Tuesday, January 24, 1995

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALBANY, NEW YORK 10 January 24, 1995 11 3:01 p.m. 12 13 14 REGULAR SESSION 15 16 17 18 LT. GOVERNOR BETSY McCAUGHEY, President 19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary 20 21 22 23 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will 3 come to order. 4 Would everyone please rise and 5 repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance to the 6 Flag. 7 (The assemblage repeated the 8 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ) 9 May we bow our heads in a moment 10 of silence. 11 (A moment of silence was 12 observed. ) 13 The reading of the Journal, 14 please. 15 THE SECRETARY: In Senate, 16 Monday, January 23rd. The Senate met pursuant 17 to adjournment, Senator Kuhl in the Chair upon 18 designation of the Temporary President. The 19 Journal of Friday, January 20th, was read and 20 approved. On motion, Senate adjourned. 21 THE PRESIDENT: Without 22 objection, the Journal stands approved as read. 23 Presentation of petitions. 1 Messages from the Assembly. 2 Messages from the Governor. 3 Reports of standing committees. 4 Reports of select committees. 5 Communication and reports from 6 state officers. 7 Motions and resolutions. 8 Senator Bruno, are you ready for 9 the Resolution Calendar? 10 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Madam 11 President. I would appreciate a reading of the 12 Resolution Calendar. 13 THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of 14 adopting the Resolution Calendar signify by 15 saying aye. 16 (Response of "Aye.") 17 Opposed nay. 18 (There was no response. ) 19 The Resolution Calendar is 20 adopted. 21 Senator Bruno, are you ready for 22 the calendar? 23 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Madam 1 President. We would like now to take up the 2 non-controversial calendar. 3 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 4 will read, please. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 3, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Bill Number 515, an 7 act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law and 8 the Economic Development Law. 9 SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside for 10 Senator Leichter. 11 THE PRESIDENT: Lay aside the 12 bill, please. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 7, by Senator Levy, Senate Bill Number 331, an 15 act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in 16 relation to distinctive plates for police 17 officers. 18 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 19 section, please. 20 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 21 act shall take effect on the 90th day. 22 THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll, 23 please. 1 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 2 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 34. 3 THE PRESIDENT: The bill is 4 passed. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 9, by Senator Holland, Senate Bill Number 143, 7 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 8 criminal possession of public assistance 9 identification cards. 10 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 11 section, please. 12 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 13 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 14 November. 15 THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll, 16 please. 17 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 18 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 35. 19 THE PRESIDENT: The bill is 20 passed. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 12, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number 197, 23 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 1 resisting arrest. 2 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 3 section. 4 SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside. 5 THE PRESIDENT: Lay the bill 6 aside, please. 7 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 8 14, by Senator Holland, Senate Bill Number 213, 9 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation - 10 SENATOR CONNOR: Lay aside. 11 THE PRESIDENT: Lay the bill 12 aside, please. 13 Senator Bruno, that completes the 14 non-controversial reading of the calendar. 15 SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President, 16 we'll proceed to the controversial calendar. At 17 this time, with the consent of the Minority 18 Leader, I'd ask that Calendar Number 14 be read 19 for the purposes of Senator DeFrancisco voting. 20 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 21 will read, please. 22 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 23 14, by Senator Holland, Senate Bill Number 213, 1 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 2 the validity of a license to carry or possess a 3 pistol within the state. 4 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 5 section. 6 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 7 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 8 November. 9 THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll, 10 please. 11 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 12 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 13 THE PRESIDENT: Withdraw the roll 14 call. 15 SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President, 16 if we could now lay that bill aside, and we'll 17 proceed to the controversial calendar regular 18 order. 19 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 20 will read. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 3, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Bill Number 515, an 23 act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law and 1 the Economic Development Law. 2 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 3 section, please. 4 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 5 act shall take - 6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 7 Paterson. 8 SENATOR PATERSON: Madam 9 President, would we be willing -- may we have an 10 explanation on this bill? 11 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl. 12 SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr. -- Madam 13 President. 14 This is a bill that is not unnew 15 to this house. It was presented to this chamber 16 last year and passed overwhelmingly. It's a 17 bill that essentially creates an economic 18 vehicle within the Department of Agriculture and 19 Markets. 20 For all the members' information, 21 there is no appropriation attached to this 22 particular bill because there is no acknowledged 23 absolute dollar exact monetary need that's been 1 identified at this point. So the bill creates a 2 mechanism, a foundation, by which we in this 3 state can attempt to promote agriculture and 4 particularly the agribusinesses in this state. