frontlines

13WHAM,  Albany, N.Y. – The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is responding to comments made by Gov. Andrew Cuomo regarding enforcement of COVID-19 safety regulations.

During a news conference Monday, the governor announced several new yellow and orange zone designations, some in upstate and western New York.

When asked about local police agencies enforcing safety guidelines for private gatherings, and those which say they will not be actively doing so, Cuomo alleged they were acting in a politically-motivated manner and failing to follow through with their duties.

“You have sheriffs upstate who have said ‘I’m not going to enforce the law’. How a law enforcement officer says ‘I choose not to enforce that law’, I believe that law enforcement officer violates his or her constitutional duty," said Cuomo. "I don’t consider them a law enforcement officer, because you don’t have the right to pick laws that you think that you’ll enforce, and you don’t enforce laws that you don’t agree with. That’s not a law enforcement officer; that’s a dictator.”

In a statement Monday, the Sheriffs’ Association pushed back against the governor’s comments. It says agencies have responded to thousands of complaints since the onset of the pandemic, and it believes the best approach is to educate the public about health mandates and encourage that they be followed.

It argues that the governor’s instructions can’t be practically enforced and that he should be encouraging citizens to voluntarily follow health officials’ guidance.

“We do not know if the governor’s limit on home gatherings to ten individuals is the right number or not,” the organization’s statement read. “That is a decision for science, not us, to make. We do know, however, that the governor has attempted to foist upon local law enforcement an impossible task. How are officers to know, without violating citizens’ right to privacy and other Constitutional rights, how many people are in the home? How are they to determine if the family gathering is to be deemed “essential” or “nonessential”? If twelve people normally reside in the home, are the officers to order two of them to move out? If eleven individuals are found to be present in the home, who is to be charged with violating the order, all eleven or just the last guest to arrive? Or is it only the homeowner who is in violation? Are officers really supposed to arrest guests who don’t stay six feet apart or who fail to have on their face masks during dinner? All of those are serious questions which make it impossible for law enforcement to know how to legally enforce the governor’s order. They are questions that could have been addressed if we had a functioning State Legislature, creating clear and enforceable laws after input from those who would be impacted by them. Instead we are faced with an unenforceable dictate issued without any consultation with law enforcement or the public as to enforceability.”

The Sheriff’s Association urges citizens to follow health officials’ guidance and limit potential exposure to the virus as much as possible.

“We in law enforcement do not have the resources nor the legal authority to force you to do these things,” the association said. “It is a matter of individual responsibility and we are confident that you will all voluntarily rise to the occasion.”

13WHAM has reached out to the governor’s office for comment.

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship. Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that the executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. Wednesday’s orders by a closely divided Supreme Court, which had turned down two similar requests over the summer by churches in California and Nevada, represented a clear rightward shift on the court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups and blocked the attendance limits. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, issued the executive order at the center of both disputes in October. As part of the state’s effort to combat COVID-19, the executive order and an initiative that it implements identify clusters of COVID-19 cases and then take action to prevent the virus from spreading. An area immediately around a cluster is known as a “red” zone, where attendance at worship services is limited to 10 people. The area around a “red” zone is known as an “orange” zone; attendance at worship services there is limited to 25 people. “Yellow” zones surround “orange” zones; attendance there is limited to 50% of the building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese went to the Supreme Court on Nov. 12, asking the justices to block the attendance limits after the lower courts declined to do so. It told the Supreme Court that as a practical matter, the order “effectively bars in-person worship at affected churches – a ‘devastating’ and ‘spiritually harmful’ burden on the Catholic community.”

The synagogues followed on Nov. 16. They stressed that although they have complied with previous COVID-19 rules, the restrictions imposed by Cuomo’s order preclude them from conducting services for all of their congregants, and they argued that Cuomo’s order targeted Orthodox Jewish communities because other Orthodox Jews had not complied with the rules.

Cuomo pushed back last week, responding that the restrictions on attendance no longer apply to the churches and synagogues, which are in areas that are now designated as yellow zones. But in any event, Cuomo told the justices, the order isn’t focused on gatherings because they are religious, but because of the possibility that they could be “superspreader” events. If anything, Cuomo added, the order treats religious gatherings more favorably than secular events – such as plays and concerts – that involve similar risks.

