Online News. Community Views.

Recent comments

Community Sponsors

September 18, 2017 - 2:59pm

Grand Jury: Man indicted on two felonies for allegedly possessing assault weapon and large capacity ammo feeding device in Bryon

posted by Billie Owens in crime, news, Darien, pembroke, byron, Grand Jury.

Charles S. Ganoung IV is indicted for the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, a Class D felony. It is alleged that on March 25 in the 6300 block of Transit Road in the Town of Byron that Ganoung possessed an assault weapon. According to the indictment, it was a DPMS Panther Arms semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle, equipped with a telescoping stock, pistol grip, detachable high-capacity magazine, loaded with 28 live rounds, flash suppressor/muzzle break and a bayonet mount. In count two, he is accused of the same crime for also allegedly possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device. The indictment says it was a large capacity .223-caliber magazine loaded with 28 live .223-caliber rounds.

Tawny L. Collazo is indicted for the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated, as a Class E felony. It is alleged that on May 25 in the Town of Pembroke that Collazo drove a 2013 Dodge on Route 5 while in an intoxicated condition and while a child 15 years of age or less was a passenger. In count two, she is accused of aggravated DWI, per se, as a Class E felony. In is alleged in count two that she had a BAC of .08 or more at the time with passenger age 15 or under. In count three, Collazzo is indicted for the crime of aggravated DWI as a Class E felony for allegedly driving while intoxicated while a second child age 15 or less was a passenger. In count four, she is again accused of aggravated DWI, per se, as a Class E felony, for allegedly having a BAC of .08 or more at the time with a second passenger age 15 or younger.

Michael J. Wojdyla is indicted for the crime of driving while intoxicated, as a Class E felony. It is alleged that on June 3 in the Town of Darien that Wjodyla drove a 2009 Chevrolet on Main Park Road while in an intoxicated condition. In count two, he is accused of DWI, per se, as a Class E felony, for allegedly having a BAC of .08 or more at the time.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

I am commenting specifically on the Charles S. Ganoung IV arrest and now indictment.

Ya know, I believe that all reporting of law enforcement actions should include the names of the arresting officers, and their superiors who authorized and/or approved of the arrests. This for total accountability and transparency of the authorities who are charged with "serving" the people, and yet often act in a contradictory manor.

The County Sheriff is the only "elected" law enforcer, their primary duty is to 'protect the unalienable rights of the People'. The Genesee County Legislature [also elected] are likewise to 'protect the unalienable rights of the People'. Both the Sheriffs and Legislators swear an Oath to that obligation, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States,..." That Constitution was constructed to guarantee our unalienable rights and it says very clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", PERIOD. There are NO restrictions, no limitations, no licensing requirements, no qualifiers to that right. The NYSAFE Act unquestionably violates the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. And any police officer who enforces the SAFE Act violates his/her Oath of Office "I will support the Constitution of the United States".

In Feb 2013 the Genesee County Legislature unanimously approved and issued a resolution to Albany and Washington [the president of the United States, the two U.S. senators, our U.S. congressmen, our governor and our two legislative representatives] that it was opposed to the SAFE Act, and called for it's repeal. At the same time, then GC Sheriff Gary Maha said "there’s areas we’re not in agreement with... particularly the ban against assault weapons, the broad definition of assault weapons, and the seven-round clips to me is kind of ridiculous. So there are areas that we feel infringe upon Second Amendment rights." Prior to this, the state County Clerk's Association as well as the Sheriff’s Association had denounced the law as well.

And then on March 25, 2017 a Genesee County Sheriff Deputy [under the management of newly elect Sheriff Sharon] makes an arrest for 'possession of an assault weapon and large capacity magazine'... a violation of the unConstitutional NYSAFE Act. BUT, how about defending that individual's Constitutional right to own and posses arms??? Thus I feel it imperative that the names of law enforcement individuals who chose to support Gov Cuomo's unConstitutional laws over protecting the citizen's Constitutional rights must be publicized so that the voting public is informed of who is acting against their Constitutionally guaranteed inalienable rights. Anyone who enforces a law/statute that is contrary to, or depreciate the US Constitution, are in fact acting in a criminal conduct and can be indicted and tried by the citizens without the judicial process via the Grand Jury. "In the 1992 court case United States v Williams; Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law. We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice."

