the week of April 21-25, the students across the nation will be peacefully protesting against state laws and college campus policies which prohibit concealed handgun license holders from carrying their concealed firearms on college campuses. They believe as I do that licensed individuals legally permitted to carry concealed handguns should be allowed the same measure of personal security on the college campuses. This will be a peaceful protest. The significance of the empty holsters is to symbolize that students, faculty, and guests are left defenseless on college campuses; therefore, no protestor will carry anything resembling a firearm in his or her holster. Protestors will not carry signs or banners, and nobody will make any attempt to disturb the peace. Protestors will simply go about their daily routines while wearing holsters which, in both appearance and function, differ only slightly from cell phone holsters. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are the organizers and you may learn more about this protest by visiting www.ConcealedCampus.com. Students who are already concealed carry license holders in many states are forced to disarm when coming to school, even though they are allowed to go nearly anywhere else in the state while armed. They want to extend their ability to protect themselves and those around them on campus, where they spend a majority of their time. By wearing an empty holster to class all week they will demonstrate that they are just one more approved individual that is being forced to disarm and showing that there is one less person to defend on campus. Even those who do not have a license but support the cause are strongly encouraged to participate. Power in numbers, and a nation of students concerned about their safety is a strong message from a lot of people. PLEASE NOTE: THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO PUT A GUN IN EVERY STUDENT'S HANDS!!! They are simply saying that those who are already legally licensed should have the right to defend themselves where they spend the majority of their time, on campus. Concealed Handgun License holders have a proven track record of being some of the most peaceful members of society, and they've also been cleared of any mental instabilities or dependencies on any drug/alcohol in addition to passing one of the harshest background checks a civilian will ever encounter. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO KILL OTHERS, they are the people preparing for the worst, while hoping for the best. A holster has never killed any one. You don't need to have a concealed handgun license in order to support the fundamental right of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders. You don't even have to own a gun or be old enough to have a CHL. If you believe that the people who go about their daily lives and should be able to carry in shopping malls, movie theaters, supermarkets and on college campuses, then please show your support and wear an empty holster. The fight over private firearm ownership is a long campaign. The anti-gun fanatics are as frustrated as we are, because they try and try and still we still have our guns. The wave of permissive concealed carry laws over the past few years has and is a huge defeat for the gun banners. The NRA is doing what a good general should do by managing the overall campaign in order to win as many battles as it can while minimizing any losses that are unavoidable. No one wins every battle and the NRA has extremely limited resources. A "never compromise" attitude or position is simply unrealistic. If you never compromise, you are not going to have the flexibility you need to stay in the fight. The way you retreat when you cannot win a particular battle is just as important as the way you attack when you can win. An orderly retreat denies the enemy an opportunity to score a decisive victory and minimizes the casualties that you suffer. A compromise bill when you know the votes are stacked against you is vastly preferable to a really bad bill that we fight a losing battle to stop. Our rights are preserved, and we can continue. For example, putting a sunset provision in the assault weapons ban. Whoever thought of that was a genius. It showed everyone that when the sunset passed, crime was unaffected. That was an orderly retreat from a losing battle, which paid dividends later. Too bad New York has its own Assault Weapons Ban. The same with the McCarthy/Schumer NICS bill following Virginia Tech shooting. Congress wanted to pass a bill, so the NRA worked hard to not only to minimize it but in this case to completely hijack the bill and get improvements in current law that had been denied to us in the recent past. The fact is a bill was going to be passed no matter what. In life you win some, you lose some, but you keep your mind on the big picture, think long term, and try to win more than you lose. I think we've improved our rights in many areas. 10 years ago you couldn't carry a concealed firearm in most of the US outside of Vermont and a few other states, now you can carry almost anywhere with a simple license. That is a huge win. We have more rights now than we did then and we are doing very well against the gun banners, it's just unfortunate that many people don't see it. The anti-gun fanatics of the world are frustrated as hell. And properly so. I say let's keep it that way. Back to top |
|
January-February 2008Regardless
of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq,
here is a sobering (and scary) statistic: There has been a monthly