In an unsigned opinion in the Catholic diocese case that also applies to the synagogues’ case, the five-member majority blocked the state from enforcing the attendance limits while the challengers continue to litigate the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits. The court explained that Cuomo’s order does not appear to be neutral, but instead “single[s] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” For example, although a synagogue or a church in a red zone is limited to 10 people at a service, there are no limits on how many people a nearby “essential” business – which can include acupuncture or a camp ground – can admit.

Because the Cuomo order is not neutral, the court continued, it is subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny. It fails that test, the court concluded, because the order is too broad. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. And if the restrictions are enforced, the court added, they will result in permanent harm to people who cannot attend and for whom a livestream of services is not an adequate substitute.

The court’s opinion in the two cases was released a few minutes before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving.

Gorsuch filed a short, separate opinion in which he emphasized that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

Kavanaugh filed his own opinion, stressing that Wednesday’s ruling from the court is only a temporary one until the 2nd Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the dispute next month, can act on the case, followed – if necessary – by a decision on the merits by the justices.

Kavanaugh also pushed back on a point at the heart of a dissenting opinion filed by Roberts, who acknowledged that the restrictions in these cases “may well” violate the free exercise clause but maintained that the court did not need to decide that “serious and difficult question” now because the attendance limits no longer apply to the challengers. Kavanaugh countered that there is “no good reason” not to act now. If the houses of worship challenging the restrictions do not return to red or orange zones, he observed, then the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.” But if they do end up back in red or orange zones, the rulings will ensure that they are not subject to unconstitutional treatment.

Breyer filed his own dissenting opinion, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined. They agreed with Roberts that there is no need for the court to act now. But in any event, Breyer added, because of what we know about how the virus is transmitted, particularly when it comes to the increased risk of transmission at indoor activities at which people are in close contact with one another for extended periods of time, the question whether the attendance limits violate the Constitution is “far from clear.”

Sotomayor also filed a separate dissenting opinion, which Kagan joined. In her view, the challengers’ cases were “easier” than last summer’s challenges by churches in California and Nevada to shut-down orders and attendance limits because Cuomo’s order treats houses of worship more favorably than comparable secular gatherings. In a pointed rebuttal to Gorsuch’s opinion, Sotomayor agreed that states “may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles,” she stressed, “are not at stake today.”

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner--  by Dave Urbanski

Two men enter home, pull gun on homeowner. But he pries away weapon, fires, and hits both suspects — killing one of them.  The other suspect was taken to jail after being released from the hospital.

Two men entered a home in Elk City, Oklahoma, sometime before 6 a.m. Saturday and went into a bedroom when one of the men pulled out a gun, pointed it at the homeowner's face, and demanded money, according to a document police provided to TheBlaze.

What happened next?

The homeowner told police he was afraid he would be killed, so he grabbed the handgun and pointed it away from his face. A struggle for the gun ensued, after which the homeowner told police the two men pinned him on the bed, the document states.

The homeowner told police that after he gained control of the gun, he fired it several times until the man who pointed it at him fell to the floor. The document also states that, according to the homeowner, the other man who was with the gun-wielding assailant ran out of the house.

That man — Isaiah Johnson, 25 — was shot in the chest during the struggle, the document from police states.

But he had quite a story for cops at the hospital later, telling them he heard shots while walking near the house on the 600 block of North Watkins, realized he was hit, and went to the hospital for treatment, the document states.

Soon, however, Johnson came clean.

Upon further questioning, he confessed that he knew the other suspect — Samuel Castro Jr., 39 — had a handgun before they entered the house and was intending to rob the victim, the document states. Johnson added to police after he heard the gunshots and felt pain in his chest, he fled the home and walked to the hospital. He also said he originally told cops he was hit while walking near the residence so that he might avoid being arrested, the document states.

Johnson was still in jail Tuesday afternoon, police told TheBlaze.

Isaiah JohnsonImage source: Elk City, Oklahoma, Police

Police found Castro's body surrounded by a large pool of blood in the bedroom where the struggle with the homeowner took place, the document says, adding that officers also observed a Walther .380 handgun on a small table in the bedroom.