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr. 6 President -- I mean Madam President. 7 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 8 Paterson. 9 SENATOR PATERSON: I yield to 10 Senator Leichter, Madam President. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, if 12 Senator Kuhl would be so good as to yield? 13 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 14 Leichter. 15 SENATOR LEICHTER: I voted 16 against that bill last year and one of my 17 concerns, Senator Kuhl, you've touched on, which 18 is that you impose an additional function on a 19 governmental agency but you fail to provide the 20 money. 21 Last year, I don't know that we 22 debated it, but since I know you to be a candid 23 person, as you just proved now, you said, Well, 1 we haven't figured out how much it's going to 2 cost, but it would seem to me, Senator, this 3 admission that there will be some expense and 4 some cost imposes an obligation on all of us, if 5 we think it's worthwhile, to come up with the 6 money to fund it. 7 So my question to you is, what's 8 the value of doing this if we don't provide the 9 money which is going to enable it to be done? 10 SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator, I 11 think perhaps you're confusing what your concern 12 is with what the intent of the bill is. 13 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl. 14 SENATOR KUHL: The bill, if you 15 can think of it in these terms, would 16 essentially define the job responsibilities of 17 individuals within the Department. It specifies 18 as to the kinds of things that they should be 19 looking for -- the vehicles -- and provides 20 vehicles by which they can provide funding. 21 However, there is no funding appropriation, but 22 there's no funding appropriation, which is the 23 second step, because what we don't know is what 1 the identified need is. 2 In more practical terms, we have 3 noticed in the western part of the state and 4 actually throughout the entire state, that we 5 have lost significant agribusinesses. Food 6 processors have left this state for a number of 7 reasons, and what that does is, it essentially 8 removes a market for many of our farmers. If 9 our farmers can't get their food to market, so 10 to speak, they can't sell it. So, if they can't 11 sell food, then they operate at a deficit and 12 not a profit, and they go out of business. 13 The agricultural business is such 14 a core, such -- so much the fabric of the land 15 scape of rural New York State that it needs to 16 be protected. It needs to be developed, and 17 what this bill does is essentially create the 18 mechanism that would allow for the long-term 19 development. It does not put the dollars into 20 place to provide funding or the kinds of support 21 for identified needs, but it does allow and does 22 direct the Department of Agriculture and Markets 23 to, in fact, investigate the need, identify it 1 and then come back to us and tell us, This is 2 what we need monetarily to support this 3 industry. 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Madam 5 President. 6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 7 Leichter. 8 SENATOR LEICHTER: If Senator 9 Kuhl would continue to yield, please. 10 SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, I 12 understand. You're really doing, it seems to 13 me, two things here. One is you're telling the 14 Department, take a look and see what needs to be 15 done to develop agri... -- agro... is it 16 agribusiness? However you say it. 17 SENATOR KUHL: Agribusiness. 18 SENATOR LEICHTER: O.K. -- and 19 develop that program. 20 Secondly, it seems to me that you 21 also establish in this bill the elements of that 22 program that's in your Article 14A, so that you 23 do more than just say to the Department to study 1 what should be done. You also point what you 2 would like supported in that study, which is the 3 establishment of a program within the 4 Department. 5 Is that a fair characterization 6 of the bill? 7 SENATOR KUHL: We set up the 8 guidelines, Senator, by which we want to see the 9 Department establish this program, and that's 10 what Article 14 is all about, O.K.? But 11 admittedly, we don't provide the funds for them 12 to be able to carry that out. 13 Essentially, again, we're going 14 back to creating job descriptions for people 15 within the Department. We know that there's 16 opportunity at this point for restructuring. 17 This new administration is looking at restruc 18 turing, shrinking down, making things more 19 efficient, and we know that this process has 20 been gone through by the most -- well, it's now 21 outdated -- the Department of Commerce, when we 22 changed and consolidated departments there and 23 created mechanisms for the enhancement of the 1 manufacturing industry. The agricultural 2 industry was neglected. It was never looked 3 upon and never dealt with the same way that 4 those industries were. 5 And so what this is, is a kind of 6 similar type of consolidation within the Depart 7 ment, although it doesn't talk about personnel, 8 it doesn't talk about dollars for financing. It 9 essentially creates a job description within the 10 Department for a program that we want developed 11 down the line. 12 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator Kuhl, 13 if you would continue to yield. 14 SENATOR KUHL: Certainly. 15 SENATOR LEICHTER: You state, you 16 know, that we're trying to reorganize 17 government. We're finding such wonderful names 18 like reinvent government, and so on, and there's 19 a lot of usage of the word "lead", which you 20 just used in your description. 21 The fact of the matter is you're 22 adding to the Department of Agriculture. You're 23 giving them, if you will, a new function. 1 There'll be a new office. Once, when this is 2 funded, there'll probably be a new title, 3 Assistant Commissioner for Agribusiness, and 4 there'll be -- you'll have to have a few 5 assistants and other people. 6 By the way, I think you're 7 right. I think we should be doing this, but 8 don't tell us that you're making government 9 leaner or more efficient, less costly. In this 10 instance, you're probably making it more costly 11 and it's worthwhile, but let's admit it. Let's 12 say what it is. I think it's important. It 13 should be done. 14 Isn't this going to impose an 15 additional function and duty and, therefore, 16 cost to the Department? 