average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during
the last 40 months, and a total of 3,567 deaths. That gives a firearm
death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in
Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That
means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq. The obvious conclusion
from these FACTS is; the U.S. should pull out of Washington DC and
save lives, keeping in mind that even if it means just saving one
more life as the anti-gun fanatics love to say. MORE BLOOD ON HANDS OF 'GUN FREE ZONES' EXTREMISTS AT OMAHA MALL Eight
more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political
correctness at Omaha's Westroads Mall recently, and the citizens
everywhere should feel outrage at this crime because it happened
once AGAIN in a "gun free zone" where the law-abiding private citizens
are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. To add insult to injury
the gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun
control legislation. Why don't they understand the prohibition on
firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did
give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rage. |
|
December 2007First
I would like to apologize for forgetting to mention someone (as
I said I probably would) that was and is a major component of our
NRA "Women On Target" Shooting Clinic. That person is Tony Giammarino,
a past Vice President of SAFE. Tony is and continues to be our main
classroom instructor. Please accept my apologies Tony. And if there
is anyone else I forgot to mention as an instructor or as an assistant,
please let me know. For the past 4 years and the 8 "Women On Target"
Clinics we have held teaching almost 400 women the safe handling
and marksmanship basics is indeed something we should all be proud
of. Few organizations have done as much depending almost entirely
on our own resources, meaning money and volunteers. On the next page is the Official SAFE Nominating Committee Report. You should use it as guide in the upcoming SAFE elections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their time and diligent work. What I am about to say may not be politically correct and I hope no one gets offended but I wish everyone to have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year. I wish everyone an enjoyable Holiday season with family and friends. I hope everyone gets the gifts you want and deserves the gifts you get. Back to top |
|
November 2007The past month has turned out to be one of the busiest months so far this year. First we had what one could only say was one of our most successful Right To Carry Conferences (RTC) and Second Amendment Rally's. The turnout of 650+ people was outstanding. Normally we expect less of a turnout because this is a local election year and that had been the trend, but we actually got more than we hoped for and expected. That to me is a positive testament of the interest and support for firearms ownership and use here on Long Island. It is the people who can make or break an issue and by their showing up for this conference the people spoke loud and clear. Maybe it was just the door prizes we gave away such as 2 SKS rifles, one Benneli shotgun and one handgun donated by Mr. Brian Anderson of Guns & Ammo located at 4762 Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, NY 11716, 631-244-0915. A Knight in line black powder rifle and 2 $25.00 gift certificates donated by Angelo at American Outdoor Sports located at 2040 Route 110, Farmingdale, NY 11735, tel;631-249-1832. 8 gift certificates for free Trap & Skeet and Sporting Clays Shooting at the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range on 165 Gerad Road in Yaphank, NY, 631-924-5600. All of these gentlemen and their businesses are worthy of your patronage and support and our thanks for their contribution in support of our cause. You should patronize these supporters whenever you need something and when you do say thank you for their continued support of our rights.This conference like any endeavor we undertake requires many people to make it happen. Long before the doors open at our RTC we had many volunteers in the room to get everything ready so that when the doors open everything is in place and ready to go. Things such as distributing all of the literature on every seat in the house, selling memberships for NRA and SAFE, selling door prize tickets, escorting visiting legislators and guests to their seats and keeping me informed of who has come into the room so that I can announce them. Things that just make the event run smoother. Here is a partial list of these who volunteered to make our RTC the success it turned to be; Chris Baumgartner, Carol Cushman, Jim Kelly, Bill Raab, Lou Giordano, Nancy Carrero (my daughter), Ken Surprise, Greg Mirsky, Bob Kelly, Charlie Sheridan, Craig Courounis, Ed Kaspshak, Richie Snizek, Michael Houze, Charlie and Georgia Maas, Marilyn Cohen, Richie Fahie. All of the people deserve our thanks and appreciation for a job well done. If I have forgotten anyone I sincerely apologize. Now on to the subject of the elections and who we think will help to protect our civil right to own and use firearms here on Long Island and anywhere in the country in general we might want to travel. A good indication of who is a believer of and in our rights are those who took the time to show up and be seen and mingle with our members and get the necessary feedback from their constituents on firearms issues. From the following