Repeal the SAFE Act–More Hype than Bite?

The Anti-SAFE Act groups have a single battle dry– “Repeal The SAFE Act”. We can see those signs almost everywhere. In New York State the method to repeal a law is just to pass another law to replace the unwanted one. With all the uproar the year old SAFE Act has created, some may think it would be easy to do. The process of turning a bill into a law is complicated, time consuming, and politically difficult.

Presently there have  two “Repeal The Safe Act” bills introduced in the State Legislaure.  Both bills have the needed sponsors from the House and Senate. The first bill  was introduced in the Assembly by freshmen state assemblyman, Rep. David J. DiPietro (R-East Aurora). Sen. Kathleen A. Marchione introduce the same bill in the Senate. The second bill was introduced in the Assembly by Rep. Bill Nojay (R-133). His bill is being co-sponsored in the State Senate by Mike Nozzolio (R-54). The only difference in the two proposed laws is that the DiPietro-Marchione bill repeals the WHOLE Safe Act law; the Nojay-Nozzolio bill DOES NOT REPEAL the First Responder clause of the law.

Rep. David J. DiPietro explains “The Republican majority made this (SAFE Act) happen.” He blames the passing of the Act on moderate downstate republicans and especially Majority Coalition Leader Sen. Dean G. Skelos (R-C-IP, Reockville Centre). “He voted for the bill. He allowed the bill to come to the floor. Skelos and his Long Island delegation sold us out. It is unlikely Skelos will permit the repeal bill to be debated on the floor of the senate. Repeal of the law would leave egg on his face.”  Watch a news report about a rally against Sen. Skelos, or read a Wall Street Journal article about the  NYS GOP Squabbles.

Rep. Bill Nojay has always blamed Cuomo for the SAFE Act and other problems he  sees in New York State. He feels that Governor Cuomo can be defeated in the general election in November. Nojay is the spark behind Donald Trump running for governor. He is also a plaintiff in the SAFE Act lawsuit that the Federal Court rejected the seven round limit but upheld most of the rest of the Act. Just in case Governor Cuomo wins re-election, Nojay has a petition trying to convince him to ““Repeal the SAFE Act, punish violent criminals and leave law-abiding citizens alone!” Watch a short video of Rep. Nojay at last year’s Yates County SCOPE Picnic, or read a news report about his proposed bill.

Yates County chapter of SCOPE also feels that Governor Cuomo can be defeated. At a meeting last summer, the leader explained that in 2010, Cuomo received 5 million votes, and there are 6 million hunters in the state. All they had to do was get every hunter out to vote, and he will be defeated. Let’s look at the facts. According to Wikipedia Governor Cuomo received 2,911,616 votes, noticeably less than the 5 million reported at the SCOPE meeting. Then it should be easy to defeat him–except there are not 6 million hunters in New York State. According to the DEC’s website, there are “nearly 700,000 New York Hunters”.  SCOPE would need to do more than get all the hunters out to vote to defeat him.

In a poll taken in early in February by Quninipiac University, 59% of the New York voters feel that Cuomo deserves to be re-elected. “By a narrower 44 – 39 percent, voters approve Cuomo’s handling of the gun policy.”  That means that 17% of those asked do not have an opinion on the topic. Believe it or not, not everyone is hyped up by the SAFE Act.

That Quninipiac University poll did not report the Upstate/Downstate results,  but a January Seina College Research poll reported, “When asked whether voters would actually support Cuomo in November, Upstate support is tied – 45 percent of voters north of New York City and its suburbs say they are ready to support him while 46 percent say they’d prefer someone else.”

We need to realize that there are more registered democrats in New York City than republicans in the whole state. There are moderate republicans who have been turned off  by the radical tea party extremism. The following is from the minutes of the Yates County Legislature of March 11, 2013 during the discussion of the resolution not to support the SAFE Act. Every Yates County Legislator was a republican when the resolution passed, including Mrs. Alexander.

