Cuomo Enlists Help On Gun Control

This was legislation hidden from the people. It was not “by” the people. We expect more from our political leaders than this. it is a huge responsibility of lawmakers to be informed and get input from the people. The power of government comes from the governed, not the suit we put in a comfy leather chair so we can go back to work and support our families. I don’t agree with this bill, and I am outraged about how it was hidden from “the people”! You don’t tell us what to do, we tell you what to do! Get off your high horse!

Article XII of the State Constitution, which reads, “The defense and protection of the
state and of the united states is an obligation of all persons in the state.
The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for
the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia” and the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads, “A well-regulated militia is
essential to the security of a free state ..” The Legislature has failed to
provide for the discharge of the obligation of all persons in the state to
defend the state and nation through an organized militia, well-armed,
well-regulated, well-trained and well-disciplined, to which all able bodied
men and women belong.

Shouldn’t that start “Dear Favorite Dumbo-cRAT? You’ve just been screwed by your own party, those of you who are gun owners. Suckers.

The “Silent” majority of gun owners are no longer silent and are now awake and angry.

Before there was the “Oracle of Delphi” there was Count Vampire J. Machiavelli

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.VJMachiavelli.blogspot.com
Power to the People who “VOTE”

1) [Most of those who voted had less than 20 minutes to read it and in no
way had the ability understand or fully digest what was in the bill.]

This is how the state budget is passed every year!

2) [The process for which the SAFE ACT was handled was wrong and is in and of itself unconstitutional.]

Bad news, Joe. The process is ENTIRELY constitutional. As I just said, this is how the state budget is passed every year.

$35.9 Million for NY SAFE Act. That’s right people, $35.9 million to adversely impact law abiding citizens and not have a single positive impact on crime and violence. Rather than spending this money on creating more jobs, finding real ways to keep children safer in schools, addressing flaws in our mental health system, or enforcing the already highly restrictive gun laws in NY, he is spending it on policing law abiding, tax paying, responsible gun owners and US Citizens. Bravo Mr Cuomo…bravo! US citizens…If you are against guns, I respect that. But understand that this bill does not get to the root issues of violence and will NOT stop criminals from committing crimes. So as you struggle to make your bills, pay your taxes, fill your gas tanks, find jobs, etc. $35.9 million of YOUR hard earned money is being flushed down the toilet. If this doesn’t make you angry, I don’t know what will!

Morning, Joe. Buster calling. Brace yourself for the ultimate bad news. I have proof that your argument about “the process” being flawed won’t work. It’s been litigated MANY times before. The bottom line is that the courts will NOT intrude on a NYS governor’s perogative to issue a message of necessity. It’s not there place to do so. It’s a separation of powers thing that the court will honor.

Let me quote liberally from it. I’ll give you the link at the end of this post. The paper was written by someone over at Albany Law school awhile back. Probably a student. I see that she now works for the DOJ. It’s chock full of legal citations. Enjoy!

=============================
“Messages of Necessity as Proscribed byThe New York State Constitution” by Karin A. McArthur, Current Legal Issues in Government, April 28, 2003.

Per Ms. McArthur:

When the plaintiffs in the Dalton v. Pataki matter entered suit, they alleged multiple causes of action. One of these grounds is the Governor’s alleged misuse of the message of necessity exception. The plaintiffs claim that the Governor conducted a “midnight assault on the Constitution.” Their reasoning is based upon the Governor’s message of necessity stating only “these bills [sic] are necessary to enact certain provisions of law.”

The plaintiffs’ claim is that this message of necessity is insufficient because within the statement there is absolutely no citation of facts that would justify a waiver of the regulation three-day waiting period.

Upon a face value examination of the language of the New York State Constitution, one will find that the provision in question calls for the Governor’s message of necessity to cite and certify the facts that create his opinion of necessity. This would seem to support the argument that the plaintiffs’ have presented in their brief to the New York State Court of Appeals. However, before this argument can be accepted by the Court, an examination of the history of the Constitutional provision must be undertaken, as well as an examination of the existing precedents of law for guidance.

(snip)

The only amendment made to Article III, section 14 of the State Constitution came in 1938. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention expressed their concern regarding what they perceived as widespread abuse of these messages of necessity. Sen. Fearon speaking generally said: “I think we all realize that there has been an increasing number of emergency messages issued as the years have gone by, and that the certification as to the necessity for the immediate passage of a bill has come to mean that we have a blank form in which the Governor says, in just those words, he does certify as to the necessity of the immediate passage of the legislation.”