list you may draw the conclusion that these people support your constitutional rights to and with firearms for self defense as well as recreational sports. It is my opinion that it is wise to vote for and support any legislator who supports my right to own and use firearms lawfully. After all, if they don't support my most basic human and constitutional rights such as firearms ownership and use, on what issue may I trust a public official? I am also talking about how some candidates say they are supportive of my right to own and use firearms while at the same time supporting legislation that would make it even more difficult or impossible for a lawful person get a handgun license or to exercise their absolute right to self defense. I personally don't have the desire to work for these types of frauds and neither should you. On the County level Brian Egan is running in the 7th LD in Suffolk and is clearly a better choice than Eddington. Ms. Betty Manzella in the 3rd LD is running against Browning (the legislator who wanted to permanently close the existing Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range) claims to be supportive of our fundamental rights including keeping open the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range we fought so hard for. And don't forget a long time supporter of our firearms rights Ed Romaine running in the 1st LD who was in attendance at our RTC. Also at the county level and proven past supporters of our firearms civil rights are; Thomas Barraga, Cameron Alden, Daniel Losquadro, Ellie Mystal. The rest of the sitting county legislators have sometimes supported us and at other times been opposed but at this time I have no personal knowledge about their positions with regard to firearms issues or that of their opponents. If they don't communicate with us or show up at our events we have little in the way of reliable information for making a decision about them. So before you vote you should call your elected county official and ask them to go on record with regard to their support or opposition for the private ownership and use of firearms! With regard to the Brookhaven Town Bob Di Carlo showed up at our RTC and spent quite a bit of time speaking to our 650 members about his strong support for our rights with firearm use. His opponent Brain Foley was at one time a supporter but as of late does not communicate with us or publicly take positions showing support for the firearms rights of the Brookhaven citizens. As a matter of fact the Suffolk County Trap & Skeet Range is in court because of Brookhaven Town. Now does that sound like we have the support of the current town and it's leaders? One last office to briefly talk about and that is the Brookhaven Highway Supervisors position. While the Brookhaven Town Department of Highways is not a legislative position, one of the candidates, Martin Haley, is a long time strong supporter of our firearms rights and he has kept in constant contact with us about all issues political, we have faith he can and will do a fine job once you elect him to run the Brookhaven Town Highway department. The main issue is; you must VOTE! We cannot possibly win these debates if we don't have legislators who will listen and support us. It is said all elections are local regardless of the position anyone is running for and that is true. And because it is true it is even more important for us to be involved, for a couple of reasons. First, because this is in all probability the first election the person is involved in and it is absolutely imperative that we establish our credentials and credibility on the subject of firearms issues. Once we have proven that our knowledge and input on any and all firearms issues is to be trusted then these legislators and or candidates will consult with us on a regular basis. Secondly, many of these lower level positions are merely stepping stones for those legislative candidates who aspire to higher office. Historically, running for a County or Town position is but the first step in getting noticed by party leaders when a vacancy occurs in the higher offices. Running for the NYS Assembly or the NYS Senate and eventually for a Congressional or a US Senatorial seat begins with and at the local level. Lastly, at the lower level of elected offices the numbers needed to make the difference are smaller and so we the gun owning sportsmen can and should make the difference in the outcome of most local elections. That is as it should be!!! VOTE! Back to top |
|
October 2007My friends, we gun owners are not extremists; in fact we are the core of what is good in modern America. Our Second Amendment is unique in the world and it is the basis of our constitutional freedoms. It recognizes a God given right and guarantees a Constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms for any and all lawful purposes. