This document summarizes a bill proposing the repeal of New York's SAFE Act gun control legislation. It provides background on events leading to the SAFE Act's passage, an overview of its key provisions, and the initial mixed response it received. It also discusses implications for the author's assigned Assembly member, Bill Nojay, whose largely rural district contains many gun owners opposed to the SAFE Act. Most recently, Assembly Bill A3943 and Senate Bill S1193 were introduced to repeal the SAFE Act.

1. REPEAL OF THE NEW YORK STATE SAFE ACT
ASSEMBLY BILL A3943
SENATE BILL S1193
Greg Whittaker
Session Intern – Assembly Member Bill Nojay
Manchester Metropolitan University
In Association With Buffalo State College
April 2015

2. Table Of Contents
I. Introduction
A) Events Leading To The SAFE Act
B) New York SAFE Act
C) Initial Response
D) Implications On Assigned Member & Their District
II. Repeal Of The SAFE Act
A) Assembly Bill A3943 & Senate S1193
III. Justifications
A) Unconstitutional - Second Amendment
B) “Message Of Necessity”
C) Gun Control Is Ineffective
D) Other Reasons
IV. Support Of The Repeal
A) Assembly & Senate
B) Interviewing Assemblyman DiPietro
C) Interviewing Assemblyman Nojay
V. Opposition To Repeal
A) Assembly & Senate
B) Interviewing Assemblyman Lenthol
C) Other Reasons For Opposition
VI. Leadership
VII. Policy Entrepreneurs

3. VIII. Divisions
A) Upstate vs. Downstate
B) Republicans vs. Democrats
IX. Prospects
X. Has Democracy Been Served?
XI. Conclusion
XII. Works Cited
Apendix A) A3943
Apendix B) Memorandum In Support Of Legislation

4. Introduction
Events Leading To The SAFE Act
The shooting carried out by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton,
Connecticut on December 14th 2012 shocked the nation and sparked mass debate about the
effectiveness of gun control law. After killing his mother, Lanza a 20 year old, took the lives
of 20 students and 6 adult staff members using a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle and two
pistols.1 Wearing black fatigues and a military vest whilst opening fire, he brought terror to
the school. Yet the Sandy Hook shooting was just one of 16 mass shootings across the
country in 2012. Other notable shootings include the killing of 12 people by student Andrew
Engeldinger during the July 20th midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora,
Colorado2 and the fatal shooting of 6, including himself, by Andrew Engeldinger in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. One common factor in all of these harrowing events was that the
guns used were bought legally and this disturbing fact fuelled an outcry for better gun
control laws.
Across the United States gun control legislation came to the forefront of the public and
political agenda. Whilst President Obama and other prominent politicians gave voice to the
call for stricter gun control across the country, the public too had grown sick of these
hideous events and called for action. In New York State, Governor Andrew Cuomo was quick
to act. Just 32 days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, comprehensive new
gun control legislation had been drafted, introduced, passed through both the New York
State Assembly and Senate, and signed into law. On January 15th 2013 the New York Secure
Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act was created. Yet despite public and
1 CNN, “Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?”, http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-
timeline/, 2012
2 Michael Pearson,CNN, “Gunman turns 'Batman' screeninginto real-life'horror film'”,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/, July 2012

5. political thirst for effective gun control, the nature and speed of introduction was far from
universally welcomed. Indeed it was the subject of controversy in many sectors of the State.
New York SAFE Act
Passing the Senate on the 14th
January 2013 with a vote of 43-19, and in the Assemblyon the
15th January 104-34, 3 bill number 3288 amended a number of provisions in New York State
law regarding the possession, sale and transfer of firearms, long guns, assault weapons and
ammunition. Affecting areas of law in criminal procedure, correction, executive,general
business, judiciary, mental hygiene, and penal elements,the 46 page document covered a
breadth of information relating to gun control and gun access in the New York State.4
The Act
was wide reaching and more detailed exploration is neededto fullyunderstand the strength of
feelingit generated throughout the State.
One significant element of the SAFE Act is the redefinedclassification of “assault weapons”,
paired with a new registration requirement for those who lawfullyowned such guns before the
enactment of the new statute. This provision had one of the most extensive effects on the
public as the new definition changed the accepted variety of rifles,shotguns and handguns with
a new definitionof assault weapons. Those with existingfirearms licenseswere also required to
renew or recertify these permits every 5 years.5 Furthermore there was a ban on the transfer of
assault weapons withinNew York State, including transfer by inheritance. The aim of the
legislationwas to protect citizens from abuse of the weapons, but the consequential effect on
law abiding citizenswas the subject of much heated discussion.
A second legislative change was a restriction on the types of magazines that individualsare
allowed to possess and limits on the number of rounds permitted to be loaded in a magazine.
3 LegislativeRetrieval System, “A2388”, http://leginfo.nysa.us/asmsen/navigate.cgi?NVDTO:, January 2013
4 LegislativeBill DraftingCommission - LBDC, State Of New York, “Senate – Assembly”, January 2013
5 The Office of Division Counsel,page1, “Guide to The New York Safe Act for Members of the Division of State
Police”,http://www.nypdcea.org/pdfs/NYSP_Safe_Act_Field_Guide.pdf, September 2013