17 SENATOR KUHL: This will 18 establish a mechanism, again, Senator, that will 19 allow for economic' growth in the agricultural 20 industry. It's the one thing that we've noticed 21 in the development long term of programs that 22 I've had in the Agriculture Committee for eight 23 years now, and that has been that there has been 1 virtually no growth in the agricultural 2 industry. Part of that has been for the failure 3 of the state to actually support that industry 4 and to work with that industry to try to create 5 new jobs. 6 What we want to do in this state, 7 Senator, is to create jobs. We want to put 8 people to work. We want them to pay their fair 9 share of taxes, and this bill does not do this. 10 This just develops a responsibility within the 11 Department that they have to carry out. I would 12 expect, with the great minds that are there op 13 erating at the department, that they can handle 14 this responsibility. It's not so overwhelming 15 because the needs haven't been identified. We 16 don't know whether it's just one processor that 17 needs help out there or whether it's a million, 18 and I doubt it's a million because there aren't 19 that many in the state any more. 20 So the defined -- the need is 21 there. We know it's there. It needs to be 22 worked on, to be developed. We think this 23 program will do it. 1 SENATOR LEICHTER: On the - 2 Madam President, on the bill. 3 I agree almost with everything 4 that Senator Kuhl is saying he wants to do. I 5 just wish he really did it, that he just didn't 6 talk about it, and I think we can be honest, 7 Senator, in going to the public and saying, 8 we're going to do this because it's going to 9 provide an important service and it's going to 10 create more jobs, and it's going to lead to a 11 healthier economy and, you know what, it's going 12 to cost money. It's going to cost money in the 13 initial steps to get this done, and I wish that 14 you would say that, and I wish you'd had an 15 appropriation here. 16 The only reason I voted against 17 it last year, and I'll probably vote against it 18 this year, is because I don't think we're being 19 fully honest with the public. I think we're 20 going to tell them these things need to be done, 21 then I think we've also got to say they are 22 going to cost money, and I know that we have a 23 governor now who says that he's going to cut and 1 slash, and so on, and we're all going to be 2 leaner and we're going to be able to do more. 3 But sometimes you can't do more with less, and 4 there are things that need to be done. 5 You pointed out a perfectly 6 correct area where we need to provide -- we, the 7 state of New York, need to provide more help. 8 Agribusiness is one of the important growing 9 elements of world commerce. We ought to be 10 doing more about it, but we're not going to do 11 it unless we're willing to spend some money for 12 it -- and it's not evil. It's not wrong. It's 13 the honest thing to do. It's the good thing to 14 do, so I would like to be supporting this bill 15 with an appropriation and, Senator, you could go 16 down to your former colleague, now the 17 distinguished governor of this state, and you 18 would say, This is money worth spending. Let's 19 not be ashamed to spend money to help the people 20 of the state of New York; and I'm sure there'll 21 be other occasions that will come before us 22 where I would hope that he would follow that 23 precept. 1 So, Senator, I'd support that 2 bill if that appropriation were in there for 3 really accomplishing what -- the very worthwhile 4 goal that you have. I think without money, 5 without an appropriation, unfortunately, I think 6 this is going to be a dead letter. 7 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 8 Paterson. 9 SENATOR PATERSON: Madam 10 President, I would ask that Senator Kuhl yield 11 for a question. 12 SENATOR KUHL: Be happy to. 13 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 14 Paterson. 15 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, 16 Senator. 17 Let's assume that Senator 18 Leichter is not correct, even though he makes a 19 very valid point. Let's pretend that Senator 20 Leichter is not correct. In spite of the fact 21 that I agree with him that this kind of a 22 creation of a center of agribusiness development 23 would actually create a cost just through its 1 institutionalization, but if it doesn't create a 2 cost, my question to you is, that since there's 3 already staff and there's also regulation that 4 seems to indicate that this function is already 5 caused -- is already performed in the Department 6 of Agriculture and Markets and that the 7 Department of Economic Development also has 8 staff that performs what seem to me to be the 9 definition of what you're seeking in this bill, 10 if that's the case, then and there's no need for 11 an appropriation, I'm just asking what was 12 within your contemplation when you wrote the 13 bill? What is it that you're actually trying to 14 accomplish by putting this bill in? 15 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl. 16 SENATOR KUHL: Senator Paterson, 17 just to repeat, I view this process of the 18 creation of agribusiness development programs as 19 being more than a one-step process. I view this 20 as being a multi-step process. 21 First of all, you have to create 22 some vehicles because I -- I don't assume nor 23 will I pretend, because it doesn't exist, that 1 there is direction within the Department of 2 Agriculture and Markets nor within the 3 Department of Economic Development, that 4 essentially establishes programs that are 5 beneficial to agribusinesses in this state. 6 That has not happened. 7 Agriculture has been specifically 8 excluded from those types of developmental 9 programs. This is a bill that would allow for 10 the incorporation of agriculture into the 11 economic development business in this state, and 12 it specifically defines a program that would 13 establish the vehicle, start the process moving 14 to establish whether there is a need, number 15 one, and number two, what the need is in 16 financial terms, whether there is a need for a 17 small agribusiness, say, in Solvay, New York, or 18 wherever if happens to be, to purchase a great 19 harvester or whatever the piece of equipment or 20 real estate or whatever it happens to be. That 21 has to be established. 22 Now, once that's established, 23 then we're in the position, I think, to come 1 back to the Legislature and to the Governor and 2 say, Look, we can create a hundred, a thousand, 3 five thousand, a hundred thousand jobs with this 4 type of expenditure. This is our payback. To 5 do that, at this point, I think is merely guess 6 ing, and that would be asking this Legislature 7 to take, I think, a great step of blind faith 8 that there were going to be jobs created with an 9 expenditure that's unknown, and I'm not willing 10 to do that. 11 Now, Senator Leichter would have 12 us do that now. I think it is a step early to 13 do that. This is a two-step, again, process. 14 First, we create the vehicle, establish the 15 need, determine what we can do, what the job 16 creation is, and then we come back and determine 17 whether or not that is a viable expenditure, and 18 I think that all of us who are reasonable in 19 expenditures in trying to look to ways to 20 accommodate but at the same time create jobs, 21 that's the kind of process that we'd go through, 22 and I think this bill does that. 23 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 1 will read the last section. 