What is wrong with this bill:

  1. Law requires all CURRENT license holders to have their license "CERTIFIED" by having a new NICS check done by Feb. 1, 2005.

    Currently NICS check is done on all new licenses. If someone just paid all the fees to get a license and the new license is issued on January 31, 2005 then on Feb. 1 they will have to pay all of the fees and apply for their license to be "CERTIFIED" again.

  2. Law exempts retired police and many other retired public employees from paying any new fees.

    Current law exempts the same people from paying the current county fees but they still pay the other fees like fingerprinting. The law in effect creates a "Special class of Citizen". Are people who retire from Thruway authority exempt from paying tolls. Orange County has several thousand people who fall into the "Exempt" category

  3. Unfunded state mandate on the counties because it is each county who will have to cover the cost of doing the background check on each person who is exempt from paying the fee.
  4. What happened to "Ex Post Facto:? How can a license that was issued "until revoked" be changed years after it was issued.
  5. Counties are not required to inform license holders of the new "Recertification" requirement.
  6. Many people are going to be turned into felons, subject to arrest, and having all of their guns confiscated. It will only cost less than a $1 to notify all current license holders.

  7. What are you going to do when people do not have their "Until revoked" license "Certified"? Another unfunded mandate on the Counties?
  8. PL 400 is a state law but this law does not say if it is up to the State Police to investigate the people who do not have their license "Certified" or local police or Sheriff Departments.

  9. Counties are allowed to charge an unlimited fee.

    AUTHOR: Daniel Webster (1782–1852)
    QUOTATION: The power to tax is the power to destroy.
    ATTRIBUTION: This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland.
    Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).
    In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431).


NY Times Editorial from January, 27, 1905

    Such a measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.

New York Times, 1931, Supreme Court Justice Selah D. Strong

"The Sullivan law is all wrong, and should be repealed at once," he said. "A person convicted of a crime should not be permitted to carry a gun, but I believe all citizens should be, in order to protect themselves against criminals."
" Our armories should be opened to teach our store keepers how to use a gun against the bandit."