6. Although a person may continue to possess magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds, the SAFE
Act “prohibits having more than 7 rounds loaded in any particular magazine.”6
Consequent
opposition, with complaints by plaintiffsincluding the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
led to the Federal Court in March 2014 holding this section; “Unlawful Possession of Certain
Ammunition Feeding Devices, was unconstitutional. As a result of the Court's decision members
are instructed not to enforce PL 265.37 at this time.”7
Currently however there remains
confusion and inconsistent action over this provision in the SAFE Act, with some police
enforcement agencies making arrests and other not.
The legislationalso sought to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnessesby
requiring mental health professionals to report to the authorities any patient who was
considered to be dangerous. As a result about 34,500 people in New York are now barred from
having guns.8
Some mental health advocates have expressed concern that too many people
have been categorized as dangerous, whilst some experts claimthe provision “will create a
chilling effect on people who need professional help but might otherwise avoid it because
their weapons might be taken away.”9
Other legislative changes have their supporters and those who object to their inclusion. The
requirement of a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check) for private sales of firearms
subject to certain exceptions may be seen as beneficial or as unduly intrusive and difficultto
enforce. Other elements including the establishment of several new penal law offences,
6 The Office of Division Counsel,page9, “Guide to The New York Safe Act for Members of the Division of State
Police”,http://www.nypdcea.org/pdfs/NYSP_Safe_Act_Field_Guide.pdf, September 2013
7 Rick Karlin,Times Union, “State Policeguide amended to ignoreseven-round ruleafter court rulingon NY
SAFE Act”, http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/State-Police-guide-amended-to-ignore-seven-round-
5355959.php,March 2014
8Anemona Hartocollis,NY Times, “Mental Health Issues Put34,500 on New York’s No-Guns List”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html,
October 2014
9 Phil Fairbanks,Buffalo News, “Nation’s big-city policechiefs’group supports SAFE Act”,
http://www.buffalonews.com/20130624/nation_x2019_s_big_city_police_chiefs_x2019_group_supports_safe
_act.html, June 2013

7. enhancement of the penalties for existing offences,and exemption of records relating to the Act
from public disclosure, provided a wide array of new gun control measures applicable in New
York State.
Initial Response
Reaction to the Act was both varied and plentiful. Republicans, Democrats, gun clubs,
anti-gun clubs, police enforcement and lobbyists were amongst those who were vociferous
and speedy in their response. The wide reaching implications of the bill aroused strong
emotions, and although it was always assumed that the Act would face opposition, the scale
of that opposition was worrying. In the New York State Assembly and Senate there was
certainly a divide in support between the Republicans and Democrats. Passionate
arguments were heard in the Assembly as the Act became the focus of attention for many of
the Assembly Members. Although arguments for and against were vocal, the words reform
and repeal quickly became associated with the Act. The strength of feeling evoked in some
members led to a campaign focus against its introduction. In demonstrating such strength of
feeling, members were reflecting the views of many of their constituents.
Being one of the hardest affected areas of society, the response by gun club members
was instantaneous. Large gun associations such as National Rifle Association and New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association soon began legal action against the Act, with the latter filing
a lawsuit against Governor Cuomo within 3 months of the Act’s introduction.10 Petitions for
reform or repeal quickly became organised, with tens of thousands of signatures supporting
them. Gun club members had an overwhelming sense that the Act was unfair, unpractical
and inaccurate, criminalising individuals under the new definitions of assault weapons.
Whilst a negative reaction from gun clubs was to some extent expected, such a response by
10 United States DistrictCourt, “New York State RifleAnd Pistol Association,Inc.,et, al v. Andrew M. Cuomo”
https://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-SAFE-Memo-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf, April 2013

8. the police was not. Their support of the legislation would be of prime importance in its
effectiveness, their initial response would be an important insight into its likely success.
Firstly, The New York State Sheriff’s Association stated that whilst they agreed with some
terms of the Act they, “strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of
some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly
enforce the law in their counties.”11 This view was reflected in other police statements.
Supporting this feature the New York State Police said, “As with many large legislative
initiatives,the SAFE Act has raised questions from members of the fieldrelating to the scope of
the Act and its effect on those police officers who will have the responsibilityto enforce the
various provisions.”12
Moreover in some cases, such as the Albany Police Officers Union,
there was complete opposition; “The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes
the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act.”13
Such comments should be balanced against some more positive viewsexpressed. Overall it
can be said that a general feelingfrom those responsible for enforcement was a lack of certainty
about whether the Act was fair and enforceable. However this lack of wholehearted support
would present obstacles for its introduction, without the backing of those who would
implement it, legislation could easily fail.
In contrast to the negative comments outlined, others voiced approval of the SAFE Act. Many
Assembly Members, anti-gun clubs, and associations came to support its introduction,
perceiving it in a positive light. The first wave of positive response could be seen through groups
such as New Yorkers Against Gun Violence who described the Act as, “one of the most
comprehensive gun laws in the nation, with provisions to keep guns out of the hands of
11 New York State Sheriffs' Association,“Sheriffs’Responseto NY SAFE Act”,
http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act,DateN/A
12 The Office of Division Counsel,page1, “Guide to The New York Safe Act for Members of the Division of State
Police”,http://www.nypdcea.org/pdfs/NYSP_Safe_Act_Field_Guide.pdf, September 2013
13 Albany PoliceOfficers Union, https://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/AlbanyPoliceUnionLetter.pdf, April 2013