A medical examiner investigator found several gunshot wounds on Samuel's body, the document adds.

Police on Tuesday would release no other information to TheBlaze.

Quite the wake-up call

Neighbors woke up Saturday to an abnormally large police presence.

"I saw five or six police cars; they had all alleys blocked off," Tristian Wooten told KWTV-DT. "Cones had the area shut off."

"They blocked off all in front of the tennis courts there that are to the south and then all the way at the north end of the block," neighbor Terry Jordan added to KWTV. "So you couldn't even really tell what house everything happened at."

"Something like this happens, it does hit pretty close to home," Wooten added to the station. "It does kind of make you wanna ... step up your guard a little bit more."

Jordan acknowledged to KWTV that "home invasion is kind of a whole different level" and "it's something you think about" since "as a homeowner" you want to keep your family safe.

The Problem of Self-Interest in Congress  by Harold Moskowitz

There is a long standing but growing problem facing our legislative process; self-interest of the legislators.  When the Founders set up a government based upon virtue, it was expected that legislators would represent the interests of the district which elected them.  The assumption was that after one or two terms these representatives would return to private life where they could pursue self-interest.

Today, it would be hard to find virtue in the Washington “Swamp.”  Many in Congress have become “career politicians.”  Personal interests are often represented, not those of the People.  Many legislators - of both political parties - often enter Congress as “middle class” but after decades in office they and close family members often become multi-millionaires.  During their time in office, their allegiance is often to the industries which funded their campaigns or contributed to their personal wealth. Financial connections to foreign-owned corporations also can affect their legislative functioning while in office.  In addition, promises made before an election are often broken after the election.

After attaining retirement, with a large taxpayer funded pension, many become highly paid “lobbyists” representing the interests of the same industries which helped to fund their campaigns.  The problem of allegiance to corporate interests is widespread and needs to be addressed through meaningful reforms.

There needs to be term limits added to the Constitution.  In addition, there needs to be a stronger post-retirement “lobbying” law which would place restrictions on post-retirement “lobbying.”  For instance, the law could prevent “lobbying” for ten years after the retirement date. 

Those who claim that elections already serve the term-limiting function fail to realize the power of “name/face recognition” and, especially, the greater access to campaign funding for incumbents to aid in their reelection.  There is already a two-term limit for Presidents.  Why not for legislators?

Members of Congress will neither propose a term-limiting amendment nor pass one on to the states for ratification.  When a new amendment is needed, the Framers gave us an alternative method for overcoming this type of resistance from Congress.  Article V of the Constitution allows for the states, in lieu of Congress, to propose necessary amendments.

If important reforms are not made in our legislative process to deal with the growing threat of using public office for personal gain, then fewer citizens will think it necessary or worthwhile to be involved in the election process.  Yet, now more than ever, the survival of our constitutional republic requires their involvement and participation.

Long Island, NY —  Three hospitals in Long Island are going to start collecting data on gun ownership from every single patient who comes in the door — regardless of their reason for being there.

[This could be bad news for gun owners in "Red Flag" states, like NY.]

Northwell Health system says they are going to “analyze the risks of gun ownership” by collecting the data in a $1.4 million dollar program they’re calling “We Ask Everyone About Guns.”

Catchy name.

Their public statement on the data collection explains that the hospital system plans to expand the study to all of their hospitals, but are starting with just three.  Additionally, they liken the problem of ‘gun violence’ to a disease — thereby invoking funding for their research. [emphasis added]

The New Hyde Park-based health system said the grant is part of its “We Ask Everyone About Guns” research study, which approaches firearm injury risk similarly to other health risk factors that are part of routine care, like smoking, substance use and motor vehicle accidents.

“Gun violence is a public health issue,” said Michael J. Dowling, the president and chief executive at Northwell Health. “This is the health industry’s responsibility to talk about this and do something about it.”

This isn’t Northwell’s first foray into the gun control debate — or their first attempt to claim that gun violence is a disease.  In 2019, the Hospital system posted the following statements on their blog:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a scientifically inaccurate statement, says Hargarten. Guns do not, in fact, kill people, but the bullets certainly do. “The kinetic energy from the bullet is the ‘agent,’ much like the HIV virus is the agent that causes AIDS,” he explains. “The bullet and the kinetic energy it transmits to the body tears and destroy cells and tissue, damages organs, breaks bones and leads to disability or death.”

