Skip to main content

Batavia council approves resolution calling for repeal of SAFE Act, 7-2

By Howard B. Owens

Asked to support repeal of the SAFE Act, two Batavia City Council members voted no on the resolution, saying repeal goes too far.

Before the 7-2 vote Monday night, neither Patti Pacino nor Pier Cippolone offered specifics about what was good or bad with the law, which critics say violates the Second Amendment and does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

"Repeal is too big for me," Pacino said. "I would rather change it a little bit and I'm not going to fight that battle right here."

The SAFE Act was pushed through by Gov. Andrew Cuomo following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Local government bodies across Upstate have been passing repeal resolutions, though such resolutions have no force of law.

"I do not agree with an outright repeal," Cippolone said. "There's some good and there's some bad and we need to work with the bad and leave the good."

Information provided by The Batavian's official news partner, WBTA.

david spaulding

I remember howard telling me one time that if you don't like a law, you should change it.....well it appears to me that a LOT of people have a problem with this law.....will they be able to change it? don't hold your breath..... the powers that be, are able to pass laws all the way down to what you eat and drink......
won't be long before spitting on the sidewalk is a felony, then you will turn in all your registered firearms and voter identification and for good measure the police will come and make sure you did..

who coined the term "boot jacketed thugs" ?

Jun 11, 2013, 4:54pm Permalink
John Roach

Thanks to John Deleo for asking Council for this resolution to support the SAFE act repeal efforts and the seven members of Council who voted in favor of the resolution.

Jun 11, 2013, 5:03pm Permalink
david spaulding

"repeal is too big for me " says pacino. patty,read the second to last paragraph....your stand is clear to me with your vote

pier, you can't vote for repeal because "there is some good and there is some bad"
do you care to share with me the parts you find good? ha ha, I didn't think so.
as with patti, your vote tells me where you stand too.

Jun 11, 2013, 9:28pm Permalink
Brian Graz

These two Council members [Cipillone and Pacino] who voted against the SAFE Act Repeal resolution need to be exposed for what they are, because their concept of how lawmakers should conduct themselves in deciding what is proper and right in the legislating process is obviously skewed left.

Actually they have just violated their Oath of Office. I'm sure that their Oath says basically that they 'will support the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of New York State'. Besides [as I have already expressed to my Councilman Cipillone] if they cannot see how the SAFE Act infringes on the 2nd Amendment then they are not a person who appreciates or understands the US Constitution, and consequently do not appreciate the value of Liberty nor all those brave Americans who have given their life and limb to preserve it.

Not only does the US Constitution state in the Bill of Rights; 2nd Amendment:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

But here are 2 important New York State documents:

New York Convention Ratification Document
Declaration of Rights Adopted July 26, 1788

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."

New York Civil Rights - Article 2 - § 4
Right to Keep and Bear Arms

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."

Furthermore, an un-Constitutional Law is not a Law.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

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; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

You don't take an un-Constitutional Law and tweak it to make it less un-Constitutional. It needs to be totally repealed... period!

What is there about "shall not be infringed" that Cipillone and Pacino don't understand?

Jun 12, 2013, 12:51am Permalink

Authentically Local