New York State Trooper Police Benevolent Association (courtesy ammoland.com)

Albany’s police union are calling for the repeal of New York’s SAFE Act, labeling the gun control legislation “substantively, procedurally and morally” wrong. The New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association (PBA) goes further. The statement (after the jump) shows that it’s steeling itself for the backlash that will follow enforcement of New York’s SAFE Act. “Backlash” being a code word for bloodshed; the Staties are looking at armed resistance to their employers’ unconstitutional gun laws. The PBA knows the SAFE Act threatens to undermine their credibility—and thus authority—for decades if not generations to come. Bottom line: the storm clouds are gathering in the Empire State . . .

“The NY SAFE Act has been a controversial and emotional topic since its passage in January of 2013.

The NYS Troopers PBA, representing more than 6,000 active and retired members, has reserved public comment as we worked within the legislative process of NYS government with the hope of affecting changes to the law. Our membership holds widely shared concerns of this new law. Additionally, we believe that actual enforcement of these new regulations will significantly increase the hazards of an already dangerous job . . .

Polls have shown that increased firearm regulations are not popular in the more rural and upstate regions of our state, which is where the majority of our members live and patrol. Additionally, some in mainstream media have already irresponsibly increased the anti-police rhetoric, which fosters additional resentment of law enforcement. Even some of our elected officials, like Senator Ranzenhofer and Assemblyman Gabryszak, are calling for a probe of our members and their efforts to meet the standards of this new law.

It is the responsibility of this union to defend the reputation and safety of our members. Potential legislative changes as well as pending court decisions may further alter the terms of the SAFE Act. The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage. We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

98 COMMENTS

  1. While I am glad to see them come out against the SAFE Act now, maybe they should not have “reserved public comment” during the legislative process.

    However, I know that many on this site may not share my opinion, but the more Public Safety officials and organizations we can get on our side the better.

    • There was no legislative process. The bill was passed at 3am and legislators were given a whole 20 minutes to read it.

      • Regardless of how much time they were given, it doesn’t speak well any legislature that passes something without reading it through.

        • Or the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Remember this line “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”? Well, they passed it and found out what was in it and are finding out that nobody but Cuomo wanted it.

    • Ehhh, NYS staties seem like the most civil NY badges I have personally encountered but that last sentence in their statement absolutely reeks of “don’t blame us, just following orders” which didn’t work for the other brown shirts so why should it work for these ones?

    • Vee arre just following orders!

      You cannot blame us.

      For the state to impose tyranny, it must have imposers who impose it upon the people. What they seek is avoiding the consequences for their choices.

  3. I would suggest that if the law violates their oath to either the State or National constitutions then enforcement of such a law is outside their mandate.

    • If you know and understand the 2nd amendment, and understand how this illegal law was passed. you as an oath keeper have the duty to NOT enforce this unconstitutional law. You may be PRESENTLY risking your job but you will be preventing escalating bloodshed and securing the everlasting trust of your fellow New Yorkers, as well as all law abiding Americans. I hope you all come to the right conclusions.

      • Some of them have.

        🙂

        We will fix this properly. We are New Yorkers and we will make this right. We found a way to make Penal Law 400 work. We will find a way to make this work.

        We are New Yorkers – we find a way around everything.

        🙂

  4. Bombings,poison,false flags.its coming BHO is making a grab for 2014.once he gets the majority its gonna be a blood bath for true Americans.No one will stop him in govt then.

    • It gets worse. The White House issued a report on February 26, 2013 titled, “Countering Improvised Explosive Devices”. (You can download it from the White House government website.)

      Any guesses about the objectives? Of course they want to ratchet up their ability to prevent anyone from detonating such a device domestically. That means they need better methods, technology, and policies to track people, materials, chemicals, etc. that could be used to make improvised explosive devices domestically. Don’t let the fact that it came out less than 2 months ago concern you. Fasten your seat belts and don your tin-foil hats — it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

      (resuming fetal position under desk)

    • BHO isn’t going to be running for a third term. He needs to get out of the way so that Hillary can take over, remember?

      • He can’t run for a third term, but who knows what “national emergency” will come up that “requires temporary suspension of the Constitution” to keep the administration floating.