9. dangerous individuals and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”14 Some
viewed it as an innovative piece of legislation which led the way for the rest of America to
bring about reform to reduce gun crime.
Another area of support came from the Major City Chiefs Association who said, “Assault
weapons are enablers of violent crime and mass murder… the type of semiautomatic rifle
used in Webster is now banned as an assault weapon under the SAFE Act.”15 The Webster
incident was a shooting in December 2012 in which a gunman ambushed fire fighters
attending a house fire in the Rochester suburb of Webster, N.Y, killing two firemen.16 The
weapons used were banned under the SAFE Act. Of course the bill couldn’t have passed into
legislation without the support and vote of a majority in the Assembly. Despite the concerns
indicated, a number of high ranking Assembly Members quickly voiced support for Act,
regarding it the most efficient and necessarily tough gun control law in the United States.
Initial response by society as a whole to the SAFE Act could be said to be more negative
than positive. The application of a new definition of assault weapon provided the biggest
focus point for most of those negative responses. Disapproval of the Act was to be expected
from some sectors, but its momentum especially in New York City was perhaps wider and
stronger than would be predicted. Yet whether or not the Act had gained popular support, it
was still an established law in the New York State.
Implications On Assigned Member & Their District
My assigned Assembly Member is Bill Nojay who is the representative of the 133rd
14 New Yorkers AgainstGun Violence, “Gun Debate on NY SAFE Act”, http://nyagv.org/event-ny-safe-act-
debates-friday-april-5/,April 2013
15 Phil Fairbanks,Buffalo News, “Nation’s big-city policechiefs’group supports SAFE Act”,
http://www.buffalonews.com/20130624/nation_x2019_s_big_city_police_chiefs_x2019_group_supports_safe
_act.html, June 2013
16 Victoria Freileand Doug Stanglin,USA Today, “4 firefighters shot, 2 killed atWebster, N.Y., fire”,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/24/webster-new-york-firefighter-shot/1788917/,
December 2013

10. Assembly District of New York State. As a member of the minority Republican Party he was
elected to the Assembly in 2012. Made up of Livingston County, and parts of Monroe
County and Steuben County, the district is a very rural area just below the city of Rochester.
Shooting is a widely accepted and supported interest with almost all households owning a
firearm. The introduction of the SAFE Act was inevitably a heated topic of debate amongst
the constituents of the district and the subject of many petitions to Assemblyman Nojay.
Within the 133rd district there are 18 gun clubs, some with over 1,000 members. The
effect of the SAFE Act upon his constituents, especially the large number of gun owners, was
prolific. Many constituents have raised concerns that enhanced regulation of firearms is a
stride towards total seizure of all firearms. The Assemblyman himself voted against the SAFE
Act and has been very outspoken against it; he has created, co-sponsored and multi-sponsored
numerous repeal bills.In doing so Assemblyman Nojay is acting to reflect the concerns of many
of his constituents and to represent their wishes.
Repeal Of The SAFE Act
Assembly Bill A3943 & Senate S1193
Given the haste in which the New York SAFE Act was adopted, and the breadth of its
reach, it is no surprise that many questions arose about how the Act would be interpreted in
relation to firearm owners, dealers, distributors, manufacturers and the law enforcement
community. These questions were soon translated into political action. From day one of its
introduction a variety of reform and repeal bills have been sought. In the years since its
introduction, the Assembly and Senate have seen a number of political campaigns from
politicians and candidates, especially those from Upstate New York, run supporting repeal.
The most recent repeal bill was introduced in 2015 by Assemblyman David DiPietro, a
Republican member of the New York State Assembly representing 147th district, and Senator