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers. Unfortunately the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who would punish legal and lawful firearms owners and those who make and sell a perfectly legitimate product, firearms, for the unlawful actions of criminals. One particularly devious effort is to use my tax dollars to pursue frivolous and baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt our legitimate firearms manufacturers.A number of big city mayors have decided it was more important to blame the makers of a perfectly legal product than it is to control the crime in their own cities. Ironically, as SAFE prepares to have our annual Right To Carry Conference and Second Amendment Rally the federal court in New York City will hear arguments Friday, September 21st, on the lawsuit that former Mayor Giuliani filed against the firearms makers and distributors. It is also ironic that Giuliani said he doesn't want to comment on pending lawsuits. Or did he mean only on those lawsuits he initiated? It must be just coincidental that Friday the 21st of September is also the day Mr. Giuliani will be with the NRA in Washington DC seeking their support. For those of you who cannot remember back to the time Mr. Giuliani was Mayor of New York City here is a sample of his feelings and thoughts at the time on the Second Amendment. Mr. Giuliani has said the right to bear arms applies only to state militias and he described the NRA as "extremists" in a 1995 interview with PBS' Charlie Rose: "The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. It's almost what the extremists on the other side do. I think the extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic, the slippery slope theory. 'If you give one point, then your entire argument is going to fall apart,' and we kind of get destroyed by that," Giuliani said. I would ask all of you to also keep in mind he has never said he made a mistake or was wrong on this subject or that that he will work to correct his past actions. You all need to ask yourself whether or not you want a man in the White House that does not truly believe that you and I have a right to own and use firearms for self defense and/or for recreation. I certainly don't! I recently found this article and I think it is an appropriate response to use for those who don't believe in having or using a personal firearm for self protection. And while I personally subscribe to this opinion I do not condemn those who for whatever reason do not have what it takes to take a life if necessary to survive. As an NRA Certified Instructor in a number of firearm disciplines I have raised this issue with my students many times and I do object to anyone who would ridicule me or those like me because I would be willing to do whatever is necessary to defend the life of myself or any of my family members. Here is the article. An observation from the Virginia Citizen Defense League: When you call 911, you summon a man with a gun to use force on your behalf. The fact that you don't personally own the weapon in question doesn't make you morally superior. On the contrary, it makes you a hypocrite of the first order. You absolve yourself from having to use force by shifting that responsibility to another person, and then you congratulate yourself on your civilized attitude. The proper reply to anyone who claims that "a gun's purpose is to kill people" is that "a gun's purpose is to protect people." In point of fact the primary legal purpose of a gun is to protect and not to kill. Killing, as implied by anti-gun fanatics is already against the law, and since guns are legal products, this distorted view is false on its face. The fact that guns have and are used for recreational activities such as hunting, target shooting both formal and informal is meaningful and adds directly to the argument of firearms for self defense. The message that is often lost or is frequently and inaccurately portrayed in the news media is this: Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns prevent crime. Guns are good. Guns protect us. Guns are for safety. And of course, guns are why America is still free today. I encourage all of you to seriously consider responding to the bogus guns-kill-people statement with the guns-save-peoples lives argument much more often. People bent on aggression or on preying upon their fellow citizens or on bringing death and destruction against their neighbors usually seek the best means at their disposal to accomplish their evil goals. They may be mean, angry, greedy, wicked, deranged or just evil, but they are not stupid. It is in their best interests to use the most effective, powerful and lethal tools they can obtain to accomplish their illegal ends. That is why they arm themselves accordingly, and have throughout history. Knowing this, is it not in our own best interest to do likewise and arm ourselves with the most deadly and effective tools that can be used to defend us from such an attack? Whatever weapons are used by criminals the other side (our side) must quickly adapt to. Gunfire operates in both directions. In his classic short book, The Principles of Personal Defense, Col. Jeff Cooper begins by observing that, "Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life... the peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists everywhere and at all times." Wish as we may there is no end in sight to this unhappy condition, the Cooper Conundrum, the main reason lasting peace is so elusive. For this reason, the innocent must, if they are to be spared the injustice of homicide, theft or enslavement, be prepared to defend themselves against other people who would take what is not theirs to take, including innocent life. Preserving your personal peace and freedom sometimes requires the use of force. People have a right and can do it themselves, or organize or hire others to do it for them, but it is necessary at this point in human history. We should one and all keep these ideas in mind when dealing with or listening to those who are in office or who are seeking our support in the upcoming elections. These are valid and legitimate questions to be asking all candidates running for public office