  5. Asking for forgiveness to enforce such asinine legislation as the ‘SAFE’ Act is something akin to the Germans at Nuremberg saying they were just ‘following orders’ when committing the Holocaust. If you don’t want to get the horns, then don’t mess with the bull. Simple as that.

    • While these gun control laws are unconstitutional and morally wrong (not to mention plain stupid), I don’t think we’re to the “you’re personally responsible for the deaths of six million Jews” stage quite yet.

      Remember: the first person to compare his opponent to Hitler loses the debate. Automatically.

      • I don’t think it’s a stretch when the police are saying that they bear no responsibility for executing unconstitutional orders. What they’re saying is that they bow down to whoever is currently in power, not to the Constitution. A bad sign indeed.

        • Thank you for not capitalizing at least. It is not a law, it is an internet meme and should be taken just as seriously as any other. Nobody is saying the weight is the same, just the steps and characteristics parallel the early development of the jackbooted third reich. It is the pinnacle of groupthink to say we can’t use historical examples to teach idiots lessons about history so they don’t wind up repeating it simply because they haven’t FULLY repeated it yet. Duh. The point is to prevent them from fully repeating it, and drawing parallels to historical events is how this is done. Godwin, Bog curse his ignorant soul, is a blogger, nothing more, and has no law. The simple fact that many apt comparisons are made to Hitler is because so many politicians seem to want to emulate his example so much. That is not the fault of the people making the comparison, but the fault of the people who look at a guy like that and go “Wow he seems really organized, how can I run a good state like he did?”

          If you really still think this makes no sense go ask rabbi Dovid Bendory who wrote the GCA ’68 and what the source text was. (hint: they had to have it translated from the original German)

      • No comparisons, just lead to the gut of treasonous piggies who go to the door to take liberty (guns).

  6. We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.

    I vas just following orders, mein freund.

    • Yeah. This is total horse manure. I remember being told as a kid in school that the separation of powers that our country was founded on meant that the legislative branch could write (or not write) a law, the judicial branch could interpret it (ruling on constitutionality, legislative intent), and the executive branch could enforce it (or not enforce it).

      There are lots of old, stupid laws on the books that are not enforced, cops have discretion, and prosecutors have discretion. People that hide behind the law intend to uphold it and have no problem upholding it, just don’t want to be blamed. And they suck.

    • beat me too it… with the double speak up here this simply means soorry but ima have ta F*ck u over anyway till this is repealed, if this is repealed. they may not “like” it but they do it anyway.

        • are you offended hearing/reading adult language? go back to bed lil buddy, maybe in the morning you can have a bowl of wheaties n grow up not to be a puss

          • Lincoln spent decades fighting slavery, that tyranny beyond any tyranny we are likely to know, and yet he never wrote an obscene word.

            Our Founders risked their lives for American freedom – and yet you would be hard-pressed to find a single curse word in their writings from the 1770’s and 1780’s.

            Somehow they didn’t believe that resistance to oppression required such nonsense. Nor did they believe they were lacking in manliness because they didn’t talk like a lecherous drunk.

        • what a tool, good to know your running around the interwebs keeping language in check. im sure you have a ton of blogs and forums to go regulate. really great job your doing. FOAD im sure youve read that here and know what it means.

        • A person on the internet typed “f*ck,” with asterisk and everything, and you’re whining about it. Grow up.

        • Dude this is the internet, which they, you know, didn’t HAVE then. This is the new shouted debate in the market square, and I can virtually guarantee you founding fathers an plenty of other regular folk used cusses of the day under such context. Not in official writings maybe, but nobody here is proposing we change the second amendment to read “Nobody touches our F%&$ING guns ok?” or something like that. Guy like Franklin or Adams, all they had to deal with, never drop a “coxcomb” or “vagabond” on some dope who tittered on about how great the crown was? Doubtful.

        • So we should all get with the times and be ugly and nasty if that’s what everyone else is doing? Not terribly persuasive.

        • No actually, we just shouldn’t pitch a hissy fit when someone dumps an informal term in an informal forum. You’re making a grabber style argument, you’ll notice. Nobody is trying to force you to cuss, or even saying that everyone should be cussing.

  7. From the end of the New York State Police Benevolent Association press release, “We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.”

    WRONG. Their Troopers are tasked with the lawful mandate to protect the liberty of the state’s residents, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws. Protecting their liberty entails enforcing many laws for sure. Nevertheless, they cannot take away liberty to protect liberty.