Mrs. Alexander stated that she will not be supporting this. It did not go through committee. This repeal has just been proposed since Senator O’Mara was here. She has no issue with repealing parts of this. There are some good parts to this resolution. Why wouldn’t we want to do something about first responders being killed? There are also good parts pertaining to mental health issues. We are doing the same thing that the Governor did to us. The Public Safety Committee and all legislators should weigh in on this and make it known that there are good parts to this. That we recognize that fact and there are parts that should be repealed. Mrs. Alexander will be voting no on this and recommend that it be referred back to Public Safety.

Let’s review:

  • The leader of the NYS Senate, a Republican, will not bring a Repeal The Safe Act bill to the floor for a vote. (Kind of like Rep. Boehner not bringing bills up for a vote in the House of Representatives).
  • Downstate residents of both parties and independents tend to support the SAFE Act.
  • People who live near cities sees the benefits of the SAFE Act and supports it.
  • There are more democrats in New York State than republicans.
  • There are moderate republicans who may want to amend the law, but not repeal it.
  • Governor Cuomo, state wide, is still a popular governor.
  • Donald Trump

People who become politically active  when they feel their rights have been violated have to be admired. It is too bad there that some people are benefiting polticially from the SAFE Act brouhaha– including the four state  legislators who are sponsoring and co-sponsoring the bills to repeal it and,  our congressman who attends rallys and fans the “unconstitutional” flames. There are few benefiting from it financially, including the gun industry and  the Anti SAFE Act sign businesses. (The SCOPE meeting I attended they were selling them for $7 each. On-line companies advertise them for $19.99). Those do not want the Anti-SAFE Act crusade to stop.

Looking at Reapealing the SAFE Act critically, we see there is more hype than bite.


About pystew

Retired Teacher, political science geek, village trustee. I lean a little left, but like a good political discussion. My blog, the New NY 23rd (http://newny23rd) is about discussing the issues facing the people of our new congressional district. Let's hear all sides of the issues, not just what the candidates want us to hear.
This entry was posted in Constituents, Constitution, Data, Economics, Political, Reed's Views, Rights and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Repeal the SAFE Act–More Hype than Bite?

  1. Anne says:

    Ah, Bill Nojay. Whenever we see his name pop up, we can be assured of one thing: the moronathon continues.


  2. naturewanderer says:

    But the SAFE Act takes all the hunters guns away…. NOT! And the SAFE Act is unconstitutional… NOT! And the SAFE Act turns law abiding citizens into criminals… NOT! When are all the gun toting morons going to realize that the SAFE Act is here to stay and doesn’t take away ANY of their rights? It’s about time us TRUE law abiding citizens that don’t own guns can feel safe. If they don’t like the law… leave the state. We won’t miss you! I’ll even `help you pack!


  3. guess who says:

    there may be only 700,000 hunters in New York but there are 3.4 million gun owners. That they know of that is. since the SAFE act thousands of women ran out and bought a gun.


  4. whungerford says:

    Rep. Reed talked for six minutes at Addison answering a question about the SAFE Act. His spiel was relatively moderate. He did not dispute the questioner’s claim that the law is unconstitutional, he blamed Albany, he agreed that the law should be repealed. However, most of his talk concerned mental illness for which he proposed no specific remedy.


  5. Chuck says:

    Nobody upstate likes the extreme liberals downstate, end of story. Secession from NYC should be a reality. If not the number of representatives in the Senate and House should be realigned to level the playing field. Bills put forth by upstate representatives should not be rejected by any downstate politicians to be put on the floor, make it a law if you claim to love NY. One person should not have that much power over millions of citizens, that’s not democracy. All New Yorkers should be allowed to recall any candidate they want but not in NY because NYC politicians will not allow to be voted on the floor.


  6. Chuck says:

    Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes so with or without the SAFE act nothing changes and it does make law abiding citizens criminals. You think criminals are going to abide by the law?? 52 out of 62 counties in New York have passed resolutions opposing the SAFE act ( the other 10 NYC no surprise) and laws preventing the state police from using their seal on pistol permit renewals. The sheriff’s will not enforce it and believe it unconstitutional, local police any a majority of State troopers will not enforce it. Only the Superintendent of the state police says they will but the fact is he was never a trooper, he was appointed by Cuomo, he’s not respected by his force. So maybe you should move to North Korea.