11. Kathleen Marchoine, also a Republican serving as a State Senator from New York's 43rd
district. The same-as bill would repeal chapter 1 of the laws of 2013, “amending the criminal
procedure law and other laws relating to suspension and revocation of firearms licenses;
private sales or disposal of firearms, rifles or shotguns.”17 Effectively seeking to repeal the
controversial provisions of the SAFE Act, the bill has gained support from the general public
as well as many interest groups. There are a plethora of reasons why politicians and the
public have sought repeal of the Act. Some of the major objections cited will now be
discussed in more depth.
Justifications
I) Unconstitutional - Second Amendment
One justification for the repeal bill is the complaint that the introduction of the SAFE Act
was unconstitutional. Citing the Second Amendment, an argument has been raised that the
Act goes against one of the supreme laws ratified in 1788 by the Founding Fathers, and that
it needs to be repealed to preserve the Amendment. Quoting from the constitution the
Amendment states; “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”18 Citing this supreme
law demonstrates how opponents perceive the Act to be an infringement on civil liberties.
The ability of an individual to defend themselves is a right enshrined in the Second
Amendment, allowing citizens the right of weapons to self-defence.
In recent times major court cases have addressed this issue. The cases of District of
Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) enhanced support for
reform due to concerns the Act is unconstitutional. In the case of Heller the Supreme Court
17 LegislativeRetrieval System, “A3943”, January 2015
18 Cornell University Law School,“Second Amendment”,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment, Date N/A

12. found, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defence within the home.”19 Consequently the Court found that protection for
citizens who own, acquire or handle weapons for common and lawful function would be
banned under the SAFE Act. Referring to the judicial comments concerning ‘individual right’
many supporters use this as evidence in their justification of the need for repeal.
Further support can be found in the McDonald case as the Supreme Court found the right
of an individual to "keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is
incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”20 The Due Process
Clause prohibits State and local government officials fromdepriving persons of life, liberty,
or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the Federal
Judiciary to inform most of the Bill of Rights, which was created to protect and enumerate
the rights of citizens, applicable to all States. Effectively it applies the Second Amendment to
the Constitution and to the Federal and State government. In the McDonald case the
majority found the right to bear arms to be a fundamental right.
II) “Message Of Necessity”
Another justification for the repeal bill is unease about the manner in which the Act was
signed into law. Since 1938, the New York State Constitution has required a proposed bill to
age for three days before it is allowed to be voted on. The Constitution states, “No bill shall
be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the
members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final
19 Supreme Court of the United States, “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER”, October 2007
20 Supreme Court of the United States, “MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL”, October
2009

13. passage.”21 This rule is applied so that legislators have the time to read and understand the
bill before casting a vote. But the Governor can waive the rule if, in their opinion, it
necessitates an immediate vote. Under this power the governor, “shall have certified, under
his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an
immediate vote thereon.”22
Concerns have been raised that one of the keynotes of legislative democracy, the
opportunity for constituents to be informed of proposed legislation and provide feedback
on their views, has been bypassed by the use of necessity. Not only did its application make
it impossible for the legislators to seek informed views from the public, but the lengthy 46
page document made it difficult for the legislators to read and absorb the implications of all
the information it contained before making a decision.
Governor Cuomo justified his use of necessity by explaining; “Some weapons are so
dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act
without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect
its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible… For this reason, in addition to
enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate
action by the Legislature is imperative.”23 It may be argued that the use of necessity was not
clear and that there is a lack of clarity about when it should be applied. Furthermore there
was a view that it was not required in this specific case, as many aspects of the SAFE Act
were not applied until several months after its passage into law suggesting there was no
21 MichelleBreidenbach,Syracuse.com, “The Safe Act "emergency": How Cuomo, pastgovernors bypassed
public to make laws”,http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_emergency_gun_law.html,
March 2013
22 MichelleBreidenbach,Syracuse.com, “The Safe Act "emergency": How Cuomo, pastgovernors bypassed
public to make laws”,http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_emergency_gun_law.html ,
March 2013
23 Nick Reisman, Time Warner CableNews, “Cuomo’s MessageOf Necessity On Guns”,
http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2013/01/cuomos-message-of-necessity-on-guns/, January 2013

14. need for such haste.
The SAFE Act appears to have angered the public more than any other bill which has been
processed so quickly through the legislative stages. Governor Cuomo evoked a fierce
reaction from his use of a message of necessity, with Republicans and Democrats alike
accusing him of using the Act just for his own personal political goals. The root of such
concern is the fact that the Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, and no time for
opponents to make a case to their legislators and no opportunity for informed debate. It
was introduced, passed through both houses, and signed into law by Governor Cuomo in
just two days.
III) Gun Control Is Ineffective
The belief that gun control is ineffective provides the biggest social justification for a
repeal bill. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, but especially Republicans, tend to
believe that removing guns from law abiding people does not serve to keep the State or
country safer. One notable factor in the mass shootings in the past two decades is that most
of them have taken places in ‘gun free’ areas.24 Despite a recent focus on greater gun
control, it does not necessarily follow that this will result in fewer gun crimes.
This can be clearly illustrated in the State of Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook
Elementary School shooting took place, as the gun murder rate in Connecticut has doubled
since 2005 from 1.3 per 100,000 persons to 2.6 per 100,000.25 Yet gun laws have assumed
particular significance in the State since the event, with the Assembly passing some of the
nation’s toughest gun laws, similar in character to those of the SAFE Act.
Another issue lies in the feasibility of making arrests in relation to the new legislation.
24 Erich Pratt, USNEWS, “Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only MakeCitizens Less Safe”,
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-sandy-hook-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-
control/stricter-gun-control-laws-will-only-make-citizens-less-safe,December 2012
25 Connecticut AgainstGun Violence, “Facts”, http://www.cagv.org/facts/, 2013