    I really wish that law enforcement officers would understand that their only priority as a law enforcement officer is to protect liberty. Of course they have a personal responsibility to protect their own liberty — which includes their life — but not at the expense of others … just like the rest of us. This whole idea that officer safety is their 1st priority, enforcing all laws is second priority, and to hell with everything else — including citizen’s rights and liberties — has to go.

    • Hopefully not. But when it does, look how that will play right into the hands of the gun grabbers. Make no mistake, they are counting on it.

      How easy that will make it for them to once again paint us all as extreme, red neck gun freaks who like to kill innocents.

      Then, of course, this whole nightmare begins again. We won a battle today. The war is still in full swing.

      • I don’t worry about “playing into the hands” of gun grabbers. The present battle was won via brute force. Progressives don’t wear gloves. Why should us gunnies?

  9. It’s simple, really. If they don’t come for the guns, they won’t get the bullets. And don’t give us any of that “we’re just following orders” bullsh1t. That excuse went bye-bye with Nuremberg.

  10. Way back, when I had dealings with New York troopers I had only the greatest respect for them. Sadly, their well being means nothing to the ruling elites in Albany.

    • They are all grown adults. Their well being rests on their own shoulders. If they were men of honor they would resign their positions and spend the remainder of their days walking the streets begging citizens for forgiveness.

  11. The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage. We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.

    Wether the wrote the bill or voted on it is irrelevant. They are more than willing to enforce it. If they truly did not agree with this law they would public state they would not enforce it, or they would resign.

  13. Then resign in protest. Easier said than done, but if you really fear getting shot at for enforcing a police state, isn’t it preferable?

  14. In America The PEOPLE have the power and the government can only use what we allow them. Sometimes politicians get it backwards and need to be reminded.

  15. Tough cookies.

    They ought to consider resigning if they are asked to enforce a patently unconstitutional law such as the SAFE Act.

    Not doing so put them and their families at risk from “backlash”.

    John

  16. Shouldn’t they have written this press release in German? It has a whiff of Eichmann’s “following orders” defense…

  18. It is time for the police officers and law enforcement officers in our nation to decide whose side they are on. Are they going to side with the politicians? Or are they going uphold their sworn oaths to their state and U.S. Constitutions and side with responsible, good citizens who wish to harm no one and who cherish and are willing to defend their rights and liberties?

  19. I’m sorry but “Just following orders” does not excuse you from your moral obligation to do the right thing no matter what the law says. It was legal to round up and kill Jews in Nazi Germany, but we did not accept from those German soldiers the excuse of I was just following orders.

  20. “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256

    As I’ve said before and on other threads, despite their words to the contrary, IF THEY ENFORCE IT…THEY OWN IT!

    But then, “He who takes the king’s coin becomes the king’s man.”

  21. Could a NY Police officer have standing in the Supreme Court to demand expidited ruling on the safe act so that he will not have to stand in the docket ala Nuremburg

  23. If they leave the decent and law abiding citizens of New York alone they have nothing to fear.

  24. If you, as a Trooper, break NO Constitutional laws, then you have NOTHING to fear. If you are fearing otherwise, that is GUILT!!

  25. Troopers you know its an unconstitutional law, don’t enforce it.
    You took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of both NY and the United States.
    You have nothing to fear from me or my guns.
    I have the utmost respect for you and am glad your willing to do the job.
    Do what we all know is to try to enforce an unjust, unconstitutional illegal law……
    Then you might just have a bit of a right to feel my wrath if it should happen we cross paths over this.
    Just do it as you feel is right and tell Cuomo what bus he can take out of town.

  26. Someone needs to remind them that they have officer discretion and they can choose not to enforce it if they don’t want.

    If they enforce it, therefor they agree with it.

  28. “Additionally, some in mainstream media have already irresponsibly increased the anti-police rhetoric, which fosters additional resentment of law enforcement.”

    And some not-so-mainstream as well. Judging by the sheer viciousness of some of the anti-Cop rhetoric that passes for comments on this site. I half expect some of these knuckle draggers to start sniping at random cops “just because”.

    Most Cops I know are Pro-2nd Amendment and Anti- Gungrabber.

    You seriously need to reign in the anti-cop Bovine Excrement!