  7. epthorn says:

    naturewanderer, if the Safe Act was constitutional why did a court throw out part of it for unconstitutionality?


  8. pystew says:


    That is true that parts of the SAFE Act was thrown out by the Judge. It was an important part, the one limiting the the number of rounds to seven. The legal process is working.

    He also said “This Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is
    thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the
    confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

    In order to repeal the SAFE Act, it is necessary to convince the representatives who voted for it to change their minds –or– to change the representatives by convining the voters to elect new ones. Very difficult thing to do. I think it wold be easier to amend parts of it bit-by-bit. The Judge already changed a portion of it that most agreed needed to be changed.


  9. pystew says:

    Chuck, Don’t you think if Secession from New York was a possibility, it would have been done by now? I don’t think we have any way to recall our reprsentatives. Please read the response to epthorn’s comment below.


  10. pystew says:

    Every criminal ws a “Law Abiding Citizen” until he commits a crime. The SAFE Act is very emotional if you are for it, or if you are against it. If it is constitutional or not does not depend on emotion, it depends on laws. The Court that threw the seven round limit out of the bill looked at the Act very carefully. His deccision can be found at . It is not full of legal-ese. I enjoyed following his process, what he used for comparison, and how he came to his conclusions. Yes, the ACT will be appealed. It might get to the Supreme Court.


  11. Joe says:

    Most importantly the judge ruled that the rights of citizens is in fact burdened by this unconstitutional law. The Heller and McDonald rulings were ignored when this judge made his decision. In the end, a fair court, will throw this piece of crap law out. BTW, I am a police officer and this law is garbage. It doesn’t make anybody safer and it criminalizes law abiding gun owners who exercise their civil rights.


  12. BOB MCGILL says:

    Guns in Self-Defense
    Exact numbers for the impact of firearms on crime are difficult to come by. Much of the research into the impact of guns as a crime deterrent comes from the work of Dr. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist.
    Kleck released a study in 1993 showing that guns are used in defense of crime 2.5 million times each year, an average of once every 13 seconds. Kleck’s survey concluded that guns are used in defense of crime three-to-four times more often than they’re used in the commission of a crime.
    Surveys conducted prior to Kleck’s found gun uses in self-defense to range from 800,000 to 2.5 million each year. A U.S. Department of Justice Survey released in 1994, “Guns in America,” estimated that 1.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
    Guns as a Deterrent
    Studies by Kleck and the Department of Justice conclude that guns are frequently used to protect crime victims. But do they serve as a deterrent to crime? Findings are mixed.
    A study by professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed nearly 2,000 incarcerated felons and concluded that criminals are more worried about running into armed victims than law enforcement.
    According to the Wright-Rossi survey, 34% of the felons responding from state prisons said that they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured” by a victim armed with a firearm. The same percentage said they worried about being fired upon by armed victims, while 57% said they were more concerned with encountering an armed victim than encountering law enforcement officers.


  13. pystew says:

    Bob, the article was not about if the SAFE Act is good legislation or not. I was pointing out that it would be extremely difficult to repeal the ACT. Could you provide the source of the information in your letter? That would be a good source to have on hand for other articles.


  14. pystew says:

    I don’t know how you can say that the Judge ignored the Heller and McDonald rulings. In the ‘Decision and Order’ ( ) the Judge refers to those more cases more than 25 times. That document was important for me since I now have a better understanding how the judicial system works. It shows the studies he followed and the testimony of the experts. He even used NRA’s reports that shows assault weapons are not used for self-defense.

    The Judge made it quite clear that it is not the court’s role to rule on how wise the legislation is (or is not), but to see if the NYS Legislators acted within the Constitution. You know the rest. It should be pointed out that the Judge is NOT an extremist liberal judge. He is a republican, appointed by George Bush #41. Of course the “piece of crap law” is being appealed and who knows how it will end up.

    The big sin is that politicians are getting people it can be repealed, which I think is a bunch of hooey. Think how angry people are going to get if it is finally declared to be constitutional?