15. Data released by the State shows that one major fear among gun owners has not come to
fruition; law enforcement officials have not gone out of their way to enforce provisions of
the SAFE Act against otherwise law-abiding state residents.26 The State Sheriffs Association
has raised numerous concerns concerning the law and says it's difficult to enforce, indeed
some counties and municipalities are actually instructing their workers not to implement all
aspects of the act. This limited implementation by the police force has provided one of the
most compelling advocates of repeal.
IV) Other Reasons
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports published in 2013, the rate of homicide per
100,000 in New York State had fallen from 4.9 in 2003 to 3.5 in 2013.27 The rate had fallen
1.4% before the introduction of the Act, so it may be argued that this reflects a pattern of
reduction which would have occurred anyway, further bringing into question the need for
the Act. Many law abiding citizens feel that it was unnecessary. Although a considered
response to the traumatic mass shootings should not be questioned, punishing those who
had not broken the law but found themselves criminalised under rushed new guidelines is
open to question. As in New York State, the national murder rate is also in a decline. In 2013
the rate was 4.7 per 100,000, down from 5.7 a decade ago. New York State was ranked 30th
in murder rates nationally in 2013 yet introduced one, if not, the toughest gun laws in the
country.28
26 Thomas Kaplan,NY Times, “Cuomo’s Gun Law Plays Well Downstatebut Alienates Upstate”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/nyregion/with-gun-act-cuomo-alienates-upstate-new-york-
constituency.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A11%22}&_r=0,
October 2014
27 Death Penalty Information Centre, “NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES, 1996 – 2013”,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha, 2015
28 Death Penalty Information Centre, “NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES”
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord, 2015

16. 29
Socially, there is also a view that citizens have begun to alter their opinion on gun
regulation. A recently conducted comparative survey found that just over ten years ago
three in five Americans, 60%, favoured stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms
compared with 47% now. This percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012
after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, which was the major influencing factor
for the SAFE Act. The call for more stringent laws has reduced to near-record low.
30
Support Of The Repeal
Assembly & Senate
29 Death Penalty Information Center, “National Murder Rate 1970 – 2011”,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord, 2015
30 Art Swift, Gallup Poll Social Series,“Less Than Half of Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws”,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx,October 2014

17. Support of the repeal bill has been found in both the Assembly and Senate, with many
openly expressing their desire for changes to the SAFE Act. Most, if not all of this support
has derived from Republicans, usually from Upstate New York. As a representative of the
147th District just outside of Buffalo, Assemblyman DiPietro, who introduced the repeal bill,
has received numerous Republican multi-sponsors. Currently there are 25 co-sponsors of
the bill, notably Assembly Member Certetto, Friend, Graf, Crouch, Hawley, Katz, Barclay,
Lalor, Lopez, Finch, Corwin, Palmesano, Giglio, Nojay, Oaks, Tedisco, Brabenec, Murray,
Wozniak, Goodell, Kolb, Lawrence, Kearns, Stec and Guntur. Blankenbush, Magee, and
Montesano are also multi-sponsors. Many others have voiced opposition in the Assembly
but have not gone as far as to sponsor legislation of repeal.
The same-as bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Kathleen Marchione has also gained
the support of 14 co-sponsors. Senators Amedore, Boyle, Croci, DeFrancisco, Farley, Funke,
Gallivan, Larkin, Libous, Murphy, O’Mara, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, and Seward have signed. In
total 44 members across both houses have committed to repeal of the SAFE Act bill and as
representatives of their constituents, this provides an insight into the views of those living
within the districts.
Interviewing Assemblyman DiPietro
I was fortunate to be able to interview the lead sponsor of the repeal, gaining a useful
insight into his concerns, hopes and expectations. Indicating the Second Amendment as the
main reason for the repeal bill, the Assemblyman nevertheless described the prospects of
success as “slimto none in a democratic Assembly.” Whilst he commented that there is
room for compromise from the gun owners, he felt this wasn’t likely from the governor. He
described the SAFE Act as, “the worst bill ever written, from every angle.”31
31 Greg Whittaker. Personal interviewwith Assemblyman David DiPeitro on March 10th,2015