2 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 3 act shall take effect on the 180th day after it 4 shall have become a law. 5 THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll, 6 please. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 51, nays 9 one, Senator Leichter recorded in the negative. 10 THE PRESIDENT: The bill is 11 passed. (End) 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 12, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number 197, 14 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 15 resisting arrest. 16 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker. 17 SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President, 18 this is a bill that has passed this house on 19 several occasions before, and just to give a 20 little bit of background, a number of law 21 enforcement agencies have asked for this bill. 22 There has been a discussion for some time by the 23 D.A.s' Association and by law enforcement groups 1 that, to start with, the assault provisions that 2 we have on the books are under-valued, that is 3 that the courts -- in fact, what the courts have 4 done is to limit the use of the assault 5 provisions to the point where there is a problem 6 here. 7 As a for instance, what this bill 8 does, to start with, is to change the statute 9 for resisting arrest from a Class A misdemeanor 10 in any case, in other words whether a person 11 goes limp and falls on the floor and refuses to 12 be arrested or pushes a police officer or 13 anything that is done in the area of resisting 14 arrest, it is a Class A misdemeanor. 15 What this bill would say is that 16 this would set up a second resisting arrest in 17 the first degree, where a person would be guilty 18 of resisting arrest in the first degree when he 19 commits the crime of resisting arrest in the 20 second degree, in other words the normal 21 resisting arrest, and uses physical force. 22 What has happened is that the 23 allegation has been made by some groups that, 1 well, what about assault second which is assault 2 on a police officer? Assault on a police officer 3 under the court cases, the definitions that have 4 been delineated in virtually every court in this 5 state say that you must have what amounts to 6 some serious physical assault, serious physical 7 force, before you can charge someone even with 8 assault second. Virtually all law enforcement 9 attacks, if you want to call them, where there 10 is no damage to speak of, has been thought - 11 has been determined to be assault in the first 12 degree, which is a misdemeanor. 13 What this bill is designed to do 14 is to cut through that gap, and that is where a 15 person uses physical force in resisting a police 16 officer, that you can use the -- the crime of 17 resisting arrest in the first degree, which is a 18 Class E misdemeanor because it is a more serious 19 -- a more serious event. 20 The argument that has come up is 21 -- and I might as well put it right out here - 22 the issue of physical force. What is the 23 definition of "physical force"? Well, there is 1 no definition of "physical force" any place in 2 the Penal Law. I had my people research. 3 We also found, by the way, that 4 the "physical force" is used in a series of 5 other -- in connection with a series of other 6 crimes such as rape and sodomy and the various 7 other sex crimes. No courts have ever had any 8 problem in determining the physical force 9 provision and have used it in the normally 10 understood way in which physical force is used. 11 There is a definition of "deadly 12 physical force" which is Section 10 of the Penal 13 Law, which says, Physical force which is, under 14 the circumstances in which it is used, readily 15 capable of causing death or other serious 16 injury, but there is no definable definition of 17 "physical force", but I think it is something 18 which is well understood, and I think that the 19 courts as well as the district attorneys and law 20 enforcement officers obviously can determine, 21 because physical force is something that we 22 understand readily. 23 So I think what this bill does, 1 it fills a void right now that has occurred 2 because of the limitation of the statutes that 3 are presently on the books and in court 4 decisions. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 6 Senator Paterson. 7 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator Volker 8 yield for a question? 9 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 10 Senator Volker, will you yield? 11 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm 12 just curious as to the construction of the bill 13 itself. Pointing no finger at the bill itself. 14 I'm just wondering why did you choose not to add 15 to the aggravated assault statute, Penal Law 16 Section 120.1, which is a D felony and then 17 create a second degree of it which would be the 18 E felony that you're seeking rather than moving 19 over to resisting arrest? 20 SENATOR VOLKER: Because the 21 issue is not the issue itself of the assault, 22 David. The issue is really the -- the person 23 refusing to be arrested, and taking whatever 1 steps that need to be taken to be arrested. 2 The second degree assault 3 provisions, as you know, are already there, but 4 as I say, they have been limited in their 5 definition. Now, we had proposed, by the way, 6 upgrading the penalties for assault since I've 7 been on this floor of the Legislature, on 8 several occasions; but we think that this is a 9 specific -- and law enforcement officers feel 10 that this case is a specific situation that 11 needs to be filled and that the issue of whether 12 we can upgrade the assault provisions is another 13 issue that probably should be dealt with, but 14 that this is a better way of dealing with the 15 issue of arrest and the attempt by people to - 16 to avoid arrest. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 18 Senator Paterson. 19 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 20 if Senator Volker would continue to yield. 21 I'm just curious as to the law 22 enforcement agencies that have commented on this 23 bill. I didn't see a memo from the police 1 council or from the law enforcement council. I 2 just wanted to know who they were and why they 3 specifically wanted to have this upgrade. 