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

We the people, need to get back to our heritage... our founding... our Constitution.

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/countysheriff

Jim Urtel Jr
Jim Urtel Jr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: Apr 15 2010 - 8:07pm

It`s nothing but a good thing to get a weapon like that out of a civilian`s hands! What does anybody need a gun like that for? He isn`t hunting with it, that`s for sure! I`m not against the right to bear arms or the Constitution but when it was written, they had muskets, not assault weapons! Common sense needs to be used here. If the founding Fathers would have known what was to come with wackos shooting up schools, malls, etc. then they probably would have re-thought the right to bear arms.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: May 29 2008 - 5:22am

Three flaws here. One, the false narrative that Sheriff Sheron somehow violated the law. Call that fake news, misinformation or just a lie. Legally, the SAFE ACT is a valid law. No court has declared it unconstitutional, no matter how much we think it is. The Sheriff just ended up enforcing the law as it is currently on the books. And he did take an oath to uphold the law.

Second, the SAFE ACT has not been found to be unconstitutional in any court yet. Sorry Brian, but facts are facts. While I "think" it is, that does not make it so. Many of us hoped the US Supreme Court would hear a case related to it by now, but the Court did not. So it is still the law.

That means it is up to the voters to get rid of this law by voting out people who support it. But after a few elections, that has not happened yet. Clearly, even gun owners do not care.

Third, the other flaw is that in United States v Williams, it does not say anywhere that you can go out and get a bunch of people to have their own Grand Jury.
The case ruled on a limited subject. That case has literally no discussion of the question of a grand jury, other than to discuss the inability of a court to dismiss an indictment as a judgment upon the evidence given to the grand jury (as opposed to the evidence at trial).
Brian, tell us anywhere in the US that your theory on the Grand Jury has been tried. And if you really believe that, and truly have the courage of your convictions, I dare to start your own Grand Jury and bring a case against the current Sheriff for arresting a person who was accused of a SAFE ACT violation.

Christopher Putnam
Christopher Putnam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 11 2012 - 1:05pm

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to LIMIT or UNDERMINE (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

The language is pretty clear here, the safe act limits gun ownership and magazine size and weapon design.

The constitution says "No infringement" Infringement means you cannot set limits.

I dont need to wait for a court to tell me what is explicitly, clearly and without a doubt a violation of the constitution.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: May 29 2008 - 5:22am

Christopher, I agree with your view and can't understand why the Supreme Court will not address the issue of the 2nd Amendment once and for all. But until they do, people will still be subject to the SAFE ACT, like it or not.

Randy Sliker
Randy Sliker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 21 hours ago
Joined: Nov 1 2014 - 3:10pm

This is exactly why I moved out of NY state !! The Liberals control the state and freedom is taken away from Conservatives ! You cant vote out the anti second Amendment politicians as they are entrenched deep. Chris Collins has our best hope in his Bill to contain the abuses of the Liberals ..To Mr URTEL- What does anybody need a gun like that for? He isn`t hunting with it, The Bill of rights is NOT a BILL Of NEEDS! as to the founding fathers and Muskets-- You should be using quill pen and hand cranked printing presses to attack the Second Amendment Using your Logic !! I highly recommend any gun owner flee the State --its hard to give up friends and Family But the way of life is So Much better as I write from My Home in Paradise!!!

Rich Richmond
Rich Richmond's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 29 2011 - 4:50pm

You are wrong, Jim. They also had rifles. During the American Revolution, the British Army used Muskets, commonly known as the Brown Bess. The French provided us with their Charleville Musket, the military musket of the time. Our American Militias, part-time civilian-citizen soldiers, used both, and they had bayonet lugs.