and we should demand an answer to them. We have a right to know before, not after the elections what their knowledge and/or position is on this issue. And if any should not understand the issue we can and will explain it to them. In my opinion anyone who is willing to take away or in any way limit my (our) absolute right to self defense or that of my family does not deserve to be in any public office. As a matter of fact these questions are more important than most other issues we all have to face such as taxes, medical care, illegal aliens or the issue of our being in Iraq. It is my opinion that those who hold public office are required as their oath of office says, and that is to Faithfully defend our Constitution including the right to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes. Anyone who does not cannot and should not be trusted by the people. Back to top |
|
Sept 2007Proposed
Changes to OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1910.109
Recently
the Internet circulated numerous stories on proposed Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that could have
had the subtle side effect of closing all federally licensed firearms
dealers in America. It is hard for some to imagine a more brazen
and outrageous attempt to delete the right to keep and bear arms
from the people. It is even harder to imagine that any bureaucrat
or politician doesn't know that. For those of you who have not heard
OSHA proposed treating any workplace that contained even a handful
of small-arms cartridges, for any reason, a facility containing
explosives. Under that designation, no one could carry a firearm
or even just ammunition, or any similar articles, with very narrow
exceptions (like for security guards). You would need demolition
certifications for any or all personnel, searches of customers coming
in and closures during thunderstorms that would have forced any
normal gun store, shooting range or gunsmith shop to close down. Parking
Lot Gun Laws and the Individual Right to Transport Firearms
Should
people who lawfully possess firearms be able to leave them locked
in their motor vehicles, on business property? Common sense would
say yes. All 50 states allow the transportation of firearms in motor
vehicles for all lawful purposes and 48 states allow the carrying
of firearms in vehicles for personal protection. One out of every
four of America's 65-80 million gun owners carries a firearm in
his or her vehicle for protection. The U.S. Constitution and the
constitutions of 46 states protect the right to arms and/or self-defense.
And since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport
firearms in vehicles interstate. |
|
|
While there are no regular SAFE meetings during the months of July and August that doesn't mean the SAFE board of directors have nothing to do. On the contrary, we have a number of projects we are developing and working on including assessing the damage caused by the New York State Legislature with regard to firearms ownership and use legislation. While the state legislature is now out of session and many of us feel a little safer it is also the time to touch base with these state legislators now that they are in their district offices and get our message across to them about our rights regarding firearms. It is because many of our members are now or will be enjoying the summer vacations with their families we suspend our more formal meetings unless something out of the ordinary comes up. And if it does you will know about it. Just keep in mind that we must have your current address, phone number and or e-mail address to make sure we can contact you as soon as something happens. If you want to make sure you are on my e-mail contact list just send me yours at jcushman@juno.com along with your name of course. I do not use e-mail unless there is an issue and time is of importance. You should all mark your calendars now for Sunday, September 23rd, 2007 as our Annual SAFE/NRA Right To Carry Conference and Second Amendment Rally. Like last year it will be held at the Sheraton Long Island located at; 110 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, Smithtown, NY 11788. The phone number for directions is 631-231-1100. The doors will open at 12:00 Noon and the program will start at 1:00 PM. We have always been fortunate to have outstanding and very high profile pro gun rights speakers and this year will not be any different. This year we are particularly honored and proud to announce as one of our guest speakers; the famous Ms. Susan Howard, star of the long running television program Dallas and star of many movies. Ms. Howard is not only an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment she is a NRA Life member and Member of the NRA Board of Directors. She has been featured in many of NRA's public service ads on firearms issues as well as the "Eddie Eagle" child safety video and the "Refuse to be a Victim" program. Ms. Howard is also well known for using her popularity and fame to promote firearms safety, education and training in the State of Texas where she served as Commissioner of Parks and Wildlife. In addition to be nominated for a number of Emmy and Golden Globes Ms. Howard was the 2001 recipient of the NRA Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award. The rest of our Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally speakers are literally a who's who of pro gun rights figures. We are again honored to have Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association. Mr. LaPierre has been