Upon examination of the Revised Record of the 1938 Constitutional Convention, it becomes apparent that the intent of the amendment was two-fold. The delegates were concerned about the increasing use of messages of necessity to allow consideration of bills without a final printing being available for review by the voting legislators.This was in response to the large numbers of such action. Sen. Fearon had been advised “that in the last session the Governor gave some 265 emergency messages during that period.”Sen. Fearon proposed providing “that the bill in its final form … ought to be on the desks so that the actual information contained in that bill would be available to anybody who wanted to look it.” It was acknowledged that this provision would not fix the problem completely, but would work to adequately inform legislators just what it was they would be voting on, as well as cut down the number of bills “appearing” at the last minute.

A secondary concern of the Constitutional Convention delegates was the abuse of messages of necessity by the Governor, as the plaintiffs argue in the present case. The amendment of 1938 created the text that is present in the current State Constitution, calling for the Governor to certify “under his hand and seal of the State, the facts which in his opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon.” The intent of the provision was to require that the Governor certify the facts that led to his opinion of necessity. It was believed that this, coupled with the new requirement that the bill must be in writing and on the desks of legislators, would make the process sufficiently tedious and bothersome, so as to dissuade Governors from exercising the power, unless it was actually needed.

All of this “intent” seems to support the argument that the plaintiffs propose; that in certifying his message of necessity to the legislature in enacting Chapter 383 of the Laws of 2001, Governor Pataki should have included the facts that led to his opinion that immediacy was vital. Many powerful lobbying groups, such as the New York Public Interest Research Group, and the New York State League of Women Voters, in fact support this. These groups recognize the potential for abuse and call for reform. They say: End the abuse of the messages of necessity. New York State’s Constitution requires that all legislation must be available to legislators a full three days before a house can take any action. This requirement can be ignored when the Governor issues a “message of necessity” which allows for immediate action on legislation. The Constitution created this loophole in order to allow lawmakers to act on issues that required immediate attention. This loophole has been abused by the Governor and the legislative leaders to such an extent that many important decisions are now approved with a message of necessity. The messages are used usually in an attempt to limit public debate over important issues. The legislature should act to carefully limit the use of these messages and to prohibit their use in budget negotiations.

While all this “novice” interpretation seems clear cut, the true interpreter here is the court. On this specific issue, the court has already spoken, and has ruled in favor of the Governor.
=================================

Find the paper at

http://www.albanylawDOTedu/media/user/glc/racing_gaming/messageofnecessity.pdf

Plug in a period where I wrote “DOT” in the URL. This blog does not allow links in posts. Or just google the name of the paper and the authors name as I listed earlier.

“Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand?” Beyond the Jimi Hendrix quote, does your dream of a “militia” of approximately 5 million people account for all the criminals, psychopaths, men pissed off at their wives or girlfriends, women pissed off at their husbands or boyfriends, kids, drunks, drug abusers, etc>? Who decides? Your version of “freedom” is a combination of anarchy and paralyzing, untrusting, paranoid fear worthy of a “Mad Max” movie. Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-Tung said “Political power flows out of the barrel of a gun”, bun it clearly cannot provide the basis for a workable social compact.

No gun law, save CoBIS was ever repealed in NYS, and CoBIS was only 1 of 5 parts of Pataki’s 5 point law. That, also, 1) raised the age for getting a Pistol Permit to 21 denying the fact that there were competitions amongst younger folk with pistols, including Olympic meets, 2) outlawed so-called “ASSault Weapons” 3) outlawed slungs (What the heck is a slung?), and various knives and swords that one wouldn’t recognize as a sharp object, and 1 more which escapes me right now.

I read the article, seems the courts decided that the governors message of necessity needs only to make sense to him. However, I also noted this quote:

“The assertion of an insufficient message has no basis, because in the face of the 9/11 tragedy,
as well as the apparent state fiscal crisis, it would clearly be rational and reasonable for the Governor to call for legislative provisions that would help alleviate these problems”

With a 47Billion dollar NYS deficit I would hardly call a bill that requires an additional 30 million dollars to enforce (for the purpose of making law abiding citizens felons while doing little to improve public safety) rational and reasonable.