When the colonists fought the British, many of the rebels; I prefer the word Patriots, used their personally owned, single shot flintlock hunting rifles. The British executed the Patriots on the spot if caught with a rifle, both on and off the battlefield. Possession of a hunting rifle was a hanging offense. Possession of the Brown Bess musket, the Property of the Crown, was also a hanging offense; stealing the King’s property and treason.

They didn’t have “assault weapons “gasp,” because the word “assault weapon” (propaganda) is a modern made-up word to alarm and frighten the misinformed.

In other States in our Great Republic, semi-auto sporting arms like the Ar-15, he was arrested for are used for hunting, target, competitive shooting and self-defense. Many people complied with the Safe Act and registered similar AR-15 sporting rifle like his. They must now use the allowed detachable 10 round magazines.

For all others, these scary black rifles are illegal to own and possess in New York State after the arbitrary registration date.

Common sense: two thirty round magazines are bad and illegal, regardless if they were purchased and possessed before the Safe Act. However, six ten round magazines, are good and legal. Semi-automatic rifles with a flash suppressor/muzzle break and a bayonet mount; telescoping stock with pistol grip, and detachable magazine are bad and illegal. That same rifle action, made for detachable magazines, without those scary features in a different stock is legal, despite the fact it has the same rate of fire.

The man violated the Safe Act. I don’t like or agree with the Safe Act.
It is in my opinion, unconstitutional, ill-conceived and politically motivated. Until it is overturned in the courts, or changed by the Legislature, I will abide by it.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

Well, there are flaws with John's 3 flaws...

First; his claim that NYSAFE is a "valid law" is not correct.
[The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime.] - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
Also, in regards to the Sheriff taking "an oath to​ uphold the law", he also took an oath to "support the Constitution"... obviously he can't do both in dealing with NYSAFE, and the Supremecy Claus provides that the Constitution would hold sway.​

​Second; ​his contention that because the high court has not ruled that NYSAFE is unconstitutional this leaves us with the fact that NYSAFE is constitutional. Not true... re-read the paragraph above. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede the "law of the land" [aka the Constitution]. The fact is "an unconstitutional law, "in legal contemplation", is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." It is the right and duty of the people to enforce and preserve the sovereign unalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. This being done by calling a Common Law Grand Jury under the original pretext of that authority, "The people may select at their pleasure (jury pools) from the sovereignty, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain; and cause to be observed, unalienable rights. If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [Grand Jurors] shall straightway restore them."
The people also have another viable recourse to an unconstitutional law... it is Jury Nullification. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-telling-jurors-about-jury-nullification-ill...’t-it-possible-that-a-juror-may-actually-know-about-jury-nullification-beforehand

Thirdly; John's misunderstanding of the Grand Jury process and the Founders intent when incorporating it into the Constitution leaves him to make ludicrous remarks like "in United States v Williams, it does not say anywhere that you can go out and get a bunch of people to have their own Grand Jury." Well, YES IT DOES... I repeat "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Therefore Judges, clerks or anyone else are not to prevent, obstruct or interfere with the peoples’ access into the courts in order to operate in the courthouse, under judicial auspices, for the administration of the Common Law Juries."
Besides, the underlying cause of the Justice Scalia quote was the Constitutional provision it elucidated... Not, United States v Williams!
​ ​
Again, "The people may select at their pleasure (jury pools) from the sovereignty, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain; and cause to be observed, unalienable rights. If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [Grand Jurors] shall straightway restore them." The People through the US Constitution gave no legislative authority to codify the administration of the jury. then by design included unfettered authority by the People in the Bill of Rights as expressed in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments, making clear the right of the people to administer to the jury for the trying of people and not government servants.” - nationallibertyalliance.org