on every major television and radio talk show program and published in every pro gun journal in this country supporting our right to own and use firearms lawfully. He has personally debated against every radical anti gun fanatic in the country who would take away our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms for lawful purposes and showed them to be the fraud they are. The Honorable Bob Barr, former Congressman from Georgia and in my opinion one of the most knowledgeable people on the firearms issue especially with regard to the United Nations. Because of his expertise he was appointed as a United States Delegate for two United Nations Conferences on firearms. Congressman Barr has the rare ability to take a complex subject and have it make sense to us while making sure those who would deprive us of our rights on the international level are prevented from pulling the wool over our eyes. Congressman Barr has been and continues to be on the NRA Board of Directors. Mr. John C. Sigler is the current President Elect of the National Rifle Association. President John Sigler has been a speaker before at our Right To Carry Conference & Second Amendment Rally and we are honored to have him once again. He is a former Navy Submariner and a retired Police Captain as well as holding numerous pistol and shotgun awards in his home state of Delaware. President Sigler has been and continues to be one of the most active and aggressive legislative people in the State of Delaware with regard to our firearms heritage and rights. This man does not know the meaning of quitting and I am honored to call him my friend. Mr. James Fotis, Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, LEAA. This is the largest and most active rank and file police organization in the country working with the firearms community to help us maintain our constitutional rights. Mr. Fotis is the most highly decorated police officer in the history of the Lynbrook New York, Police Department. Mr. Fotis is also a prolific writer in the Solder of Fortune national magazine. You cannot and will not find a more articulate, passionate and knowledgeable group of people than our scheduled speakers. If you truly want to know what is going on and how you can help fight for the rights we have and need to protect for future generations than you need to attend this Conference. This does not even take into account the prizes you could win. Another project we are putting the final touches on is our Women On Target Shooting Clinic on Long Island in Nassau County on Saturday, October 13th, 2007. We have quite a few women signed up already for this clinic. As a matter of fact quite a few of the women on our list are those who could not get into our last class because we did not have enough room and they asked to be put on a standby list for the next clinic. As usual there is no charge for the class and we depend entirely on donations to pay for everything. That is to say we provide everything needed such as the firearms, ammunition, targets, hearing protection, eye protection, coffee, soda, tea, cake, donuts, informational booklets and the chance to ask any questions you have. The clinic will be held at the Nassau County Indoor Rifle & Pistol Range, located in Mitchell Field Park across from the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Earl Ovington Blvd, Uniondale, New York. You may call 516-572-0421 for directions. The morning class begins at 8:45 AM (should arrive by 8:30 AM) and ends at 12:00 Noon. The afternoon class starts at 12:45 PM (should arrive by 12:30 PM) and ends at 4:00 PM. Any questions regarding the program or to sign up for the class call me at 631-475-8125. Back to top |
|
June 2007Gun-Free-School-Zones-Are-Really-Nothing-More-Than-Killing-Zones
Another
armed murderer has used the so called Gun-Free-School-Zones
law to simply walk onto school grounds and with impunity begin
killing innocent people. These dangerous criminals rely on the
fact that no one on campus will be able to offer any resistance.
Congress passed the law in 1990 and then renewed it in 1995, 18
USC 922(q), after the famous "Lopez" case that declared it unconstitutional.
Though it cannot stop murderers it has in fact enabled many. Many
States and a number of schools themselves have copied the law
for a false sense of security with disastrous effect. Theodore
Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907
"In
the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself
to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone
else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated
upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing
but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any
man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't
an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American
flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty
and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt
1907. |
|
May 2007A
federal appeals court has recently held that the Second Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to own
firearms and that the District of Columbia's restrictive gun control
laws violate that right. Something we've been saying all along. When
the Supreme Court takes up this issue and it will, it should recognize
that the appeals court got it right, not because it judged correctly
whether gun control laws are, or are not, desirable in modern cities,
but because it correctly interpreted and remained faithful to, the
original meaning of the Constitution. |