4 SENATOR VOLKER: I think, my 5 recollection is that this bill initially came 6 from a Suffolk County police department, and I 7 think we also had discussions with the New York 8 State PBA, and I -- I think it results again 9 from problems that they have had where cases 10 were -- of cases where people who have, in 11 effect, assaulted police officers while they 12 were being arrested for whatever -- for whatever 13 reason, and the assault second provisions, they 14 were charged with assault second, but what 15 happened is because the courts felt that the - 16 under the present situation, if the assault 17 wasn't serious enough to be considered assault 18 second for a felony, that the charge was then 19 reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and, of course, 20 the resisting arrest is also a Class A 21 misdemeanor. So, as a result, the only charge 22 that you could lay against somebody who had 23 actually, in effect, assaulted a police officer 1 while resisting arrest, related to two Class A 2 misdemeanors, and what this does is give some 3 option to use a more serious -- admittedly the 4 least serious -- felony, which is a Class E 5 felony, but where there has been actually force 6 in resisting arrest, that a felony charge could 7 be lodged against that person. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 9 Senator Paterson. 10 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you very 11 much, Senator Volker. 12 Actually I don't have any more 13 questions for you, Senator Volker. I just have 14 a story I want to tell you. 15 There was a person who contacted 16 my office in 1991 during the time that they were 17 blowing up balloons for the Thanksgiving Day 18 parade, Senator Volker. This person said that 19 they were assaulted by the police and that 20 another civilian had filmed it on a video 21 camera, and, of course, in 1991 was the same 22 year as the Rodney King assault, and so the fact 23 that this assault had been captured on video was 1 rather interesting. And so we contacted the 2 20th Precinct on the West Side of Manhattan. 3 They were very cooperative, and although the 4 individual had been charged with resisting 5 arrest, the 20th Precinct was willing to look 6 into the possibility that maybe resisting arrest 7 was an interpretation the police officers had 8 made after they had assaulted this particular 9 victim. 10 So at the point that the video 11 was finally delivered to our office, we were 12 fully prepared to publicize this video until we 13 watched it and saw that the video demonstrated 14 that the defendant had clearly assaulted the 15 police, just as the police said that he had, and 16 that was the end of our coast-to-coast 17 presentation that we were going to demonstrate 18 on a Rodney King incident in New York. 19 So we definitely understand that 20 the police have a number of problems with 21 individuals who resist arrest, but the point 22 that I'm trying to make is that resisting arrest 23 is really an extremely subjective determination 1 since we don't really know what resisting arrest 2 is, and some of the defensive maneuvers that an 3 individual might engage in might not necessarily 4 be resisting arrest but just resisting the fear 5 of being injured during the arrest; and so we 6 just don't feel that this particular change in 7 the Penal Law is clear enough to determine that 8 the first degree of resisting arrest should be 9 the felony and that any degree that comes 10 thereafter would be a misdemeanor. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Secretary will read the last section. 13 SENATOR LEICHTER: Just a 14 second. 15 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you 16 recognize Senator Dollinger? I believe he was 17 next. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: I'm 19 sorry, Senator Dollinger. 20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 21 Senator Skelos. 22 Mr. President, I rise -- I'm 23 going to vote in favor of this bill. 1 I rise only -- and I appreciate 2 Senator Volker's comments. I think we're all 3 concerned about assaults on police officers. I 4 guess -- I've been in this chamber for two years 5 and we've never been able to pass a bill that 6 would decrease the number of assaults by weapons 7 by banning assault weapons, and my hope would be 8 that this year we'd be perhaps a little more 9 consistent in our treatment of the concept of 10 assault in that, as we increase the penalties 11 for those who are assaulting police officers, we 12 might look at the concept of taking away the 13 weapons from those who are assaulting the 14 general public, and my hope is that we'll be 15 able to do that this year. 16 But I will be voting in favor, 17 Mr. President. I think this is a good step. 18 I'd like to see us continue to walk in that 19 direction. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 21 Senator Leichter. 22 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yeah, Mr. 23 President. If Senator Volker would just yield 1 for a quick question, please. 2 SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. 3 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, I'm 4 concerned about this bill, particularly since, 5 as you said, there is no definition of what is 6 using physical force in the Penal Law, and 7 that's understandable and, therefore, I'm really 8 concerned about that almost any act that an 9 individual takes, which may well be where he may 10 just move his arms, and so on, that the 11 arresting officer may say, Well, you used 12 physical force against me and I'm going to 13 charge you with a Class E felony. 14 But I think it's terribly 15 important to protect the police officers, I 16 fully agree with you. They're carrying out 17 their duties as they see it, and certainly it's 18 important to protect them. But aren't they 19 protected now because, if anybody uses the sort 20 of physical force that I have in mind and I 21 think that's probably what you have in mind, you 22 push the officer or you punch him and so on, 23 wouldn't that be an assault and wouldn't that be 1 chargeable as a felony? 2 SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, that's 3 the problem that I mentioned. What's been 4 happening is -- and I think it's pretty clear 5 that this is generally the case in New York - 6 in order to obtain an assault second -- assault 7 second is an assault against a police officer, 8 and it's been evolving over a number of years, 9 you have to show more than just the normal 10 assault provisions. You have to show some sort 11 of physical injury has resulted, not just the 12 fact that the detective -- the police officer 13 has been pushed or shoved or punched or 14 whatever. 