  15. BOB MCGILL says:

    DID YOU SEE THIS ??????
    ” When are all the gun toting morons going to realize that the SAFE Act is here to stay and doesn’t take away ANY of their rights? It’s about time us TRUE law abiding citizens that don’t own guns can feel safe. If they don’t like the law… leave the state. We won’t miss you! I’ll even `help you pack! ”
    DID YOU SEE THIS ? ” Dr. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist ”



  16. BOB MCGILL says:

    I suppose if some guy sticks an AR-15 in your face you will just have Martha talk him to death. Well some peolpe including the cops would rather have an AR-15 just so they have an even chance.


  17. Brad says:

    All the comments for the NY Safe Act really enjoy the 1st amendment but have a problem with people that want to enjoy the rights given to us by the 2nd Amendment. Heller ruled that guns in common use can be possessed and AR-15 is the most common gun in the US. When the government wants to take away our gun rights they call the evil black gun a ASSAULT WEAPON or ASSAULT RIFLE (which is not what AR Stands for), but when the government wants to purchase the same guns they call the PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS. Also the NY Safe Act creates a special class of citizens by exempting retired LEO and CEO (how many correction officers can even carry a gun in prison) so much for ALL MEN CREATED EQUAL, not in NYS.


  18. Jamie says:

    He looked at it very carefully? Really? He quoted Mother Jones in his dissent. He also stated AR15’s were in common use but still shot them down, which goes against the Supreme court decision in the Heller case. Once the safe act goes to the supreme court, it will be thrown out based on other case that already stand.

    AR15’s by the way, are still legal in this state once you comply by altering certain features. These certain features dont make them any less of a gun.

    The law was passed to make people feel good, that know nothing about how a firearm functions. It wont lower crime and hasnt. It wont stop insane people from shooting up schools. It will do absolutely nothing but make more people criminals. It wont stop criminals from acquiring guns. It wont stop standard capacity magazines from being used.

    If you can prove to me that this law will save anyone, I will give you everything I own, including my guns.

    Gun nut I’m not. I was born in a democrat family, I am a registered democrat. I believe in the right to choose, I believe marijuana should be legalized. I grew up hunting, playing soccer, trap shooting and scuba diving.

    What I dont believe in is making laws just for the sake of making laws. Facts dont show any reason for AR15’s to be illegal. You cant point me to one. FBI and CDC disagree with all these media driven gun laws. I dont believe in much of what the Government has been doing, whether Democrats or Republicans. Why is it so important to the rich to take my money away from me and give it to a bunch of people who sit on their butts. I could understand taking care of those that cant take care of themselves if the government actually eliminated the fraud. Yet thats not going to happen, just like trying to take guns away from criminals, its not going to happen.

    Please people, I understand some of your reasoning’s when its not based on emotion but how can you sit back and crucify a certain rifle that is used in less murder and almost no other crimes than any other gun out there. Facts show that only like 300 or so murders were by rifles in a single year, something like 2% was with what you all call an assault rifle.

    You have no facts to back any of your arguments. They just dont support you, sorry but that there is a fact.

    Its truly funny that when a bomber blows something up, the bomber is crucified, not the bomb.

    I truly hate most Republican politicians because of what they stand for but for me to ever vote democrat again, will be a cold day in hell.


  19. pystew says:

    Brad, each of our “rights” have changed since they were first written. Freedom of speech has legal limits, from slander to buffer zonees. I can undersand your desire to repeal the law. Good luck, the article pointed out that is probably not going to happen.


  20. pystew says:

    Guess Who? That is a good point about the number of gun owners vs the number of hunters. Could you direct me to a site than shows that the number of gun owners is 3.4 million? I woild like to list my source before I change the article.


  21. pystew says:

    No, Bob. I just wanted to see where you copied and pasted your comment from.


  22. kgun12 says:

    We all know gun control isn’t about making us safer, it’s about control. The FBI reports in 2010 there was 8775 firearm deaths and the DOT reports in 2010 there was 32,885 vehicle deaths and as already said there are many more crimes prevented by law abiding people. At a press conference right after the passage of the safe act the State Police Commander was asked how many crimes were committed in Albany by law abiding gun owners? he said he would have to check, a few days later he came back and said they had gone back 3 years and there wasn’t one crime committed that involved and legally licensed gun owner.