As for John's challenge to show "anywhere in the US that your(my) theory on the Grand Jury has been tried", he's really showing his ignorance. It was not only tried, but used quite exclusively in the early stage of our republic. The Constitution provided for NO police force, rather the People [militia] along with a few Constables and Sheriffs [who could be called upon when necessary] were the law enforcers. Thus the Founders also made the function of indicting [by Grand Jury], and deciding innocence or guilt, a responsibility of the People... Not the government [police, district attorney, judges, etc]. "In the early stages of our republic Grand Jurors oftentimes made the arrests, acted as the detectives, conducted investigations, convened a Grand Jury, indicted." The Sheriff was chosen by the People to work for them and assist them, not to rule over them. A sheriff's duties were dictated by the People." Obviously our republic lost it's way shortly after it's founding and gradually the Constitution has been usurped. Today all seats of government have been unconstitutionally "incorporated" and therefore all police forces work for corporations [government] and owe their allegiance to the corporation. The exception is the Sheriff who is elected by the voters and owes his allegiance to the People. But just as with most of our government, the Sheriff has become compromised and incorporated into the system.

No, I don't claim to be expert enough or have the necessary training to pursue a Common Law fight against the tyranny that has brought us NYSAFE, nor the puppets who willingly or unwillingly enforce that unConstitutional infringement of an unalienable right. But perhaps someday soon someone qualified will do so. Perhaps Paloma Capanna may see the validity in this fight. Currently she is relentlessly taking on Gov Cuomo and his standing army, the NYSP, over NYSAFE violations of personal civil rights. http://www.salamancapress.com/news/attorney-ny-violates-nd-amendment-wit...

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: May 29 2008 - 5:22am

Brian, Under your theory, all you have to do is get a number of like minded citizens to form the Grand Jury and bring charges against the Sheriff. Tell us, what do you need to be an "Expert" in and what "Necessary Training" do you need? to do this. You already said the has committed a crime, but now you are willing to let it go? Does your failure to do something about the Sheriff committing a crime imply consent? If not, what is Brian going to do about the crime he claims was committed?

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

I think anti-graffiti laws violate my First Amendment right to express my views, so I think I'll go paint up City Hall.

Clearly, the criminal mischief law, in this case, is unconstitutional, and since we can all decide what the Constitution means for our selves outside of the process of the court, who is anybody to tell me I can't spray paint "Shop Local" all over the bricks at City Hall?

I'm not an expert, of course, but who needs experts in the legal system to decide these things, anyway? Let's all just decide what the law is for our selves. To heck the rule of law. Let's make it the rule of the individual.

Speaking of expertise.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-death-of-expertise-978019046...

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

Rather... John what are you going to do about the fact that we now have a Sheriff dept that obviously feels it more important to follow orders [regardless of their Constitutionality], rather than follow the Constitution. If nothing else at least I have the balls to make this fact a public statement. Again, what are you going to do? Just sit behind your Batavian oversight computer screen and criticize those like myself who take the initiative to speak out against government when it abuses the authority the People have entrusted to it? Do you accept the excuse "I was just following orders"?

Just imagine if the sheriffs realize that the majority of the residents in their district don't want the SAFE Act, and don't want it enforced, and they actually do the will of the People... they have the discretion to do so. Wouldn't that be great? It's the way I believe it was designed to work. And yes there are some Sheriffs who get it.

[Primary NYSAFE opponent, Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard said that his deputies won't make arrests when gun owners violate the SAFE Act. "Do you want law enforcement people who will say, I will do this even though it's wrong?" Howard asked in a report aired on WIVB-TV]

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

Apples & Oranges, Howard. The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to violate anothers property.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Picking and choosing which laws to follow or not based on your own interpretation of the Constitution is all one apple out of the same bushel.

Once each individual can decide what the Constitution means, the Constitution becomes meaningless. The Constitution sets forward the very process for deciding what the Constitution means. Color outside those lines, start deciding for yourself, you're violating the Constitution. Do that as an elected official, you're violating your oath of office.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Also, City Hall isn't somebody else's property. It's public property. Which means it's my property. That's why I picked it instead of your house. So if the Constitution is up to my own interpretation, then I can do with it as I please as far as using it as a venue to express my views.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Come on Howard, owning a rifle that NY State thinks one shouldn't have is not the same thing as defacing a building, public or privately owned.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