    • OK, I’ve seen and heard this “most cops are pro-RKBA” line for years.

      Guess what? When I’m pulled over, or when I open the door and see a guy wearing a uniform with a badge and a gun…I don’t have the luxury of playing a game of 20 Questions to determine his perspective on guns, my rights or anything else. Anything I say can be used in court against me. Nothing I say to a LEO will ever be used for me by the police, the DA or the court.

      The price of assuming the worst out of any LEO is that the LEO might go away feeling PO’ed that Mr. Citizen lawyered up immediately when the LEO was simply asking a very innocuous question.

      The price of incorrectly assuming a LEO is sympathetic to a citizen’s point of view for Mr. Citizen is now getting very, very high.

      The logical course of action is to assume the worst in all encounters, plan appropriately and remember that “hope” is a four-letter word that is neither necessary or sufficient as a strategy.

      • Another outstanding comment Dyspeptic!

        You are very correct, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

        Straight from the horses mouth starting at 27:38 but the first half of the video is just as important as the second part.

        EVERY single gun owner should watch this video repeatedly until it is etched into their minds.

  29. “The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage.”

    Nobody said you did. Those who did will be dealt with via the ballot box, or the jury box. Do not be so foolish as to obey this tyranny under color of law, and endanger yourself to be dealt with by the cartridge box, for the sake of enforcing a violation of the Constitution.
    “The individual members of this union . . . ” should tell their union what their opinion of this law is, and have their union relay their objections to the Governor and Legislators.

  30. “New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association”

    Am I the only one who’s wondering what the word “Benevolent” is doing in there? When I think of police officers, the word “benevolent” isn’t the first word that comes to mind…

    If you troopers don’t think that the law is Constitutional, then don’t enforce it.

    Also, if I were police officer, and someone was trying to grab away my gun, I would assume that they did not have the most noble of intentions, and would consider shooting them first.

    Likewise, if I were a police officer and was ordered to confiscate someone’s guns for a silly reason like they loaded 8 rounds into a 10-round magazine, I would assume that person would have the same or similar thought-process to me, and would consider shooting me before I could take his weapon.

    But that’s just me, myself, and the voices in my head…

  31. “We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.”

    Really? So Hitler’s subordinates must all have gotten off the hook for their culpability in the crimes they committed by enforcing his immoral laws?

    Guess again.

    Remember that Hitler’s men committed their atrocities all under the color of lawful authority.

    There is no excuse for law enforcement officers who choose to enforce unConstitutional laws. Troopers have sworn fidelity to uphold and protect the US and State Constitutions. They have not sworn to serve the agenda of an immoral and treasonous governor. So no excuses. Period. Remember the Nuremberg trials?

    • Lentenlands, here’s a book that covers in depth the things you address in your post above:

      Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning

      It paints a very vivid picture of what “just following orders” and “don’t blame us were just doing our jobs” looks like when cops enforce the states immoral and unjust diktats. It is well worth the read for everyone as it gives good insight into the minds “ordinary men” when they blindly do the state’s bidding and it is very relevant to this discussion.

      You can buy the book used on Amazon here:

      http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/

      Again, this is why I say if you enforce it…you own it!

  32. “We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws”

    I hate to evike Godwin’s Law, but so were the Nazis. Their mandate was lawful, too.

    Any Trooper who enforces this law endorses it. You can’t say “I’m just doing my job” when the State also gives you the privilege of discretion: cops are not legally liable to failing to enforce the law.

  33. I mentioned earlier on a thread here at TTAG that there would be consequences for the police when the law abiding gun owner population ceased their support for law enforcement.

    It would appear from the above press release from the PBA, they’re starting to realize this. The above missive is too little, too late, however.

    For cops and LEO’s: Think you’ve heard an earful of crap from preening lefties and soft-shoe liberals since the 70’s?

    Your real misery is just beginning.

    • “It would appear from the above press release from the PBA, they’re starting to realize this. The above missive is too little, too late, however…Your real misery is just beginning.”

      If they enforce this law then you are all too correct. Hard men who know what they are made of will not stage sit-ins or any other such passive acts. They will act to uphold their natural rights even if it means the end of them…and they will be justified in doing so!