  23. pystew says:

    Kgun 12,
    I understand what you are saying, but you are not responding to the article. This isn’t about if the SAFE Act is good legislation. The article is about how difficult it will be to “Repeal” it. When the Assemblyman from the Buffalo area who filed a bill to repeal the ACT said that the REPUBLICANS are a fault for the passage of the bill because the leader of the Senate is a Republican who supports the ACT, when he could have stopped it by not bringing it to the floor for a vote, I began to realize how crazy even trying to repeal it is. Then look at the popularity polls, then look at the moderate republicans, then look at all who benefit because there is a SAFE Act that peoplelove to hate. That will keep them in office.–even federal representatives who have nothing to do with the SAFE Act.

    Use this venue to vent if you want. I will read evey comment. I am looking for comments dealing with improving the chances of repealing it. I don’t think it is going to happen.


  24. kgun12 says:


    I guess the first thing I would ask you is who is benefiting from the Safe Act? Second the way Cuomo is repealing parts of this like No 10 round mag to it’s okay to have 10 round mags to now it you can have 10 round in the mag. By the time it is repeal and yes I think it will be repeal, it might take 5 years but it will be. I think this upcoming election will have an impact on this whole situation. If Cuomo loses (I pray everyday) I like it is repealed within 6 months. If he wins 5 years.


  25. Jack says:

    This site points out that 18% of NY residents own a gun as of 2007. It’s probably substantially higher with the significant spike of purchases over the last several years. I’ve heard many estimates much higher but honestly every estimate is just that, an estimate. We’ll never know how many there are for good reason. It’s none of the states business. One thing that’s almost guaranteed is that every gun owner will be voting against the ones that voted for this unconstitutional law. This law effects everyone of them and they aren’t happy. There is retribution coming in November.


  26. pystew says:

    Jack, Thanks for the link. I will check it over and will include it in the article in some fashion.


  27. BOB MCGILL says:

    Cuomo is just taking advantage of the fact that there are a lot of stupid people out there. His ban on fracking and the SAFE act are just two examples of where he has scared enough people to get away with doing serious damage to the silent majority. In time, enough people will wakeup and realize this is just political maneuvering, playing to the Democratic base that got him elected. Have you noticed that his presidential ambitions have been destroyed ? He will disappear just like his father.
    I hope this link works because it is a perfect example of what is going on.…‎SimilarYouTubeLoading…Apr 11, 2013 – Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel
    People Sign Petition to Ban Water! … CONFISCATING ASSAULT WEAPONS IN NEW YORKby MOXNEWSd0tC0M47,665 views; 9:55


  28. BOB MCGILL says:
    Find out more about Dr. Gary Kleck and his self-defense research. … He has spent his entire career at Florida State University’s School of Criminology,


  29. BOB MCGILL says:
    Find out more about Dr. Gary Kleck and his self-defense research. … He has spent his entire career at Florida State University’s School of Criminology,


  30. BOB MCGILL says:

    Right now I am using a dial-up connection and this takes forever to load. When You tube comes up, just search ” petition to ban water “


  31. whungerford says:

    The two polls cited seem to indicate voters are mostly satisfied with the SAFE Act. Those polls may underestimate support for Governor Cuomo because no opponent has been nominated. If the poll had asked about Cuomo and a specific GOP rival, the result might have been much different. Cuomo won with 62% of the vote in 2010.


  32. pystew says:

    Yates County, who has never gone for the democrat for the House seat in my life time—and probably well before WW2, went for Cuomo in 2010. I doubt it will in 2014.


  33. BOB MCGILL says:

    here are two more I think you will enjoy…/xdlocj_peopl…‎SimilarDailymotionLoading…Jun 8, 2010
    People are fooled into signing a petition with a headline reading “I am a moron”

    this one is great‎Cached
    SimilarAlex JonesLoading…Apr 26, 2013 – Just as we got Austinites to sign a petition to ban water. Infowars and Mark Dice teamed up to ask Californians to sign up for a Nazi Takeover, …


  34. BOB MCGILL says:

    When the idiots down state realize that the ban on fracking just means higher taxes for them, they may throw the bum out.


