New York State Troopers - Hey, our members didn’t pass SAFE

[Parker 213]

Today was the first day for New Yorker's who own assault weapons by definition of New York's SAFE Act to begin mandatory registration for those weapons with the NYSP. Residents have until next year at this time to complete the process. It seems the SAFE Act has put more that gun owners and politicians at odds.

 

http://blog.timesuni...idnt-pass-safe/

 

Troopers PBA: Hey, our members didn’t pass SAFE

 

The New York State Troopers PBA has released a statement expressing its hope that opponents of the SAFE gun control law will appreciate the fact that its members “did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage.”

 

“Our membership holds widely shared concerns of this new law,” the statement reads in part. “Additionally, we believe that actual enforcement of these new regulations will significantly increase the hazards of an already dangerous job.”

 

Other law enforcement groups, including one representing deputy sheriffs in Saratoga County, have expressed their opposition to the law, which was passed in January less than 24 hours after being released for public view.

 

The statement calls out Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak and state Sen. Michael Ranzenhofer, western New York lawmakers who have called for an official investigation into whether or not the State Police are sifting through medical records. The elected officials were reacting to the case of a Buffalo-area librarian who had to turn in his guns after being mistaken for a man with the same name. State Police and the Erie County Clerk have been pointing fingers at each other over that episode.

 

“Additionally, some in mainstream media have already irresponsibly increased the anti-police rhetoric, which fosters additional resentment of law enforcement,” the statement says, without identifying any reporter or outlet.

 

Here’s the full statement:

"The NY SAFE Act has been a controversial and emotional topic since its passage in January of 2013. The NYS Troopers PBA, representing more than 6,000 active and retired members, has reserved public comment as we worked within the legislative process of NYS government with the hope of affecting changes to the law. Our membership holds widely shared concerns of this new law. Additionally, we believe that actual enforcement of these new regulations will significantly increase the hazards of an already dangerous job.

 

Polls have shown that increased firearm regulations are not popular in the more rural and upstate regions of our state, which is where the majority of our members live and patrol. Additionally, some in mainstream media have already irresponsibly increased the anti-police rhetoric, which fosters additional resentment of law enforcement. Even some of our elected officials, like Senator Ranzenhofer and Assemblyman Gabryszak, are calling for a probe of our members and their efforts to meet the standards of this new law.

 

It is the responsibility of this union to defend the reputation and safety of our members. Potential legislative changes as well as pending court decisions may further alter the terms of the SAFE Act. The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage. We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws."

[maintenanceguy 510]

They're in a tough spot? Knowingly violate a civil right or find another career? How many will do the right thing?

[Bully 749]

How many will do the right thing?

 

Very, very few.

 

C

[jm1827 284]

Very, very few.

 

C

 

If any, unfortunately.

[Midwest 28]

They're in a tough spot? Knowingly violate a civil right or find another career? How many will do the right thing?

 

There is an alternative, find the same career in another state.

[Jeff 13]

 

 

There is an alternative, find the same career in another state.

 

Excellent point.

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

There is an alternative, find the same career in another state.

 

Easier said than done

[Nikos 31]

They're in a tough spot? Knowingly violate a civil right or find another career? How many will do the right thing?

Let's say (theoretically) that a few hundred police officers would do the right thing and leave the force, that would be a convenient filtration system for the gov't since the remaining officers will be tailored to carry out their dirty deeds.

 

 

 

[Tactical Turtle 11]

 

 

Easier said than done

 

+1 alot of these guys are vested and have a decent ammount of time is. Its not easy to leave the pay and benefits..

[BlueLineFish 615]

Leave pay and benefits. Start over in the middle of your career. Uproot your home and family. Not easy

[Underdog 1,593]

New Yorkers and their LEOS got what they bought and paid for, Statist $hit. Any troopers that go against the US Constitution and enforce these laws are no better than the sludge that put them in place and would no longer be able to call themselves Americans. Just as the people need to stand up for their rights, the sheepdogs do, too. Nothing is ever easy and we all need to make sacrifices for our freedoms. That said, the people need to support the LEOS that do the right thing.

[Melgamatic 66]

Leave pay and benefits. Start over in the middle of your career. Uproot your home and family. Not easy

 

Of course normal civilians have to do this multiple times during their careers. Pensions? Ha, I've had good jobs in NYC for 20+ years and have never had one. All the civilians I know have had to "uproot their homes and families" at least once, or maybe work hundreds of miles from home. I know several friends in NJ work during the week in Boston because that's where their job moved.

 

So, I agree it's hard to leave your roots, but it's something that almost every normal civilian has to do because we don't get crazy benefits.

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

Of course normal civilians have to do this multiple times during their careers. Pensions? Ha, I've had good jobs in NYC for 20+ years and have never had one. All the civilians I know have had to "uproot their homes and families" at least once, or maybe work hundreds of miles from home. I know several friends in NJ work during the week in Boston because that's where their job moved.

 

So, I agree it's hard to leave your roots, but it's something that almost every normal civilian has to do because we don't get crazy benefits.