That's beside the point, Dave. I've expressed no opinion about owning a rifle. All my comments were about the Rule of Law.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Jim Urtel: By your logic the first amendment only applies to ink wells and quill pens.
And "need" has nothing to do with it. He wants to own a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, so what? Who is he bothering? It's truly none of yours, mine or the Sheriff's business.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Well, the SAFE act is in direct confliction with the 2nd Amendment, so which is priority? No one has repealed the 2nd. So it's not a matter of choosing to ignore the law, it's a matter of preeminence.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

I'M NOT DECIDING FOR MYSELF... FOR CHRIST'S SAKE I'M QUOTING OTHER DOCUMENTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERTS, THE CHIEF AMONG THEM, ANTONIN SCALIA WHILE HE SAT ON THE US SUPREME COURT. AND YOU AND YOUR COHORT JOHN ARE NARROW MINDED ENOUGH TO SPIN THE DEBATE TO TRY AND PRETEND THAT I'M MAKING UP MY OWN INTERPRETATION, WHEN THE TRUTH IS I'M REITERATING WHAT EXPERTS [INCLUDING THE FOUNDERS] HAVE LAID OUT.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

See John's comments above. You and I and everybody else can believe it's unconstitutional, but until a court actually rules it's unconstitutional, it is not. It's just our opinion. That's the rule of law. An old-fashioned, conservative notion these days, I know, but I'm kind of sentimental for these old ideas.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

BTW, City Hall is not "your property" any more than it is mine. It belongs to the collective public and you do not have a 1st Amendment right to exercise freedom of speech or expression using property that is not solely yours.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Brian, then you're free to do what you want with it, too. I don't care. After all, as you've stated, we can all decide for ourselves what the Constitution means. I hereby declare any law that tells me what I can and cannot do what I want with public property is null and void.

In fact, I can yell "fire" in a crowded theater, if I like. Also, I can sell drugs, tint windows, and drink milk after the expiration date.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: May 29 2008 - 5:22am

Oh, Brian, don't mix up the Williams case and the SAFE ACT. The Williams case was limited to a function of a Judge, a Grand Jury and evidence. It had nothing at all to do with the SAFE ACT.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

OMG John... what don't you understand about "shall not be infringed"? Apparently you do NOT believe that NYSAFE infringes on the right to "own and bear arms"? If you did think NYSAFE infringes the 2nd A then the enforcement of NYSAFE is an unConstitutional act. And "any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office [support and defend the Constitution], and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime."
- http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

As I've already responded once, the Williams case has nothing to do with my argument, but Scalia's opinion of the Court finding that elucidates the provision of the Grand Jury has everything to do with my arguement. I re-quote: "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law."

I realize that the supporting documentation I've supplied is time consuming and perhaps difficult for you to comprehend, especially since you likely reject it before or without ever reading it. But the debate has given me new appreciation for my hero, Thomas Paine's adage "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead".

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

It is a terrible legacy that most Americans have come to turn their back on the foundation of our republic, and the purpose of the Constitution, just as you have John. There is no guarantee that the SCOTUS will find NYSAFE unconstitutional, even if the vast majority of people in the nation feel it is. This is why the founders gave the power of indicting any public officials for the crime of committing an unconstitutional act to the People thru the Common Law Grand Jury system. The Constitution was established to enumerate and guarantee the rights and liberties of the People, and the power to secure those rights was also vested in the People. To think the federal government [SCOTUS] will ethically police itself is pretty ludicrous, but the People have abrogated their authority and responsibility... probably so they could have more time to pursue their favorite footbal and baseball teams.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

I've taken down a series of comments that were treading in the area of personal insults, which is a well-known no-no on this site. A few of comments were kind of a gray area, which is why I didn't act sooner. When they resulted in a clear cross of the line, I decided the interrelated series needed to come down. There's no reason discussions of hot-button issues can't be civil.

Jim Urtel Jr
Jim Urtel Jr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: Apr 15 2010 - 8:07pm

Rich and Dave, I`m not wrong at all! They didn`t have AR-15`s and all the other assault rifles like today and there wasn`t the terrorist acts of today when they wrote the Constitution. It was a completely different time and I often wonder what the founding Father`s would have thought if they knew what would become of us. Sorry, but you can`t tell me that an average civilian should have with a gun like that. Again, I ask for what? Like I said, I`m not for taking away all guns but there has to be limits in today`s world and I don`t think the Safe Act was such a bad thing. What do you suppose this guy had planned and would you want him living next door to you?

