So This Is What It Comes To?

Hi Everyone,

I read a Gannett article last week about New York state's new, NY Safe Ammunition Enforcement Act. NY SAFE Act includes a ban on any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with a "military style" feature, such as a pistol grip. Because of this new law, small assault weapons manufacturers such as: Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI, LLC as well as sporting goods retailer Cheaper Than Dirt have decided that if civilians can't buy assault weapons, they won't sell to the State of New York or any governmental entity within the State of New York until the law is repealed. So this is what it comes to? Olympic said that if civilians can't buy a semi-automatic weapon, then the company won't sell them to law enforcement. Tom Spithaler, Olympics Sales Director, said the sales policy is meant to "even the playing field." What??????? Then Tom goes on to say, "We feel as though if the state legislature deems those weapons to be problematic and they're a risk to public safety, then law enforcement shouldn't have them either". The company wants to even the playing field? If they can't sell to anyone they won't sell to law enforcement? What a great way to cut off their own noses, I mean revenues. Depending on how you look at it, these are all bit players in the larger scheme of manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms, who are not banning sales to law enforcement. Because of Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms not banning the sales, there will be no impact on New York's law enforcement's ability to buy the weapons.

By banning assault weapons, the NRA has said that the second amendment is being taken away and that this is the first step to the outlawing of all guns. What a bunch of dung!!!! Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the issue you are on, guns will always be a part of this country. But to say that the second amendment is being taken away, I think not. People will still have their guns, but, think about this, is it really necessary to own assault weapons, that were designed for one single purpose, to kill as many people, as quickly as possible?

But why should a small, minority group of people, members of the NRA and their supporters, have such a strong say in gun control? They are obviously entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. You may not remember, but, back in 1999, the NRA was in favor of universal background checks, including gun shows. They even said that there should be no loopholes in the universal background checks. But, thousands and thousands of guns are sold, each year, right outside of the gun shows and there are no background checks done on those individual sales. That's a great place for a mentally challenged person to buy an assault type weapon. Now the NRA has backtracked and now says that they don't want those types of individual sales included in the universal background checks. So, is left alone, the universal background checks would continue to have one big, huge way around the background check system. But the NRA is now OK with that. Is their no common sense left in this country anymore. The NRA is just plain wrong!

As I have said previously, I do believe in the second amendment. But does that mean that any and all weapons should or could be owned by non mentally challenged people? I think not! Why? Again, as I have stated previously, weapons of mass destruction, such as assault weapons should not be owned by civilians and should only be in the possession of law enforcement or the military. I truly believe that common sense says the ban and universal background checks with no loopholes for individual sales should both be passed.

The tide has turned against the NRA and assault weapons. We have the power to try something new with no loopholes, to try to prevent another Newtown, CT massacre. There are no laws that can absolutely prevent another Newtown, but we have to try and not let the status quo be our guide.

Til next week.

Peter