      The sad thing is that far too many cops believe defending ones inalienable rights with force, when force is being used against them to take those very rights away is wrong. They are unable to see the hypocrisy of their stance and it is called “cop bashing” or some such other nonsense as I have seen many (not all) cops here bemoan the moment someone holds them accountable for things like this (see comment by cg23sailor above @ 19:59 on 4/17/13).

      Having been fighting the 2A battle now for almost three decades I can tell you that during the first AWB there wasn’t this confrontation of LEO as there is today by those in the RKBA community. By those who have traditionally been the patriots who serve in our military and are the “law and order” types. Even though LEO were the ones enforcing these unconstitutional laws previously, we obviously gave them a pass last time but obviously not this time. Why do you think this is? What has changed this time? Interested to get your feedback.

      • Public opinion polling shows that the typical “man in the street” doesn’t trust the government any more, and this is a trend that has been getting worse for the last 10+ years. We’ve seen corruption at all levels of government run rampant for the last 10 years or so. We see case after case of police corruption… and unjustified shootings of people, dogs, etc with no prosecution in cases where a non-LEO would have been given hard time.

        Thanks to this interwebs thing which is (I’m informed by a supposedly highly credible elected official “a series of tubes”), we can read of police atrocities from all over the nation. The American people aren’t wholly stupid (yet), and it’s easy enough to see a pattern and trend developing rapidly in the last several years.

        The compensation scandals in various states have also done nothing to convince the public that police forces are still upstanding members of the community. When you see public employees gaming their retirement pay well into six figures… for an estimated term of 25+ years, while the typical taxpayer is losing their pension, job and shirt… well, government employees in general gain a pretty poor rep.

        I can’t point to one thing for the whole mass of the public. It has been a steady “drip, drip, drip” of scandals and outrageous behavior for some time. For many law abiding gun owners the most recent propaganda out of various police chiefs might have been the last straw. For other law abiding gun owners I know, they soured on cops when police chiefs shot off their mouths during the 1994 AWB debate.

        My personal last straw was years ago, and the single largest contributing factor to my estimation that law enforcement organizations are mostly employment programs for people with poor self-esteem was the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case in 2005. If there is no claim on police services under a court order, then there is no purpose for police to exist.

  34. “Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such law”

    Bull. And don’t give me the union crap either. Both the union and it’s members are focused on themselves as though this issue is “Just Routine”. This is a constitutional issue and does not take a law degree to decide where you personally stand on the issue. State troopers are scared and unions are worried about the troopers. Who the hell is worried about the 2nd amendment? Why do these ass hats even take an oath to support and defend the constitution?

    Here’s the bottom line troopers/police. Come for the guns and you will probably get hurt. You are doing the work of the enemies of the constitution. No excuses are accepted. No sympathy given. Just bottom line hardball. This is not a theory any longer, it is now a real world nightmare.

  35. Don’t come to our homes to enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws and violate your oaths of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution then.

    My plan is to NOT get caught in my home but, if I do, I do not intend to die alone.

    Yes, I would fully expect to NOT survive such an encounter. That’s perfectly ok as long as I don’t die alone.

    If every guy like me only gets one in this scenario, we win because we outnumber them by the millions (plus, I’d expect after the first couple of days, they’d be getting short of personnel and be having major recruiting problems anyway.)

    Just sayin’ (at least, for now).

  36. DID SOMEONE TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION? …WELL STATE TROOPERS …STOP TRYING TO STRONG ARM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND DO THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED FOR….DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM THE GUN GRABBERS AND REFUSE TO BE A GUN GRABBER AND STOP YOUR WHINNING

  37. Popular defense at Nuremberg Trials…….

    I was just following orders! AKA Superior orders defense.

    This did not work then and it will not work now.

  38. Jeesh, at the stupid comments people. Remember the NY state guys are working cops, trying to make a living, feed and clothe their families, and have a life. Some of them are probably your neighbors, go to your church with you, etc. They got dealt a crappy hand here. They are trying to let us know that, and how they feel. The underlying message is they don’t want to get in a shooting war with the people they have sworn to protect. Some of you people are just idiots. Honestly ask yourself, are you going to walk away from a 10-15 year career, retirement, health benefits for your family because of a law that might not survive a new Governor in the next election. You know you wouldn’t. Comparing these guys to Nazi’s is just plain stupid. This is the kind of comments and behavior that the progressives loved to reprint to prove their point.

Comments are closed.