Frank Bartholomew
Frank Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 21 hours ago
Joined: Apr 4 2010 - 8:02pm

In my opinion,

Frank Bartholomew
Frank Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 21 hours ago
Joined: Apr 4 2010 - 8:02pm

Lets try that again,in my opinion,some people seem not to care if their constitutional rights are taken away piece by piece,as long as it makes them think they are now safer.
I don't really like guns,but if for some reason I have a change of heart,I would like to know I still had the right to do so.

Again,comments posting while typing,and this time a double?? Again this is the only site it has ever happened on.It has also never happened when I'm on the XBox commenting on this site.Need a new laptop,just not sure what I want,microsoft or mac.

Billie Owens
Billie Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 19 hours ago
Joined: Mar 23 2009 - 1:22pm

Macs rock, Frank.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

On a sidebar to this discussion... besides being quite obviously unconstitutional... When one looks at this list, how in hell do we still have NYSAFE on the books??? 52 of the 62 Counties in NYS are opposed, along with most Towns, numerous law enforcement organizations, the NYS Association of Counties, etc. How???

http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/resolutions/#counties

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

I think the state constitution should be changed to have one senator from each county, appointed by the county legislature/supervisors. That would provide a stronger check and balance to the Assembly, which seems perpetually controlled by one party.

Rich Richmond
Rich Richmond's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 29 2011 - 4:50pm

Jim, it is obvious you know little or nothing about semi-automatic rifles when you say a gun like that. What features of this sporting rifle do you object to, and what makes you think it is deadlier or more accurate than any other semi-automatic rifle?

It is not capable of full auto. If it were registered, and there were six 10 round magazines, Charles S. Ganoung IV wouldn't have been charged. Before the Safe Act, he would have been charged at all.

The M1-Garand is not banned in the NY Safe Act. However, it is chambered in a much more powerful cartridge-the 30-06. It is capable of taking dangerous big game animals. The .223 is a woodchuck round.

The Ruger 10/22 chambered in the rimfire 22 long rifle With the standard beach wood stock, this rifle is not banned. Add the now illegal black aftermarket collapsible or folding stock with a pistol grip, and cosmetic flash suppressor and it becomes an Assualt Rifle per the Safe Act. Same rifle, with the same rate of fire, and the same action regardless how it looks.

Using your logic; a guy with a Ruger 10/22 with a wood stock is a great guy. The same guy with a black plastic stock is a bad guy; what do you suppose he has is doing with an assault rifle like that? Why does he need a gun like that? Would you want him living next to you?

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: May 29 2008 - 5:22am

The problem with the SAFE ACT would be resolved if gun owners got out and voted. But they do not. Too many of them do not feel the SAFE ACT has anything to do with them. They own guns, like shotguns pistols that already have magazines of 10 or less rounds, or bolt action rifles and see no reason to worry about the law. Efforts to show them the danger of the SAFE ACT so far have not been very successful.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Jim; enforcing laws based on someone's perceived intent is a very slippery slope in my humble opinion. until a person actually does something threatening or reckless, they should be left alone. You can go to a dealership and buy a 700 hp automobile. It probably goes way to fast for most roads. Who needs that? I would argue probably nobody, but that's none of my business or anyone's else. want one, got the money, go get one. Unless you drive like a maniac, the police won't bother you. Same thing for firearms.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Howard, I have been supportive of that for a long time as well, also re-districting in a manner that makes sense as opposed to Gerrymandering. If there is to be a NY Constitutional Convention, I hope re-districting is on the agenda.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

Frank has the right idea, again in my humble opinion. A person can and should recognize others rights to the life and property that makes them happy, while not sharing the same lifestyle or interests. One cannot be free, if others are not free too.