  35. BOB MCGILL says:…/Fracking-Ban-Costs-York-Billions-Lost-Economic-…‎Cached
    SimilarJun 7, 2011 – Fracking Ban Costs New York Billions In Lost Economic Output, Tax Revenue … ban, is needlessly stifling job growth, investment, and tax revenue in a part … Some 15,000 to 18,000 jobs could be created in the Southern Tier …


  36. BOB MCGILL says:…/Winter-stor…‎CachedThe Christian Science Mo…Loading…by David J. Unger – in 137 Google+ circles
    Jan 22, 2014 – Spot prices in the Northeast are already hitting record levels, and the cost … Natural gas futures prices, not affected by the immediate shortage, …


  37. John DeWert says:

    Probably one of the most affected areas in regards to the SAFE Act is here at Fort Drum. It is clear that the military was not considered in the law. Soldiers transfer in and out of Fort Drum quite regularly. These soldiers come from a variety of states with varied laws, and honestly, most other major Army instillations are in states where we had a great deal of freedom in what we could buy. The weapons and magazines that I brought from North Carolina on my move here is probably mind blowing to the governor. Many soldiers use commercially purchased magazines to augment issued magazines. These same soldiers either own or aspire to own the civilian counterpart of weapons they were exposed to during their military career. It is a part of us. Even Connecticut’s new gun law makes provisions for military members. The NY law is insulting. Not that I support the registration, but the fact that there is no provision for military members who move their entire household to come to NY on government orders to register what they bring (if they even would bother) if they arrive after the registration deadline. Police who may never use a weapon in their job are exempt? They somehow have more firearms experience than those of us who have made a career of using a variety of weapons systems and have personal knowledge of what capacity of a magazine is effective and efficient? I guess reloading under fire doesn’t count as qualifying experience. You got to love how it takes 10 police officers with automatic rifles in full combat gear to respond to an old man with a shotgun and I am graciously allowed to have 7 rounds to react to the same type of attacker. God bless America.


  38. pystew says:

    John, your concerns are valid, but is off the topic of the article. Follow the links and you’ll see how difficult it is to get the law repealed. Your leaders, epecially Nojay and Reed, will tell you that the law is unconstitutional. The republican Federal judge in Buffalo disagrees. Yes, it will be appealed, but who knows what this court will do…Obamacare made it thru the Supreme Court. Corporations are people made it thru the Supreme Court. Moderate Repubicans like parts of the Act. Republicans downstate sees the benefits of it. Maybe it is time to think about amending it instead of repealing it.


  39. BOB McGILL says:

    Todays FL Times, Martha opposes SAFE ACT !


  40. pystew says:

    Yes, she does. You could have read it in the NewNY23rd’s article fund at . The point of the article isn’t that the SAFE Act is a good law or not, but it will be extremely difficult to REPEAL it. Martha, being a good executive listened to more than 5 hours of public comment (Cuomo had NONE) and she voted the way she thought her constituents wanted her to vote. Too bad Rep. Reed is telling us that she SUPPORTS it. You would think that he would be overjoyed that she opposes it, but for some unlnown reason he isn’t.


  41. BOB MCGILL says:

    But she did support it till she found out how unpopular it is in the 23RD. If anybody else did it you would make all kinds of accusations about flip flopping.


  42. pystew says:

    How do you know that she supported it? You do know that people, especially the Chair of county legislatures have other things on their mind. Reed is misinforming us, (some might call it lying). What is he afraid of? Should he be glad that she is against the SAFE Act? I guess his other ethic problems are getting in his way.


  43. pystew says:

    If she had already made up her mind, why did she have over five hours of public commnets? I don’t know about Seenca County, but when Yates County passed their Anti-SAFE Act resolution, they not only had no public input, it never even went to the Public Safety Committee! Moderate Republicans of the YC legislature voted against it.

    Martha has class


  44. pystew says:

    You can read Martha reasons to oppose the SAFE Act that was published in the Elmira Star Gazette.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.