18. Interviewing Assemblyman Nojay
As a great supporter of repeal of the SAFE Act, my assigned Assembly Member reflected
the ideology of Assemblyman DiPietro and many others by referencing the importance of
the right to self-defence via the Second Amendment. He stated that the Act was a
“government restriction on individual liberty and freedom.” Likewise, he felt that
compromise should be possible but he believes that there isn’t the will from the political left
to achieve this. However as a representative of the 133rd District, the Assemblyman is vocal
in expressing the concerns of the constituents. In his final comments he said, “The SAFE Act
will be a raging political battle for years to come.”32
Opposition To Repeal
Assembly & Senate
Despite considerable opposition there are Assembly Members and Senators who
continue to voice support for the SAFE Act. One factor in the introduction was that
bipartisan support was used. Many use this fact to demonstrate the bill wasn’t as
controversial as it may first appear. Opposition to repeal can be heard in the Assembly
through members such as Silver, Lenthol, Cahill, and Weinstein and in the Senate
from Senators Klein, Parelta, Smith, and Skelos. Those who oppose a repeal bill will be
representing the views of the majority of their constituents. Demographically speaking this
indicates that most of the opposition is from or surrounding New York City, where the SAFE
Act is generally perceived as a comprehensive positive piece of legislation.
Interviewing Assemblyman Lenthol
As Chair of Codes Committee, Assemblyman Joseph Lenthol remains a lead supporter of
the SAFE Act. In a personal interview, he informed me that he believed it was the right time
32 Greg Whittaker. Personal interviewwith Assemblyman Bill Nojay on March 11th,2015

19. to pass the law, pointing out in particular the clauses keeping guns out the hands of the
mentally unstable. He hoped the creation of the Act would “make it more difficult for large
numbers to be killed.” Discussing a repeal of the SAFE Act, the Assemblyman said there
should be no repeal as “New York is setting the precedent for the rest of the country.” He
felt repeal would be particularly challenging for those affected by the shootings. He
expressed a belief that compromise could be reached, but not with the section relating to
ownership of guns by those with mental instability. In his final comments the Assemblyman
said that we “live in a civilized society, and should act like it. The Act is needed to prevent
senseless murders that happen too often.”33
Other Reasons For Opposition
Some argue that the SAFE Act attempts to address public safety in the face of advances in
firepower and high-capacity rifles and pistols, and that it is a necessary positive step
towards reducing murders and gang killings made possible by these high capacity guns. A
further powerful and emotive argument is also raised that citizens owe support of the Act to
the victims of mass shootings like Sandy Hook, to the community, and to themselves.
Leadership
The leadership of the New York State Legislator provided the political and administrative
foundation for the introduction of the SAFE Act, thus their stance on the legislation is clear.
Governor Cuomo was an avid supporter of the introduction of the SAFE Act, and prides
himself on the introduction of the bill. He has openly supported it and has pushed for New
York State to be at the forefront of gun control in the United States. Reflecting on the
introduction of the Act, the Governor said; "The SAFE Act stops criminals and the
dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun
33 Greg Whittaker. Personal interviewwith Assemblyman Joseph Lenthol on March 17th,2015

20. purchases, increases penalties for people who use illegal guns, mandates life in prison
without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposes the toughest assault
weapons ban in the country.”34 Following the initial hostile reception from many sectors he
stated, "the NY Safe Act is saving lives.”35 He believes that not only was the Act the first of
its kind in gun control legislation, but also that it was the best.
Speaker of the Assembly, Carl Heastie, has also been a supporter of the legislation. Prior
to becoming the Speaker he stated, “Gun violence has been a problem in our communities
for far too long. Stronger gun laws will let our children and families live without the fear of
random violence taking away everything they hold sacred.”36 Controversially, the leader of
the Republican Senate, Dean Skelos, was one of the main members who helped speedy
introduction of the SAFE Act by suspending Senate rules and bringing the Act to the floor.
He later voted in favour of the SAFE Act and advocated its passage. It is thus evident that
the leadership support the SAFE Act and will not be supporters of A3943.
Policy Entrepreneurs
“Policy entrepreneurs can influence policy changes and decisions. These people invest
their time, knowledge, and skills into promoting policies with which they agree.”37 In this
sense Governor Cuomo, Assemblyman David DiPietro, and Senator Kathleen Marchione are
three policy entrepreneurs for the issue of gun control. The Governor used the event of
34 Governor Andrew Cuomo, State of New York (NYS), “ NYSAFE”,
http://programs.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-reform, Date N/A
35 Teri Weaver, Syracuse.com, “New Cuomo ad claims NYSafe Act 'smartest gun law' in America: campaign fact
check”,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/new_cuomo_ad_claims_ny_safe_act_smartest_gun_law_i
n_america.html, October 2014
36 New Yorkers AgainstGun Violence, “On 1stAnniversary of NY SAFE Act, NYAGV and State Legislators
Announce 2014 LegislativePriorities”,http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/legislative-agenda-
2014.pdf, January 2014
37 Deserai Anderson Crow, The Policy Studies Organization,“Policy Entrepreneurs, IssueExperts, and Water
Rights Policy Changein Colorado”, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2010.46.pdf,
2010