15 It's been determined in every 16 case of the assault third, as the law has 17 evolved, that basically, as I said, that an 18 assault second on a police officer has really 19 been determined to be a more serious assault 20 than just the ordinary assault and, of course, 21 some courts have said that this is something 22 that should be dealt with in the resisting 23 arrest statute, and one of the reasons that law 1 enforcement people came to us with this bill is 2 because they said, Right. Then if we can't get 3 an assault second conviction for this kind of 4 behavior, then why don't we have a -- the lowest 5 grade felony? That isn't what they said it, 6 like that, but why don't we have a more serious 7 charge in the resisting arrest area which would 8 cover it, so that you could charge someone under 9 this -- under this provision that was engaging 10 in that kind of conduct because so often the 11 case, as you know, a police officer is pushed 12 and jostled, and so forth. He never -- in fact, 13 most police officers today don't even bother to 14 -- with the assault second because they know 15 that they don't have any chance and, in fact, 16 that minor pushing and jostling, they're 17 probably going to do the same thing. They're 18 probably going to leave it the A misdemeanor 19 anyway. 20 We're talking about something a 21 little more serious here, and the feeling is, I 22 think, by many people in law enforcement and by 23 many district attorneys, that there ought to be 1 a piece of a statute that allows for some 2 latitude in these kinds of cases since you can't 3 really use assault second in the way in which 4 maybe you would envision it. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: But - 6 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 7 Senator Leichter. 8 SENATOR LEICHTER: If I may, Mr. 9 President, very briefly on the bill. 10 I understand in trying to cover 11 maybe a very small range of activities that are 12 now not covered in the law, you're opening up a 13 whole area of what is really not threatening 14 behavior to a police officer which now it 15 becomes subject to a class E felony. 16 I was off the floor for a few 17 moments so I don't know whether this was 18 mentioned, but just talking to my good friend 19 Senator Gold here, seems if there was a 20 protester was sitting down, and the officer 21 says, "You're under arrest;" the protester 22 doesn't move -- and we know that that happens a 23 lot and officers have to pick them up and carry 1 them to the paddy wagon -- that's resisting 2 arrest. That's a Class E felony. 3 It just seems to me wrong to 4 cover that whole range of activity, and the risk 5 of overcharging here becomes, I think, very 6 serious. 7 SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, let me 8 just disagree with that, that what you just 9 described is a Class A misdemeanor resisting 10 arrest because there was no physical force. You 11 have to have some sort of physical force against 12 the police officer of a nature that can be 13 considered this. 14 Let's be -- let's be frank: If 15 under the assault second, we -- we come to the 16 point where punching and jostling and shoving 17 and -- in some cases, and in some cases knocking 18 police officers down, has not been adjudged to 19 be enough to be an assault second, because there 20 is no injury, then clearly there's going to be 21 limitations on the resisting arrest. 22 So that's why, as I say, you're 23 going to have to prove a genuine physical force 1 in order to get an E felony conviction on this 2 kind of case. 3 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, Senator, 4 I just wanted to finally say, I think in most 5 instances while I'm in full agreement with you, 6 somebody punches a police officer, knocks him 7 down, I think that now would be an assault one. 8 In that case, it ought to be covered by the 9 Penal Law and is covered. I'm not so sure the 10 example I gave where you have to lift the 11 protesters up and carry them to the paddy wagon 12 wouldn't be deemed to be resisting arrest by 13 physical force against the police officer. 14 You know, you shake your head, 15 but it's our obligation to write penal statutes 16 very clearly, make sure that they're not 17 ambiguous. I think that's certainly ambiguous, 18 so I say again, it seems to me that what you're 19 opening up is a whole area of acts that now 20 become Class E felonies and that, I think, 21 police officers are going to be very quick to 22 charge which I think are really not appropriate 23 charges as a felony and, for that reason, I just 1 can't support this bill. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 3 Senator Waldon. 4 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 5 much, Mr. President. 6 Senator Volker, if I may, Mr. 7 President, ask a question or two. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Yes. 9 SENATOR WALDON: First, let me 10 make a comment. I remember the 22 years that I 11 was a police officer, and I can remember being 12 in what you describe an attack drive sometimes, 13 very appropriately as heat of battle, and when 14 someone punched an officer and knocked him or 15 her down -- at that time there were very few 16 women working the streets -- but it was a 17 serious situation, and I can recall those people 18 who were foolish enough to do that, that the 19 reaction and response to the officer was 20 sometimes very severe, and the charges would 21 mount according to the severity of the attack by 22 the perpetrator as he was characterized, and a 23 whole host of charges would be put on that 1 person. 2 And so my question to you is, 3 police work hasn't changed that much. When 4 someone assaults an officer, the officer 5 normally would place the person under arrest, do 6 what is necessary. We only exercise physical 7 force as it was placed upon us or directed 8 toward us, but we resisted in kind and acted in 9 kind to the other kinds of force. 10 So isn't there a redundancy here? 11 The cops on the street know what to do. They 12 know how to handle these situations, and they 13 know how to properly and appropriately charge 14 according to the actions of the person being 15 arrested. So I don't -- I'm going to support 16 it, but I just feel we want a little 17 clarification as to why do we have to do this 18 when there are already mechanisms in place in 19 the law and in practice out there to deal with 20 it? 21 SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, when 22 you and I were law enforcement officers and the 23 law, I guess, probably it depends on the part of 1 the state, we even in those days had trouble. I 2 was assaulted nine times in one year. I won't 3 get into it, but -- and I was not -- I think I 4 was only able to maintain one, maybe two charges 5 of assault second. It was always difficult 6 because police officers, whether we like it or 7 not -- and in modern society, I think even more 8 so -- are, as some of you said, almost expected 9 to get assaulted, and what has happened is, 10 if you really talk to law enforcement officers 11 across the state, I think you're going to find 12 out that they will tell you that there are very, 13 very few assault second convictions in this 14 state, very -- an assault second, as you know, 15 is an assault against a police officer. Assault 16 first is a serious -- serious physical assault 17 against anybody, deadly assault, so forth, but 18 what has happened is that judges have clearly 19 made very clear that a police officer is, in 20 effect, expected to be assaulted or to have to 21 be subjected to certain physical -- physical 22 restraints or whatever, and unless there is a 23 showing, for instance, something broken or 1 facial scars, the police officer -- police 2 officers are saying all over the state that the 3 decisions have come down that assaults have been 4 interpreted to be assault third which is a 5 misdemeanor and, of course, resisting arrest, 6 which is along with it, the maximum you can get 7 in a resisting arrest is a misdemeanor. 