During my tenure in the Assembly, we have worked to end the dysfunction that has plagued Albany for decades. We accomplished some great things like the lowest income tax rate for middle-income families in nearly 60 years, among other things. Cooperation and team work have made these successes possible, but the recent, all but forced passage of Gov. Cuomo’s anti-Second Amendment gun control bill – the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (NY SAFE) Act – has thrust Albany back into the spotlight as being the closed, murky secretive government we were working so hard to reverse.

Certainly, this is a sensitive matter for everyone, for those who are wary of firearms and those who passionately defend the Second Amendment. If we take a step back, however, a few things come to mind:

1) Was the governor’s use of the message of necessity on such an important matter appropriate?

No.

2) Does his NY SAFE Act address the underlying problems with gun violence in the state?

No.

Considering the widespread impact and implications of the NY SAFE Act, more individuals in this state should have had input on this legislation. The Message of Necessity circumvented any normal means of including the public in the discussion on this important matter by requiring the legislature to act on it immediately. Legislators didn’t get to vet the contents of the bill in committee and there were no public hearings. With little time to read the full content of the bill, many legislators, especially those with an anti-gun agenda, voted in favor of the gun control legislation. I, however, did not vote for this law, recognizing it was designed to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens rather than to actually keep New Yorkers safe.

Rife with mistakes – like provisions that now make it illegal for law enforcement to enter school grounds with firearms – this bill fails miserably at keeping New Yorkers safe. In fact, I worry that it will give citizens a false sense of security. Many of the provisions in this law regulate cosmetic aspects of weaponry. The truth is, all firearms can be deadly, but who is holding the weapon is what matters.

Someone who is motivated enough to commit murder will either circumvent the rules in the NY SAFE Act or find other means altogether. Our laws should reflect and appropriately punish violent criminals. Our mental health laws and services need to better address and treat mental illnesses that lead to violence. Furthermore, where gun violence is most prevalent, among our inner-city youth, we need to find ways to better mitigate the growing problem of guns in the hands of teenagers and gang violence.

Think about this for a moment, the cost to implement the NY SAFE Act is roughly $36 million for a super computer and a bevy of faceless bureaucrats specifically employed to spy on law-abiding gun owners. Imagine if that money could be used to treat the violent mentally ill, secure our schools and public places, teach more people about gun safety, and improve struggling communities to help our youth avoid the appeal and lure of inner-city gangs. That, to me, seems to be a more logical approach to correcting the roots of gun violence in our state.

Hastily-written reactionary policy rarely solves the problems it was designed to fix. So I would like to remind Albany that it is OK to take a moment, breathe, and talk things through before acting too quickly. For if we had the opportunity to do our due diligence, we would have discovered the NY SAFE Act’s many flaws, and perhaps would have developed a better solution to preventing gun violence in New York.