21. Sandy Hook to implement the toughest gun control in the United States. For those who
support repeal, the sponsors of the bill are recognising and responding to the expressed
views of many citizens, gun clubs, local government, and local law enforcement to gain
involvement in gun control policy within New York State.
Divisions
Upstate vs. Downstate
In the passage of such strict new gun laws, Governor Cuomo alienated vocal constituents
across Upstate New York. Assembly Members and citizens across this area see the use of
guns as an integral part of recreational activities, through hunting, sport and also in
protection. There is an apparent divide between members from Upstate and Downstate
New York. So important is the issue that some campaigns run by Upstate Assembly
Members have focused specifically on support of repeal, which in turn got them re-elected.
Cross party voting was also seen in the SAFE Act exemplifying the division. Democrat
Party Members Gunther, Magee, Schimminger, Kearns, Lupardo, Brindisi, and Skoufis voted
no for the SAFE Act as their districts reside in Upstate New York. In the Republican Party
Assembly members Ra, Lupinacci, Curran, Malliotakis, and McDonough voted in favour as
their districts reside in New York City or Long Island.
In contrast to the consensus in Upstate New York, Downstate guns are often viewed as
weapons for breaking the law and allowing greater likelihood for murders. A discrepancy
between the two areas has provided one major focus for ideological arguments surrounding
a repeal bill. The SAFE Act statistics show the vast majority of charges occurred in New York
City. Since the law took effect in March 2013, there were 3,930 arrests as of mid-December,
the overwhelmingly majority of which, 3,230, were in New York City.38 It is therefore no
38 Joseph Spector, Democrat & Cornicle,“NY SAFE Act reform on the table”,

22. surprise that most of the support for the Act is found in Downstate New York.
Republicans vs. Democrats
Members of the Assembly and Senate share a common goal of making New York a safer
State, but there are differences of opinion in the best way to achieve this. A large sector of
the Republican Party is actively against the SAFE Act and support a repeal bill, whilst many
Democrats take a different view, especially those from New York City and Long Island. Those
Republicans who voted with them in favour of the SAFE Act may have done so because they
represent a liberal district, and would not wish to appear too conservative. As Assembly
Members are subject to re-election every two years, voting records become an influential
factor in constituent decision making. Voting by some Assembly Members for the SAFE Act
may be seen as a politically motivated, rather than inspired by crime reduction.
Prospects
Repeal bill A3943 was recently referred to the Codes Committee, chaired by Joseph
Lenthol, a staunch supporter of the SAFE Act. The likelihood of this bill reaching the floor for
debate therefore appears minuscule with the current majority controlled Democrat
Assembly. The feelings of those opposed to the Act are unlikely to change but such strength
of opposition amongst sections of the Republican Party members is equally unlikely to
spread beyond their side of the aisle. Instead sponsors are seeking to assemble support
from the public. There is a hope amongst some that changes could be made so that a repeal
bill has a better chance to reach the floor. Even so, the chances of it ever going to a debate
and vote appear low.
Has Democracy Been Served?
The very essence of government, democracy, may not have been served in the passage of
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2015/01/08/new-york-safe-act-republicans-gun-
law/21468129/,January 2015

23. the SAFE Act. By using a message of necessity the Governor did not allow enough time for
Assembly Members and Senators to read the bill in depth and to identify the feelings of
their constituents, yet they have a duty to portray their views. I personally believe that the
repeal bill rather than the SAFE Act in its original form provides a platform for democracy as
both sides of the political and geographical divide are able to represent the views of those
they represent, giving considered responses to gun control legislation.
Conclusion
Whilst there is far from universal agreement on the arguments put forward to justify a
repeal bill, it is hard to deny that the creation and implementation of the SAFE Act remains
controversial. Issues such as the hurried legislative process, stated contravention of the
Second Amendment and lack of police and widespread public support continue to arouse
passionate dispute. Combined with a view that gun control is ineffective and identified
changes in public perception of need, these factors provide strong justifications for a repeal
bill. Far from being a democratic process in action, the SAFE Act is perceived by some to
reflect an opportunistic quest for power by Governor Cuomo.
The Act created an historical division, reflecting differing views in Upstate vs. Downstate
New York. There are few members who have not expressed a strong position on the SAFE
Act; political arguments have raged and seemlikely to continue. Powerful emotions aroused
in citizens and legislators all impact on demands for the Act to be addressed by repeal. Yet it
appears unlikely that A3943 will ever have the chance to gain debate under the current
Governor and leadership of the Assembly and Senate. For some there is still hope that by a
combination of compromise, enhancing the profile of the repeal bill and gaining momentum
through public support, repeal is still possible. But as described by Assemblyman Nojay, the
SAFE Act is not the end, it’s only the beginning.

