Martha Robertson Opposes the SAFE Act

Martha Robertson opposes the NYS SAFE Act.

After listening to more than 10 hours of public opinion at two Tompkins County Legislature Meeting and two Public Safety Committee Meetings, she voted AGAINST a Resolution that supported the Act.

In an article published by the Elmira Star Gazette and the Ithaca Journal, which can SAFE:Martha:Fracking signsbe read on line she explains her reasons for her vote. She realizes that the “The law includes arbitrary and confusing constraints” and “the SAFE Act is a move in the wrong direction when it comes to taking meaningful action to reduce gun violence.” She believes “That’s what we should be doing: enforcing the laws directed at criminals and keeping guns out of their hands. Additionally, we should get serious about stopping repetitive crime and addressing issues with mental illnesses.”

Besides the limitations of the Act, Martha knows the impact it has on local government to enforce the “arbitrary and confusing constraints” mandates included in the law.

On February 27 of this year, in front of over 75 people in Chautauqua County, Martha signed the following pledge to Repeal the S.A.F.E. Act:

“I, Martha Robertson, joined local Sheriffs across the 23rd Congressional District in opposing the S.A.F.E. Act. As Chair of the Tompkins County Legislature, I voted against the passage of the S.A.F.E. Act. I pledge to support the repeal of the S.A.F.E. Act.”

Tom Reed also does not support the SAFE Act, but he has never voted against it, or any gun regulations.  The leaders of the House have not allowed a vote, or even a discussion, of gun issues during the the time Reed has been in office. Even though he talks about Repealing the Safe Act, he has no power to act on it—it was approved by the State Legislation for New York State only. Reed is our Federal Representative.

Reed has a  history of voting against conservation issues that protects public lands dedicated to outdoor recreation. In 2012 he co-sponsored the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. Those seven bills would transfer federal lands now used for hunting, fishing, hiking and camping to private profit-making companies for drilling or coal minding.

He also has voted to reduce funds that supported wildlife and water ecosystems, (2011-HR1) and forests, wetlands, and wildlife conservation (2013, HR 1947). In 2012 he voted against proposals from the National Environment Policy, the Wilderness Act and the Environmental Protection Agency. This year he voted against conservation plans for the National Park Services and other federal agencies.

Martha SCOPEReed, and his supporters have continue to misrepresent Martha’s record on this issue (and many others) on his campaign Facebook page, mailings, articles, advertisements, fake websites, robo-calls and letters to the editor.

Martha summarized Reed’s campaign strategies when she wrote: “Rep. Tom Reed and others who claim that I support the SAFE Act are lying about my record.

Realizing that this is going to be a close race, I have made copies of Martha’s SAFE Act newspaper article , and an article100_0621 from this blog about Reed’s anti-conservation votes, and went to see some acquaintances who have “Repeal The Safe Act ” signs in their yards. It didn’t take long for them to come to the realization that Rep. Reed doesn’t represent them. I am certain that they have changed their vote from Reed to Robertson. And they are talking to their friends. For every vote that switches from Reed to Robertson is worth two votes–Reed looses one, Robertson gains one.



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 2014, Congress, Constituents, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Martha Robertson Opposes the SAFE Act

  1. Anne says:

    I also hope folks will consider that if Reed will lie about this, he’ll lie about anything.


  2. Deb Meeker says:

    Rich, thanks so much for putting these two issues together, and doing the leg work that helped people realise Martha’s positions are closer to theirs than Reed wants them to know.
    No doubt there are many in NY 23rd who, when finding out that Reed stands for himself only, would also have “Martha Robertson for Congress” on their front lawns.


  3. BOB McGILL says:

    somebody needs to tell Martha that putting signs on public property is against some local laws. Here in Seneca County Martha signs are not in peoples yards buy along the roads near vacant land on public property and they are illegal, in some towns a permit is also required


  4. solodm says:

    I knew it Bob! you’re that old man yelling ” get off my yard! Damned kids!” 🙂


  5. pystew says:

    Bob, When Penn Yan tried to say that Hillary signs did not meet the Village’s sign code when she ran for the Senate. Federal Lawyers stepped in and told our code enforcement officer that since the election was a federal election, the signs were controlled by federal rules.

    I know your claim is a bit different, but public land is public land. If the signs are ‘illegal’ then the municipality (in your case Seneca County) must have a written policy that tells what the punishment will be (fine and/or jail time). If there is a law being broken then Seneca County (according to you) needs to enforce the law. I have never heard of a county having a code enforcement officer. I know towns and villages do, since they have their own different codes.

    Name one town that requires permits to put up a political yard sign. If that is the case then we all should be outraged because they are infringing on our first amendment rights!


  6. BOB McGILL says:

    when I ran in 2013 I had to get a permit from the Village of Waterloo. What right does anyone have to put signs on vacant private property ? In Waterloo, town and village, election signs are not supposed to be put on public property but the democrats do it all the time ( democrats run the town and the village) it’s called “SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT “. I here Penn Yan is good at that too.


  7. pystew says:

    Are Democrats the only party that puts signs up in the Village of Waterloo? I agree that permission should be received to put signs on private property–vacant or not. Just because there is a sign there does not mean that permission was not given. BTW, in Penn Yan all trustees run as an independent. With that being said, when I was first elected I was the only registered Democrat on the board. There are no Democrats on the Yates County Legislature ( and our tax rate raised 14% between 2012-2013!

    Too bad Waterloo does not enforce their laws. I would complain it I were you, but I know you are not the complaining type. 🙂


  8. BOB McGILL says:

    the owners of some of the vacant property are from out of town, some out of state, permission was not likely given. Complain to who ? The mayor ? he was putting up the signs !
    I ran as a write in and got about 30% of the vote 🙂


  9. whungerford says:

    Given recent court decisions, all restrictions on political advertising may be unconstitutional. Where restrictions exist, might they be framed by a politically motivated majority for partisan advantage? Might enforcement favor a candidate or party. Could a county or state ban all roadside advertising to the advantage of an incumbent? If a sign is placed on public property, who is allowed to remove it? Could anyone take it down before or after an election?


  10. pystew says:

    I called the Village of Waterloo this morning. The clerk told me that there is a permit form for Village Elections which the candidate receives after he/she answers basic questions. They are allowed to place signs 30 days before the election and the signs need to be down 48 hours after the election. The candidate is responsible for the removal of the signs. There is no cost for the permit.

    That does not pertain to town, county, state or federal elections…only ones that they control which are entirely within their borders. Therefore Martha or Tom would not need to get a permit.

    I was also told that signs could be place in public places, like on the side of the roads. They need to have property owners permission to place signs on private property.


  11. pystew says:

    Thirty per cent is an excellent showing for a write in candidate. You must have gotten the word out well.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.