The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Editorial: What's Cuomo going to do about sheriffs' defiance?

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • LINKEDIN
  • PRINT
  • E-MAIL
Text Size: A | A

It now appears that candidate Jeff Gildersleeve will lose to Mike Zurlo in the Republican primary for Saratoga County sheriff. This would ensure that Saratoga won’t have the dubious distinction of being among the counties with a sheriff who refuses to enforce the state’s SAFE Act gun law. Not that it wasn’t close. Gildersleeve overcame a big disadvantage in taking on the party’s endorsed candidate, and got the vote down to absentee ballots (which aren’t ...


You Must Log-In or Subscribe to Continue Subscription Offer Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Advertisement

comments

fjcjr
September 13, 2013
8:33 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

This is a good editorial. Everyone knows that the ability to selectively enforce law is ONLY available to Barak Obama and Eric Holder.

mstella
September 13, 2013
8:47 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Zing! Good comment. The fact is civil disobedience of unjust laws is a grand American tradition.

wmarincic
September 13, 2013
9:29 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

If our law enforcement officers support illegal and unconstitutional laws then we will have true anarchy. Good for the Sheriffs.

RickMayfield
September 13, 2013
10:14 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

We are a nation of laws. As individuals we cannot decide what is or is not Constitutional. If we feel a law is oppressive or unconstitutional it is our right and possibly duty to protest that law and work to overturn it or have the courts rule on it. But, that is the court's job - not the citizenry's and certainly not the purview of a Law Enforcement official. Until the NY SAFE Act has its day in court its illegality or constitutionality is only a matter of opinion. To allow or celebrate the police usurping the court's power sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. Suppose a lawman decides he doesn't agree with your right to have an attorney or that probable cause is just to inconvenient? Take the emotion out and put critical thought in.

1963
September 13, 2013
9:25 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Of course Rick Mayfield is right. Well said.

Phils2008
September 14, 2013
7:15 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

RickMayfiekd, I have news for you. Liberals pick and choose every day what laws they want to obey and enforce. As was pointed out here, Obama and Holder have continually decided what they will enforce and not enforce. The precedent has already been set by a lawless administration. I take it you will do nothing when these liberals decide your savings are community property and require you to hand it over. They have already used and abused the courts. Liberals own the legal system just as they own the media. You are the one lacking in critical thought. All laws need to be enforced and there is none higher then the 2nd one in the Constitution. The Sheriffs have an obligation to enforce that before any arbitrary regulation imposed upon the masses by the anti-Constitutionalists.

wmarincic
September 14, 2013
7:25 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Phils2008, I agree, Obama decided that he would not deport illegal aliens. Holder decides that he will not prosecute the New Black Panthers for threatening voters with a bat at the polls, even with video. A fish stinks from the head as they say.

gazettereader
September 14, 2013
7:35 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I assume "Obama decided that he would not deport illegal aliens" means "deport illegal aliens in record numbers?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31...

reader1
September 14, 2013
9:26 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Liberals own the legal system? I would think the Supreme Court, which by most accounts, is fairly conservative would be surprised to hear that.

reader1
September 14, 2013
9:30 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

It will be interesting to see if the Governor decides to take punitive actions against counties in which Sheriff's refuse to enforce the law. Cannot imagine he will let their positions go without some form of response. If my suspicions are correct, look for the response to come in the form of $, or withholding of same.

tplansing
September 18, 2013
2:01 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I agree with everything that has been said so far in these comments. I would also like to add that if Mr. Cuomo had taken the time to re-read the Penal Law of the State of New York, he would have found that there are laws already on the books that cover everything that he covered in the SAFE NY Act. Except, those laws do not take it to the extent that the SAFE NY Act takes things! He would have found that, those who would want to purchase a handgun would have to apply for a New York State Pistol Permit, which required a thorough background check, fingerprint, photograph, to be sent to the FBI, and the State Police, and the issuing agency. These records are kept on file until such time as the owner/issue/permitted person, moves, dies, or leaves the state, and such records are transferred to the person's new state of residence. He would also have found that if said person who has the permit was involved in a domestic dispute, and even if that weapon was not used in said dispute, the police could confiscate said weapon until any charges have been adjudicated in court. If that weapon is used in the commission of a crime, it can be confiscated and the permit revoked permanently! If the weapon is stolen, that theft has to be reported to the police as soon as possible. And those laws go on and on and on. As far as the number of rounds that the weapon can hold should be immaterial! A trained competition shooter could be able to change magazines in a matter of seconds, and fire those magazines in that same amount of time. The same with a revolver. A shorter amount of time if the shooter is using speed-loaders. The same thing goes for someone shooting a "semi-automatic" rifle. The only difference is that shooter will not be as accurate as someone who is shooting in a single fire mode, and taking time to aim and fire! Like a sniper would. Rapid-fire or automatic fire is only as accurate as there are targets within range of the projectiles in the way of those fired! Good for mowing down brush, or columns of troops, but for single people no-good! As for the appearance of the "assault-rifle". Those kinds of toys have been around since World War II! Usually in the configuration of the 1928 Thompson (Tommy) Machine Gun, in water guns, cap guns, medal, or plastic. Now they are the AR-15(M-16), AK-47, MP 5, MAC-10 11, and that list can go on. All assault weapons, and all are made in the form of toys for kids too! The real ones are now illegal to own! Because they are scary to those who don't know what to do with them, or how to use them. It should be everyone's duty to learn as stated in the 2nd Amendment. The section about the Militia???

ChuckD
September 21, 2013
11:52 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Well tplansing, maybe if you and all your gun-nutty friends had acted civilized and participated in a mature discussion, instead of playing the tools for the NRA and their bizarre 'more guns for everyone!' campaign, we might have a more mutually satisfying outcome. I agree with many of your points concerning the SAFE act but where were you when you were needed? In all your technical yammering there's a stunning void where social concerns fit in.

Advertisement