Jim Urtel Jr
Jim Urtel Jr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: Apr 15 2010 - 8:07pm

A 700 hp vehicle isn`t illegal, that gun and magazines are so he was arrested.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

That is true. I am arguing against the validity and reasonableness of the SAFE Act.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

"A 700 hp vehicle isn`t illegal"... yet.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

I have serious reservations about a Constitutional Convention. Admittedly I don't thoroughly understand how it works, but from what I have researched, I'm not convinced that it couldn't work against our liberty.

Rich Richmond
Rich Richmond's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 29 2011 - 4:50pm

You are correct Jim; 700 hp engines are not illegal, however, who needs a motor vehicle with that much power and potential for lethal carnage and death. In 2014, 32,675 people were killed in 29,989 crashes, an average of ninety-six deaths per day. When Henry Ford came out his first automobile, he couldn’t have foreseen the terrorist acts committed by automobiles, driving into crowds of people or car bombs by wackos. The bigger and more powerful the engine, the more damage and deaths it has the potential to be caused by wackos.
There need to be limits to vehicle and engine sizes in today's world.

I’m not against people’s right to drive…..or should I say the privilege of driving a Motor Vehicle. The Founding Fathers didn’t add an Amendment saying, “Wagons and carts necessary to merchants and commerce, the People’s Right to stable and ride saddle horses, mules and donkey’s of any size shall not be infringed.

Imagine a motor Motor Vehicle Saftey Act passed by the Legislature in the middle of the night without a public hearing that restricts all vehicles to four cylinders, and a person caught driving a non-approved or modified vehicle becomes a felon.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

Let's see now... in NYS there are approx 20 million residents, 8.5 million in NYC, 3 million gun owners, 6-7,000 members of SCOPE [NYS's primary 2nd A advocate organization]... I wouldn't put too much stake in gun owners going to bat, and voting in enough pro-2A representation to remove NYSAFE, or change the anti-2nd A climate. The best chance would be a SCOTUS ruling, but there is no guarantee the court would find NYSAFE unconstitutional [states rights is a powerful argument].

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Dave wrote, "enforcing laws based on someone's perceived intent is a very slippery slope in my humble opinion. until a person actually does something threatening or reckless, they should be left alone."

What about this idea -- in exchange for repealing the SAFE Act, and perhaps other gun restrictions, a law that requires you to give up your guns under court order if you receive an order of protection?

-- I've seen some studies on this, there's a strong correlation between domestic violence and murder. Not all domestic abusers become killers, but most killers have a domestic violence past, including mass shooters.

-- Such a law has due process built right in. The whole scheme is tied to an existing criminal case. I'd give judges discretion and defendants the right to argue that they shouldn't have their guns taken away.

So nobody is being deprived of any guns without due process.

And when the order of protection is lifted, be it one year or 25 years, unlike a felony conviction (which I'd change with this law), you can get your guns back.

(if you lose your right to have firearms, you can prove you sold them, surrender them without compensation, or pay a fee to have the Sheriff's Office store them).

Rich Richmond
Rich Richmond's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 29 2011 - 4:50pm

Howard, I agree there must be strict provisions protecting the rights of the accused. Surrender the firearms to a registered firearms dealer so that the guns may be appraised and sold to help defer legal costs if someone is falsely accused? If found innocent the accusor must pay the legal cost or storage cost to the accused.

False accusations happen all the time in child custody and divorces.
Increase the penalties, jail, and fines for someone who makes a false accusation. It is almost impossible to get a pistol permit reinstated one the permit is suspended.
.
Finally, how many people in those studies are felons or gang members.?

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

That's Thought Provoking Howard. I would like to see people's 2nd Amendment rights restored after satisfying their so-called "debt to society" just because you were once convicted of a crime doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself. I believe 100 percent in personal responsibility for one's actions, it's a pillar of libertarianism. I also think Rich has a valid point regarding false accusations. Something to think on. Thanks

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Regarding false allegations: If you're accused of a crime, typically, you receive a temporary restraining order, for one year. Then you go through the legal process, maybe a trial, maybe a plea bargain. If convicted you get a new "permanent" order of protection, but even this has a limit on it, depending on the severity of the accusations.

