SAFE ACT: Another pointless, costly, unenforceable gun law

| January 7 2014
The Hot Spot

DUMB LAW OR DUMB LEGISLATORS?

By Budd Schroeder

The case regarding the SAFE act finally was heard and the only real decision the judge made was that the limit of 7 rounds in a magazine that could hold up to ten rounds was unconstitutional.  Learned legal minds have stated that means that a person with a magazine that holds up to ten rounds can now load it to its capacity.  Magazines holding more than ten rounds are still illegal.  The only other part of the law that was thrown out was the prohibition regarding a semi-automatic weapon having a muzzle brake.

This, in all practicality, means that the ruling will be challenged and sent to a higher court.  There are other cases pending in other courts and some believe that the SAFE act may end up in the Supreme Court of the United States.  It is a shame that a law this stupid would have to go that far in the challenges.  Many lawyers will make a good living with their involvement in this case.

An unintended consequence of this law is that it has united the pro Second Amendment organizations In New York like no other law has.  It also greatly diminished the apathy of gun owners who thought it wouldn’t affect them so they were not interested in getting involved.  They are now getting involved.

The gun groups started to get the hunters interested in the stupidity of the law regarding the sale and use of ammunition.  The provision, which has not taken effect yet because the state doesn’t have a working system to enforce it, requires a background check every time a person buys a box of ammo. Most guns stores will charge a ten dollar fee for the check, which is legal.  That means if a person buys a box of .22 caliber ammunition for five bucks, he has to fork over another ten dollars for the background check.

The background check is mandated even if two buddies are out hunting and one runs out of ammo and borrows some from his friend.  That is considered a transfer and most reasonable people will agree that in the middle of a heavily wooded area, it is difficult (scratch that) impossible to find a dealer who can perform the background check.  Logic would also suggest that this “crime” would be very difficult to enforce.

If Charlie wants to sell a shotgun to his cousin Floyd, Floyd has to get a background check from a dealer to make the sale legal.  Again, how is this going to be enforced?  A gun and some cash will change hands and Floyd will say it was inherited from his grandfather, if anyone asked.  It is up to the courts to prove this isn’t so.  This is another stupid part of the law and the legislative idiots will try to explain how that is going to reduce violent gun crime. Anyone with an IQ higher than the January temperature will laugh at the attempts of the ignorant.

Nothing in the SAFE act will do anything to reduce gun crime or prevent mass shootings.  Nothing in the law will prevent criminals from obtaining guns.  Bans on drugs don’t stop addicts from  getting a fix.  Prohibition didn’t stop people from getting drunk.  The legislative idiots haven’t come to grips with the reality that you can’t legislate morality.

Interesting to observe that having a magazine that holds more than ten rounds can be a class A misdemeanor.  The crime of adultery is only a B misdemeanor.  It is a bigger penalty to sin against Cuomo than it is to sin against God.  At least in New York!

There is also a $500 bounty for turning in a person who has an “illegal weapon or magazine” and can be convicted of the “crime.”  Why not have a similar bounty for turning in someone who commits adultery?  OK.  That would probably reduce the size of our legislatures and many public services.  Cops could stand outside of the divorce courts and make many arrests.  Yeah!  As the cynic said:  “That ain’t gonna happen.”

It boils down to the SAFE act is a stupid and ineffective law.  The only things dumber than the law are the idiots who voted for it.  This issue is going to be a huge issue in the elections.  We shall see how many of those who voted for it will be defeated.  This columnist believes it will be a significant number.