 

I'm not starting this argument again to turn it into "that thread"

[EX Carnival man 223]

How can you ever blame someone who is just following orders? I recall a group pf men in 1945 said the same thing

[Melgamatic 66]

I'm not starting this argument again to turn it into "that thread"

 

I don't want to turn it into "that thread" either. I fully support cops. I just want them to realize that having to change jobs, lose benefits, uproot family, etc, because your job goes away or you decide your job isn't for you is a normal thing.

[Melgamatic 66]

Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

 

Except that in this case I'm pretty sure that International Law doesn't provide for the right of civilian gun ownership, and that a government seizing firearms is not only not prohibited under International Law, but possibly promoted by it. So I don't think this helps us much...

[Parker 213]

I suspect they don't see a lot of people conforming to the new regulations. Monday, April 15th, was the first day of "registration" that residents had to start registering any weapons with the SP that fall into the "assault weapon" category. (I'm hoping a news article follows up at least by the end of the week to report on how many residents have actually complied.) Folks have jumped on registering the forms for not disclosing their handgun information to public consumption, which has been reported numerous times last month, but it remains to be seen how many report their AR's, AK's, M1's, etc. to the authorities.

[ryan_j 0]

How can you ever blame someone who is just following orders? I recall a group pf men in 1945 said the same thing

 

It's the pay, benefits and career. Screw the constitution.

[raz-0 1,259]

I read this as.. the law sucks, we wanted to change it, they won't, we wanted to use officer discretion, and now they are saying they are trying to eliminate any leeway we have, and thus we are afraid we will be shot by people who hate the law makers.

 

It's tough times timmy, buckle up for the ride. It isn't going to be fun from the other side either. The administration isn't going to let you play the middle, you will have to pick sides.

[ryan_j 0]

Leave pay and benefits. Start over in the middle of your career. Uproot your home and family. Not easy

 

Nobody ever said doing the right thing and defending the constitution and 2nd amendment was easy.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

They're in a tough spot? Knowingly violate a civil right or find another career? How many will do the right thing?

 

they're getting a paycheck. while they may not like it, they will do as ordered.

[Parker 213]

You mean Carbine's..........?

 

M1's don't seem to fall under it

 

Carbines, yes, that's what I was alluding to. It's probably the most popular small-arm I see at upstate NY ranges.

 

As for the Garand, it depends on what day you call the NYSP hotline because in the beginning you got a different answer each time on the Garand. As for the last time I spoke with them, the Garand is technically not an assault weapon because the enbloc clip is not a detachable magazine. It would be nice if the AG provided a definitive list rather than an interpretive one, but that's asking too much.

 

 

22. "Assault weapon" means

(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

[Soju 153]

You can justify violating the constitution however you want. It may not be an easy decision, but it sure as hell is easy to do. People give up jobs, benefits, and move all the time at the expense of their family for good and just reasons. People also knowingly violate peoples rights and cause them to have their lives uprooted for unethical and unjust reasons. Money is a big incentive to many. People will do all sorts of jacked up things for a few bucks.

 

Personally, I find that pretty despicable. A solid job with decent pay and excellent benefits, and a 65K bonus is pretty enticing. But if that is at the expense of other peoples rights...no thank you.

[Handyman 5,682]

Easier said than done

 

So just out of morbid curiosity, what do you think you will do when the choice is presented to you (probably someday soon)?

[raz-0 1,259]

they're getting a paycheck. while they may not like it, they will do as ordered.

 

Really? Because I don't believe any police were ever ordered to sleep in their patrol cars in one of the parking lots down the street form a place I used to live, but lots of them did it. Like other jobs, people do the jopb they feel they are being paid to do. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it isn't. I'd argue since the NYSP are bitching about officer discretion being taken off the table as a tool to keep a cap on the fallout form the SAFE BS, that you have a disconnect there. My guess it is more based on self interest than morals or ethics though. I think they are looking at the prospect of things like dealing with a broadly uncooperative public who were once on their side for all policing issues because of this law at least, and possibly getting shot by people who used to be interested in helping them out at worst. The reason a lot of the rights are there in the bill of rights (IMO), is not because they are some lofty ideal but because they are the steps on the path to tyranny and failure when ignored (a couple are in there just to prevent gaming a claim of obeying the others). The state police are worried about being the point at which that is illustrated, and they should be.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

NYSP may not have passed the SAFE ACT, but they'll have no problem enforcing it.......

[PhilipJFry 4]

NYSP "hey we didn't pass SAFE, but we'll continue providing security for the dillweeds that did!"

[fumanchu182 23]

I don't agree with any government official that claims to be just following orders. fugg them and the system they protect.

 

[Mike48 0]

If I were the Police Union, I would consider, and have a plan to round up all NYS lawmakers at a moments notice.

 

...just having such a plan might bring sanity.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

I'm sure the state police are loaded with good men and women.But they will crush us on orders. That is exactly the reason why 2 a is there. So they will sit in front of our houses wondering if they are going to go home that night if they follow those orders and step through that doorway and violate the constitution.. Its called checks and balances. And it works

 

I'm not in anyway advocating violence with that statement.We do have a court system to address an over zealous legislature. Just reinforcing what the founders intended 2 A for. It was meant to keep the citizen in charge and equal to Govt in terms of power and use of force.