The disease model, Hargarten says, is how researchers and public health and medical professionals studied and addressed the staggering numbers of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. “We scientifically investigated crashes and motor vehicle fatalities and learned that attenuating the kinetic energy release reduced injuries and death.” In other words, driving at slower speeds, requiring seatbelts and car seats, adding airbags, even redesigning on-ramps and road curves, contributed to a steep reduction in motor vehicle fatalities since the 1970s. With guns, Hargarten says, maybe interventions can include limiting the rate at which a gun can release bullets. Or limiting how many bullets it can release—aka restricting access to automatic weapons, “bump stocks,” and high-capacity magazines.

Back in 2019, the government granted the CDC a $25 million dollar budget to research the ‘gun violence’ epidemic.  We pointed out at that time how ludicrous it is to liken gun violence to a disease.  Bullets aren’t contagious, and there’s no genetic component or nutritional solution! You can’t kill a germ and make it go away.

But here we are, using tax-payer dollars to purchase science that backs up the anti-gun agenda.  This isn’t science.  It’s a politically motivated agenda that’s being advanced by our own tax dollars. [emphasis added]

New York State Has Red Flag Laws

Gun owners will remember that New York has already passed and implemented Red Flag Laws.  That means that if  a gun owner answers the questions their doctor is asking them truthfully –“Yes, I have guns in my home” and then expresses anger at the driver that just hit their car –sending them to the ER in the first place — they could get Red Flagged by their doctor that same day.

If you go to the ER for pneumonia and the doctor finds out you have guns as well as a prescription for an anti-depressant, they can Red Flag you as mentally unstable.  If you are upset about the insane bill that you’ve gotten from the same hospital and call to complain to the billing department…..they’ll see on your chart that you are a gun owner and can have you Red Flagged for being angry on the phone.

The hospital isn’t bothering to look into why the state’s current gun control — which is some of the worst in the country — isn’t stopping violent crime.   No, they’re going to pin this on law abiding gun owners and will manipulate the data to fit their agenda.

This anti-gun agenda is out of control and these Red Flag laws are unconstitutional in the extreme. This is a dangerous combination for gun owners in New York.

S.C.O.P.E.'s Candidates’ Ratings on the 2nd Amendment

Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court has stopped the never-ending attacks by those that would disarm our citizens and whittle away at the Constitution.  It is imperative that we have political office holders who will preserve, protect and defend the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment.  Toward that end, SCOPE has rated the following candidates as an “A” and believe they will work to preserve, protect and defend our right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in our Constitution. 

For the United States Congress from New York State:

District 1       Lee Zeldin

District 3       George Devolder-Santos

District 14     John Cummings

District 18     Chele Farley

District 19     Kyle Van De Water

District 20     Liz Joy

District 21     Elise Stefanik

District 22     Claudia Tenney

District 23     Tom Reed    

District 24     John Katko

District 26     Ricky Donovan Sr

District 27     Chris Jacobs            

  Listed below is any New York State Senate candidate that got an A rating from at least one of either SCOPE, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) or NRA-PVF (NRA).    

District 1       Anthony Palumbo              SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 2       Mario Mattera                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 3       Alexis Weik                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 4       Philip Boyle                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 5       Edmund Smythe                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 6       Dennis Dunne                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 7       David Franklin                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 9       Victoria Johnson                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-B

District 15     Thomas Sullivan                 SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 22     Vito Bruno                            SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 23     Justin DeFillippo                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-?

District 24     Andrew Lanza                     SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-C

District 30     Oz Sultan                              SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-?     NRA-A

District 37     Liviu Saimovici                    SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 39     Steve Brescia                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 40     Rob Astorino                       SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 41     Susan Serino                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 42     Mike Martucci                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 43     Daphne Jordan                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 45     Dan Stec                               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 46     Richard Amedure               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 47     Joseph Grippo                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 48     Patricia Ritchie                    SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 49     James Tedisco                     SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 50     Angi Renna                           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 51     Peter Oberacker                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 52     Fred Ashkar                          SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 53     Sam Rogers                          SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-?

