Strict regulations target law-abiding gun owners
In a recent letter to Everybody’s Column, and again in the Another Voice column, the writers seem to be echoing the same talking points against Concealed Carry Reciprocity. I would take issue with several of their positions. They also complain that Congress has not taken action on gun violence since Sandy Hook, Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs. Please tell me what law they could pass that would have prevented those tragedies.
They claim that New Yorkers fought for the SAFE Act; curious, because it was rammed through “in the dead of night” with no discussion or debate. I know quite a few law-abiding gun owners, none of whom is in favor of that joke. And I’m still waiting to hear of a criminal who has been prosecuted under NY SAFE.
One of the writers worries that reciprocity would allow criminals to bring loaded, concealed handguns into New York. Excuse me, I think they already do. The only out-of-state people currently stopped from bringing handguns into New York are law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, if a person has a felony criminal record, the mere possession of a firearm of any kind is already a serious federal offense.
They also proclaim that New York has a very low gun death rate, supposedly due to strict gun laws. So how do they explain the shooting and homicide rates in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country?
The 10th Amendment states, in part, that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution rest with the states. I believe the Second Amendment covers that concerning the keeping and bearing of arms. So why does my constitutionally guaranteed right end at the state line? I also find it curious that the phrase “gun control laws” has been replaced with the less onerous sounding “gun safety regulations.” After all, who could be against gun safety?
Philip A. Kaczmarek