Letter To The Editor: Gun Appreciation Day

Filed under: News,OPINION |

“On Saturday January 19th,  a major, unbelievable, successful,  pro-Constitution and pro Gun Appreciation Day rally sponsored by the Conservative Society for Action (CSA) tea party group was held at the corner of Jericho Turnpike and NYS Route 110 between 12:00 noon and 3:00 pm.  Over 350 individuals,  attended the 3 hour long Rally in spite of the cold weather.  There were hundreds of extremely well behaved citizens (Men and Women, Young and Old) with signs at all four corners of the intersection.  People attended who believe in Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Gun Rights and the sanctity of our American Constitution and its associated Bill-of-Rights.

Many people at the rally voiced appreciation for our Republican Assembly-man Andy Raia who voted against Cuomo’s ramming thru his recent, emotional, ill-thought out, un-constitutional Anti-gun bill.  All are demanding that both the New NYS anti-Gun Law and Obama’s executive orders be immediately repealed! These acts were not the proper way to amend the US Constitution.

There were Business leaders, Conservatives, Doctors and Nurses, Educators, Engineers, Firemen, Huntington Station Civics group people, Lawyers,  NRA people, Off duty Police,  Religious people,  Republican Committee people, Retirees,  Ronald Reagan Club people, 9/12 Seniors, Stock brokers, Students, Tea Party people,  Union People, Veterns, as well as ordinary citizens who felt the necessity to make a statement for our precious Constitutional rights, which are currently being violated by both Governor Cuomo and President Obama administrations.

Tony Caserta, P.E.

rally

Facebook Comments must be signed into Facebook

http://www.e-zsewer.com/

3 Responses to Letter To The Editor: Gun Appreciation Day

  1. I bet that most of those demonstrators are not from Huntington where I believe the majority of our residents support Governor Cuomo’s gun control legislation to eliminate high capacity gun magazines and assault rifles.

    wundaboy
    January 28, 2013 6:20 pm at 6:20 pm

  2. I had no idea our Constitutional rights only applied to people who do or do not live in Huntington?

    In the future wundaboy, please try to check your ego at the log in page. You do not speak for any other resident in this town but yourself.

    Our judicial system and mental health laws need to be be addressed all this other feel good legislation would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook.

    Assault Weapons ARE illegal,our military men do not use these weapons in battle. Law makers are trying to redefine that term to include more guns. Some are even talking of hand guns now (saw that coming) stop acting like there is no regulation what-so-ever. There are over 20,000 laws currently regulating guns and ownership. Enough. Enforce what you have. Stop regulated everyone because of 1. It’s starting to smell very Orwellian.

    FairyGyrl
    January 29, 2013 8:41 am at 8:41 am

  3. but but but Department of Homeland Security says …..maybe they need to take a second look at what they are recommending for home use don’t you think?

    The United States Department of Homeland Security has stated a rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO (compatible with .223) with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”
    General Services Administration (GSA) business opportunity solicitation posted and updated last summer. Basically, the site posts a request for proposal (RFP) for personal defense weapons for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    This RFP is not for the traditional armed forces. This solicitation is specific to law enforcement who almost exclusively work within and along the borders of the United States. Certainly the threats ICE officers may be subject to are the same exact threats law-abiding residents could be subject to.
    Section C of solicitation number HSCEMS-12-R-00011 is pretty specific. Here is a direct link to the Section C PDF (246KB). My emphasis in bold. Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document. The “assault weapon” terminology is only used for non-LEOs and non-military who own those firearms.
    The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …
    In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…
    DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.
    Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a…
    The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.
    In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.
    The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
    If you did not catch the interesting part in one of the quoted sentences above, let me point it out to you. The personal defense weapon should be select-fire capable.
    DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…
    The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).
    From the Fire Control Section, paragraph 3.10.1.
    The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.
    This formal DHS RFP – which is specific concerning requirements – clearly indicates a select-fire rifle is appropriate for personal defense in close quarters. If it is appropriate for law enforcement, why is it not appropriate for civilian use? (Select-fire/automatic capable weapons are generally not used in situations where you need accuracy; like for home defense.)
    As mentioned before, citizens and gun owners have compromised during the last 75 years including making access to automatic fire rifles extremely restricted to the point you can not buy a new one from any gun dealer or manufacture. We have compromised enough.
    The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 were all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, or make us “more safe.” Of course, state laws have also been implemented as a compromise. The permit process in many states includes high fees, required training, multi-page applications, interviews with officers, interviews with law enforcement administrators, officers visiting your neighbors, yearly reviews, and finger printing in booking rooms among other requirements.

    FairyGyrl
    January 29, 2013 9:04 am at 9:04 am

You must be logged in to post a comment Login