District 54     Pamela Helming                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 55     Christopher Missick           SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 56     Michael Barry                      SCOPE-?        NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 57     George Borrello                  SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 58     Thomas O’Mara                 SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 59     Patrick Gallivan                   SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A           

District 60     Joshua Mertzlufft               SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 61     Edward Rath                        SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

District 62     Rob Ortt                                SCOPE-A       NYSRPA-A     NRA-A

Click here to download a Pdf copy of this ratings list.

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15 by David Harsanyi, National Review

In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:

Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)

Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”

Contemporary legislators have the hubris to believe that the Founders hadn’t envisioned any kind of technological advances in firearm technology. It’s an argument tantamount to claiming that free-speech protections are not operable because James Madison couldn’t foresee the incredible speed with which information can be disseminated on the Internet.

Not only did legislators in the late 18th-century witness the advent and adoption of long-range Pennsylvania rifles — ones that could fire at 300 yards with decent precision rather than 50 yards with none — but they were likely acquainted with the existence of weapons such as air-powered repeating rifles that could fire .46-caliber lead balls about 40 times before losing muzzle velocity. No Founder ever said, “hey maybe we a mistake.” In fact, in the subsequent 150 years — through the rise of the revolver, the repeating rifle, and the gas-powered automatic weapons — no one ever challenged the idea that the Second Amendment protected anything but an individual right. Heller, the decision that so infuriated leftists, simply reaffirmed what had been obvious to everyone since 1789.

The Second Amendment is predicated on the principle that people have the right defend themselves and their liberties. The right to bear arms, in fact, is older than the right to free speech or freedom of religion. The English Bill of Rights, a document cataloging the crimes of James II and codifying the “ancient and indubitable” rights of English citizens in 1689, includes the right “arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Well, for Protestants. By 1765, William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system, wrote that “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Not one Founder mentioned anything about “hunting” or “skeet shooting” during the debates over the drafting of the Constitution.

The founding generation believed that firearms should be used to guarantee the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution — whether they were in the government or not. Thankfully, there is no need of insurrection now. But the presence of armed citizenry is always a good bulwark against tyranny. Just in case.

And a musket simply won’t do.

Friday, October 9th. is the deadline!

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections. The last day to register to vote in the upcoming General Election is October 9, 2020.

Online

You can use the DMV Electronic Voter Registration Application to register to vote or to update the information you have on file with the New York State Board of Elections.

Updated information could include providing your County or City Board of Elections with your new name, new address, or changing a party enrollment. We forward completed applications to the appropriate County or City Board of Elections for approval and processing. Learn more about Electronic Voter Registration.

To register you will need

• your New York State DMV issued driver license, permit or Non-Driver ID
  • it must be your most recently issued document - you will need the ID Number and document number (See Sample Documents)
• the ZIP Code currently on record with the DMV 
• the last 4 digits of your Social Security Number (SSN)

Register to vote or update your voter registration information

If you are having trouble registering online

Make sure you enter

• your document number correctly - it's easy to mix characters, like the number '1' for the letter 'I'
• the ZIP Code we currently have on record (we might not be aware of a recent move)

If you created MyDMV account before, you can log into that to access the voter registration application. 

If you do not have your most recent New York State DMV issued identification (license, permit or non-driver ID) or were never issued a New York State DMV identification document, you cannot register online through DMV.  You will need to register by mail or in person. 

By mail

To register by mail, visit the New York State Board of Elections website to download a Voter Registration Form. The form provides the mailing address for your local Board of Elections. 

In person

You can register to vote at your county board of elections, or at a New York State Agency - Based registration center.  The New York State Board of Elections website has. Visit the Voter Registration webpage at the New York State Board of Elections for more information.

What happens to my voter registration application?

The electronic voter registration application is transferred from DMV to your County or City Board of Elections for review. Once processed, your County or City will notify you either that you are registered to vote or additional information is needed to complete your application. (Please allow up to six weeks to hear from the Board of Elections in your County or City. If after 6 weeks you have not heard from them, contact them at the phone number or address provided on the New York State Board of Elections website.)