24. Works Cited (A-Z)
Albany Police Officers Union,
https://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/AlbanyPoliceUnionLetter.pdf, April 2013.
Anemona Hartocollis, NY Times, “Mental Health Issues Put 34,500 on New York’s No-Guns
List”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-
yorks-no-guns-list.html, October 2014.
Art Swift, Gallup Poll Social Series, “Less Than Half of Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws”,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx,
October 2014.
CNN, “Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?”,
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/, 2012.
Connecticut Against Gun Violence, “Facts”, http://www.cagv.org/facts/, 2013.
Cornell University Law School, “Second Amendment”,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment, Date N/A.
Death Penalty Information Centre, “National Murder Rate 1970 – 2011”,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord, 2015.
Death Penalty Information Centre, “NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES”
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord, 2015.
Death Penalty Information Centre, “NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES, 1996 – 2013”,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha, 2015.
Deserai Anderson Crow, The Policy Studies Organization, “Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue
Experts, and Water Rights Policy Change in Colorado”,
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2010.46.pdf, 2010.
Erich Pratt, USNEWS, “Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make Citizens Less Safe”,

25. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-sandy-hook-shooting-prove-the-need-for-
more-gun-control/stricter-gun-control-laws-will-only-make-citizens-less-safe, December
2012.
Governor Andrew Cuomo, State of New York (NYS), “ NYSAFE”,
http://programs.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-reform, Date N/A.
Greg Whittaker. Personal interview with Assemblyman Bill Nojay on March 11th, 2015.
Greg Whittaker. Personal interview with Assemblyman David DiPeitro on March 10th, 2015.
Greg Whittaker. Personal interview with Assemblyman Joseph Lenthol on March 17th, 2015.
Joseph Spector, Democrat & Cornicle, “NY SAFE Act reform on the table”,
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2015/01/08/new-york-safe-act-
republicans-gun-law/21468129/, January 2015.
Legislative Bill Drafting Commission, State Of New York, “Senate – Assembly”, January 2013.
Legislative Retrieval System, “A2388”, http://leginfo.nysa.us/asmsen/navigate.cgi?NVDTO:,
January 2013.
Legislative Retrieval System, “A3943”, January 2015.
Michael Pearson, CNN, “Gunman turns 'Batman' screening into real-life 'horror film'”,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/, July 2012.
Michelle Breidenbach, Syracuse.com, “The Safe Act "emergency": How Cuomo, past
governors bypassed public to make laws”,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_emergency_gun_law.html, March
2013.
New York State Sheriffs' Association, “Sheriffs’ Response to NY SAFE Act”,
http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act, Date N/A.
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, “Gun Debate on NY SAFE Act”, http://nyagv.org/event-

26. ny-safe-act-debates-friday-april-5/, April 2013.
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, “On 1st Anniversary of NY SAFE Act, NYAGV and State
Legislators Announce 2014 Legislative Priorities”, http://nyagv.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/legislative-agenda-2014.pdf, January 2014.
Nick Reisman, Time Warner Cable News, “Cuomo’s Message Of Necessity On Guns”,
http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2013/01/cuomos-message-of-necessity-on-guns/,
January 2013.
Phil Fairbanks, Buffalo News, “Nation’s big-city police chiefs’ group supports SAFE Act”,
http://www.buffalonews.com/20130624/nation_x2019_s_big_city_police_chiefs_x2019_gr
oup_supports_safe_act.html, June 2013.
Rick Karlin, Times Union, “State Police guide amended to ignore seven-round rule after court
ruling on NY SAFE Act”, http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/State-Police-guide-
amended-to-ignore-seven-round-5355959.php, March 2014.
Supreme Court of the United States, “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER”, October
2007.
Supreme Court of the United States, “MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET
AL”, October 2009.
Teri Weaver, Syracuse.com, “New Cuomo ad claims NY Safe Act 'smartest gun law' in
America: campaign fact check”,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/new_cuomo_ad_claims_ny_safe_act_s
martest_gun_law_in_america.html, October 2014.
The Office of Division Counsel, “Guide to The New York Safe Act for Members of the Division
of State Police”, http://www.nypdcea.org/pdfs/NYSP_Safe_Act_Field_Guide.pdf, September
2013.

27. Thomas Kaplan, NY Times, “Cuomo’s Gun Law Plays Well Downstate but Alienates Upstate”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/nyregion/with-gun-act-cuomo-alienates-upstate-
new-york-
constituency.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A
11%22}&_r=0, October 2014.
United States District Court, “New York State Rifle And Pistol Association, Inc., et, al v.
Andrew M. Cuomo” https://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-SAFE-Memo-Preliminary-
Injunction.pdf, April 2013.
Victoria Freile and Doug Stanglin, USA Today, “4 firefighters shot, 2 killed at Webster, N.Y.,
fire”, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/24/webster-new-york-
firefighter-shot/1788917/, December 2013.

28. APPENDIX A: A3943

29. APPENDIX B: Memorandum In
Support Of Legislation