So, while being "falsely accused," you might lose your guns for a year (so I like the idea of depositing them at the Sheriff's Office -- might cost you a small storage fee) but you can get your guns back easily when either the order is recinded or it expires.

Now, if you get a 25-year order of protection after conviction (clearly, in this case you most probably were not falsely accused (and if you were and later found innocent, there are existing civil litigation options) then you might not want to store your guns. I like the idea of an appraised, certified auction and you keep the proceeds (though I can see victims rights advocates lobbying for that money should go to the victim, and in some cases that might be appropriate, so a judge can decide that).

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-link-between-domestic-viole...

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/530519844/most-mass-shootings-are-smaller-...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-first-impression/201605/profile...

I guess there are some states that have enacted similar laws and it's helped reduce the domestic incident homicide rate

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-guns-domestic-violence/gun-law...

I can't find the one specific study that linked domestic violence to homicides beyond just mass shootings, but since mass shootings are the primary hot-button issue in the gun debate, I think what I'm suggesting is a reasonable compromise that protects gun owner rights while providing a validated method to hopefully protect lives that should please most anti-gun types.

I should also note, I don't think my idea is a panacea. The determined killer will always find a way, but I think the idea of protecting gun ownership rights is important, and I see this as a way to do it and defuse a lot of anti-gun people's arguments.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

It might be hard to get downstate progressives to give up the SAFE Act, so the compromise might also include letting NYC keep the safe act, but it's repealed in upstate.

Dave Olsen
Dave Olsen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2008 - 11:48am

A majority of people of NYC, for example may want the SAFE act, but we, as a people, should protect the 2nd amendment rights of those who live there and don't want the law. To me, it's a lot like the federal government in 1954 having to go into Arkansas and ensure all citizens have access to the public education. Maybe the majority living there did not agree and wanted segregation, but the Federal US Government has an obligation to defend every American's individual rights, the ones guaranteed by the 1st ten amendments. The tenth (known as the state's right amendment) applies to those not covered by the first 9. Unfortunately, the federal government has shirked that obligation repeatedly, even when the US Supreme Court has ruled something unconstitutional, they do it anyway. I just don't know the way out, I think we, as a nation and surely as a state, are too far down the rabbit hole to back things up. We have to forge a new way out. That requires radical changes and most people are terrified of change, increases exponentially with the amount of change.

Brian Graz
Brian Graz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: Sep 18 2010 - 4:57pm

I have always believed [and still do] that no citizen should be subject to gun surrender or confiscation unless convicted of a crime involving the use of a gun. I know all about the premise that promotes pre-emptive action [if it just saves 1 life], and that's an understandable emotional position to embrace. But it is not only a slippery slope, but is a violation of the unalienable right to personal-protection guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I've known of situations where a significant other [usually female] has made allegation against another and almost immediately the judge dispatched police to collect the accused persons guns. This is wrong. If the gun owner threatens the other party with his guns or perhaps(?) even a verbal threat that he/she would use a gun against the other then this would be different... yet it should need to be proved, not just an unsubstantiated claim. The unalienable right to own and bear arms for personal protection should not be infringed short of a criminal act using the arms. Does the accused suddenly not have a "natural" right to protect his life, family, and property because someone else "said" he threatened them? Or a different scenario, if someone broke into private property and stole but did not use a gun in the act, should their firearms be confiscated? No. The punishment should fit the crime. Just as an individual who gets convicted of felony DWI, to ban that persons right to drive a vehicle would be reasonable. To take their guns away is not.

There is a very specific reason why the guarantee of owning and bearing arms was guaranteed by our Constitution and has NO limits, regulations, restrictions, or exemptions attached to it. BTW it was the #2 Amendment, obviously showing it's importance in the Founders conception.

Pages

Post new comment

Log in or register to post comments

Calendar

S M T W T F S
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Copyright © 2008-2017 The Batavian. Some Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license.
Contact: Howard Owens, publisher (howard (at) the batavian dot com); (585) 250-4118

blue button