The DMV does not approve or deny voter registration applications. We only send the application to the County or City Board of Elections for their review.

Northwell Health, the largest health system and largest private employer in New York State, has announced a research study called, bizarrely, “We Ask Everyone. Firearm Safety is a Health Issue.” The project will require, as part of routine screening of emergency room patients, asking questions about firearm ownership and guns in the home. Implementation will begin at three Northwell hospitals initially (two on Long Island and one on Staten Island), with plans to expand the program to include “inpatient and ambulatory settings” across all of its facilities.

One of the physicians heading the project states that the objective of the universal screening is to create “opportunities for patients to speak with their trusted clinical teams about firearm safety and recognize firearm safety as a health care issue,” and that, “by asking the right questions and providing the right education and connections to resources,” the project “can prove to be a significant tool in fighting the gun violence epidemic.”

Northwell Health has reportedly refused to disclose what the questions will be, although the responses will be “scored and embedded into the patient’s electronic health record,” and used to  “establish next steps for care.”

It’s not clear how this squares with the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300gg-17(c), and the prohibition against a health care provider, a wellness and prevention plan manager, or a health, wellness or prevention services organization requiring disclosure of or collecting information on lawful ownership of firearms or firearms stored or kept in a residence, but the program is being funded by a $1.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Residents of the Empire State need to understand how “We Ask Everyone” dovetails with an existing law on mandatory mental health reporting and disarming gun owners. 

Under 2013’s SAFE Act, the drastic gun control legislation passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, an amendment to the state Mental Hygiene Law created a mandatory reporting requirement for mental health professionals. Physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, and licensed clinical social workers providing treatment services are now required to report any client that, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, the treatment provider considers “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” If a local government official agrees with the report, the report must be shared with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to disarm persons in possession of a state firearms license and guns.

The law confines the use of the report exclusively to the question of the person’s ability to own or possess firearms; it is not used for treatment or to safeguard other persons who may be at risk. 

Persons who have been reported do not have access to the report or to the name of the reporting treatment provider. There is no due process, hearing, adjudication of mental illness or determination of dangerousness, or a requirement for a court order. Once the division of criminal justice services is notified, if the person has a firearm license or has applied for one, the license is automatically revoked, and the person must surrender the license and all firearms, or the firearms will be confiscated by law enforcement. The whole scheme rests on an assertion by a treatment provider that cannot be challenged by the person affected.

Many in the mental health care community resented being transformed into agents of the state and questioned the effectiveness of the law. The New York State Psychiatric Association, an association representing psychiatrists practicing in the state that “supports gun control measures in general,” opposed the reporting requirement and its focus on guns rather than mental health: “Following discussions with OMH [New York State Office of Mental Health] staff, it has become clear that the intent of the SAFE Act reporting requirement is solely to limit access to legal firearms and not to protect individuals from imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

A New York Times article published the year after the requirement became law confirmed there were significant failures in design and implementation. First, the “threshold for reporting is so low” that “frontline mental health workers feel compelled to routinely report mentally ill patients brought to an emergency room.” The resulting volume of reports meant that local health officials were rubber-stamping reports, with no effective oversight or review before a report was passed on to the division of criminal justice services. There was also no way to verify independently whether the law was being applied appropriately and whether the individuals being reported did in fact pose a risk of serious harm.

By 2014, over 34,000 individuals had been reported under this SAFE Act provision; another source suggests that as of late 2015, about 2,000 New Yorkers a month were being added to the database. The Times article observed that “the overwhelming majority of reports from mental health professionals are coming from hospitals … with an emergency room and inpatient psychiatric services.”

Under the Northwell project, regardless of the reason a person presents themselves at the emergency room –food poisoning, car accident, or COVID -19 – the patient will face questioning about guns. In a public health context where firearms are viewed as unhealthy and gun ownership as pathological, it isn’t terribly hard to imagine how this information may be used to support a claim that a gun owner “is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

While New York’s website advises that the SAFE Act “should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need,” the reality is that it forces gun owners to choose between getting such treatment and retaining their gun rights, and makes everyone less safe. “We Ask Everyone” implicates the same dysfunctional dynamic.