8 So that's why in certain cases, 9 in fact, I think there was -- it seems to me 10 that the real impetus, that the request for this 11 came in a case that was tested, and what 12 happened is that the person, I believe, was 13 convicted of assault second and the resisting 14 arrest was dismissed and then, when the case 15 went on appeal, a judge threw out the assault 16 second and said that the best that this should 17 be is an assault third and, in effect, the 18 person, because the case was dismissed unless 19 they wanted to recharge the whole thing, was 20 thrown out and the law enforcement people said 21 there ought to be something in between that we 22 could do to deal with these kinds of issues 23 since in the -- in the cases as they are -- as 1 they are being maintained, we are being 2 subjected to this -- to this kind of treatment. 3 Now, you are right, I happen to 4 believe probably that we should upgrade assault 5 penalties and, as you are probably aware, I have 6 some bills that would do that, and we have 7 passed them in this house. We've had no success 8 in the other house, but the law as it is right 9 now, as far as assault second is concerned, you 10 have to have a pretty substantial injury before 11 a law enforcement officer can maintain an 12 assault second conviction. 13 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 14 much, Senator Volker. 15 Thank you, Mr. President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 17 Senator Abate. 18 SENATOR ABATE: Yes, Senator 19 Volker. Would you yield to another question or 20 comment, combination? 21 I am -- I understand what the 22 goals you have in mind are, and that there's a 23 need to protect law enforcement officers who are 1 abiding or carrying out their official duties, 2 but it seems to me the better strategy for the 3 one you just articulated is not to increase the 4 scope of punishment beyond a year for resisting 5 arrest, because I believe under the interpreta 6 tion or the lack of definition of "physical 7 force", anyone could engage in a tussle and 8 would be charged with the E felony. 9 I think what we should look at 10 right now is a simple assault on an officer, 11 please correct me, as an A misdemeanor, and it's 12 very difficult to prove serious physical injury 13 against an officer. 14 I think the better approach is to 15 elevate the crime of simple assault against a 16 police officer, elevate that to a felony and 17 then you are exactly doing what you want to 18 accomplish. 19 I believe by elevating resisting 20 arrest or some parts of resisting arrest to an E 21 felony would not accomplish what you want. 22 SENATOR VOLKER: I appreciate 23 that. I -- I think that we will certainly, and 1 we have been attempting to change the assaults 2 statutes, but I think it's probably unlikely 3 that that's -- that is going to happen in the 4 immediate future. I really do believe that we 5 have a better opportunity here to plug this hole 6 with this resisting arrest statute, and that's 7 why -- that's why we've -- we've moved forward, 8 and that's what the law enforcement people have 9 asked us to do, and that's why this bill is 10 here. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Senator Montgomery. 13 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. 14 President. 15 I want to speak to this 16 legislation because I -- though I voted no, I 17 don't want to just pass without my going on 18 record with a couple of reasons why I continue 19 to oppose this legislation. 20 I have a friend who -- whose son 21 is now an assistant district attorney in 22 Brooklyn, who was in law school at a time when 23 he, along with a couple of his friends, entered 1 a store in Manhattan late at night to buy a can 2 of chili after they'd been out. And this is a 3 youngster, an African-American youngster, who is 4 not on drugs, does not wear baggy pants, has 5 never been arrested, has gone to the best 6 colleges and universities, and still presented a 7 menacing figure to the store owner who called 8 the police, and those youngsters were 9 subsequently arrested and booked for assaulting 10 a police officer, which did not happen. 11 I had another incident in my 12 district which -- wherein a number of high 13 school students were involved in a demonstration 14 outside of their high school against some of the 15 policies that they felt were problematic, were 16 unjust from their point of view, right, wrong or 17 indifferent -- I believe they had that right and 18 I certainly support that; I think we all do - 19 and a number of those young people were 20 arrested, and the charge essentially was 21 resisting arrest. 22 Now, here we are confronted in 23 both instances with young people, in one 1 instance a group of young people, in another 2 instance several young men, African-American - 3 in all cases these are African American, 4 particularly African-American male youngsters 5 whose only charge when they are confronted with 6 a police arrest, is that they are resisting 7 arrest, no matter what. 8 That means that without - 9 without the fact that my friend's son having 10 herself and a whole battery of -- of legal 11 support that she had to muster, her son may not 12 have been able to finish law school and 13 successfully become involved in a career in law 14 enforcement. That happens every single minute 15 of every day in my district. I'm confronted 16 with this to the point where I have a special 17 hot line between my office and the D.A.'s office 18 to defend such cases as those youngsters who 19 were caught up in a simple process in front of 20 their high school. 21 So to my colleagues, I warn you 22 that while we want to protect police officers, 23 and there's no one in this room who cares more 1 about the lives of the police officers who 2 protect the people in my district, I want to 3 make that very clear, but I also have to 4 consider what is going to happen when this law 5 goes into effect to thousands of youngsters, 6 particularly young African-American and Latino 7 males in this state, especially in this city, 8 when this law goes into effect and their careers 9 get shorted out because they run into a 10 situation and the police officer is able to 11 arrest them, and the charge can be a felony 12 because they so-called "resisted arrest". 13 I urge you to rethink this whole 14 issue, that we should not be passing such 15 legislation as this. This is the wrong thing to 16 do. It does not help resolve the problem of 17 crime on the streets, and I say to you that this 18 has very, very far-reaching ramifications for 19 young people in the state of New York. 20 I vote no, Mr. President. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 22 Senator Volker. 23 SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President. 1 Senator, somebody obviously gave you some 2 erroneous misinformation. You can not be 3 charged with resisting arrest alone. You have 4 to be arrested for something else in order to be 5 charged with resisting arrest. So you know, I 6 think one of the problems when we hear these 7 stories -- and I understand your vehemence and 8 all that, and I can assure you that there are 9 situations that, in my district, in our area 10 that are questionable. In fact, there's an old 11 saying that my friend Tom Coughlin said to me, 12 "I've got 62,000 people in my prison system and 13 none of them are guilty of anything." 14 But let me just say to you that 15 you just don't get charged with resisting 16 arrest. You've got to get charged with 17 something else, otherwise the resisting arrest 18 falls, because you -- in other words, it's got 19 to be trespassing, or it's got to be something 20 besides the resisting arrest. 21 Now, the fact that sometimes 22 arrests that may be erroneous or whatever, that 23 can happen any place in the state. But that 1 still does not avoid the problem of the fact 2 that we have had a -- a plethora, if I might use 3 the word, a great increase in the amount of 4 resisting arrests in this state, genuine 5 resisting arrests, and genuine assault on police 6 officers, and the mere fact that, it seems to 7 me, that there may be cases that are not totally 8 legitimate, does not mean that we should shrink 9 from moving to protect people who protect our 10 society, whoever they be -- whoever it may be, 11 and wherever they may be, and I understand your 12 concern, and I -- I really do. 13 I just do not believe that this 14 is going to create that sort of problem. I 15 think this is something that needs to be done 16 and I think in the long haul and in balancing in 17 our society, it's something I think you will 18 find will better serve the streets of the city 19 of New York as well as the streets of the rest 20 of the state. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 22 Secretary will read the last section. 23 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 1 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 2 November. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Call 4 the roll. 5 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 6 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 7 the negative on Calendar Number 12 are Senators 8 Abate, Connor, Espada, Leichter, Markowitz, 9 Mendez, Montgomery, Paterson and Smith. Ayes 10 44, nays 9. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: The 12 bill is passed. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 14, by Senator Holland, Senate Bill Number 213, 15 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 16 the validity of a license to carry or possess a 17 pistol within the state. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Explanation has been requested. Senator 20 Holland. 21 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes, Mr. 22 President. 23 Today, if you are issued a pistol 1 license in the city of New York, you can carry 2 your weapon anywhere within 62 counties of the 3 state of New York. However, if you are issued a 4 pistol license in any of the 57 counties other 5 than the city of New York, you can carry any 6 place except the city of New York. 7 This bill attempts to make - 8 bring us back into one state under one set of 9 laws and regulations as far as the carrying of a 10 weapon goes and would allow any pistol license 11 issued by judges in the other 57 counties to 12 carry any place in the 62 counties in the state 13 of New York. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 15 Senator Stavisky. 16 SENATOR STAVISKY: Will the 17 Senator yield to a question or two? 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes, sir. 19 SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator, would 20 you acknowledge that there are substantive 21 differences in the environment and the quality 22 of life in a sparse, rural area versus a densely 23 populated urban area? 1 SENATOR HOLLAND: Absolutely. 2 SENATOR STAVISKY: O.K. Would you 3 agree that it may be more dangerous because of 4 dense population and because of unrest for a 5 variety of reasons, to have pistols readily 6 available in an urban setting? 7 SENATOR HOLLAND: I would, sir, 8 except it is not the pistol licensee who would 9 cause any unrest or problem. It is the people 10 who illegally purchase weapons. This only deals 11 with legally issued licenses. 12 SENATOR STAVISKY: We can't have 13 a line-up, Senator. "You're not likely to 14 threaten." "You're not likely to threaten." 15 "You, we don't know about." We can not have a 16 category, a classification, that exempts certain 17 people automatically from the possibility that 18 they might inappropriately use a weapon. 19 There are differences, Senator. 20 There are differences where -- in an area where 21 a pistol might be very appropriate and part of 22 the quality of life, and another area where it 23 would be highly inappropriate, and this 1 legislation is not the first time we have 2 debated this, but this legislation continues to 3 come up. 4 Another question, Senator: You 5 generally favor home rule? 6 SENATOR HOLLAND: O.K. I do. 7 SENATOR STAVISKY: O.K. Do you 8 favor home rule for all municipalities other 9 than the city of New York? 10 SENATOR HOLLAND: I favor for all 11 municipalities, including the city of New York. 12 SENATOR STAVISKY: Other than the 13 city of New York? 14 SENATOR HOLLAND: Let me tell 15 you, the city of New York is the only one that's 16 complaining here. Buffalo's not complaining. 17 Syracuse is not complaining. Rochester is not 18 complaining, and they have similar problems that 19 the city of New York has. 20 SENATOR STAVISKY: Do you favor 21 or refuse to favor home rule for the city of New 22 York? 23 SENATOR HOLLAND: I generally 1 favor home rule if that's what you're trying to 2 get at, Senator, but I think this bill should be 3 statewide. 4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Then why don't 5 you talk to the mayor and the police 6 commissioner of the city of New York and ask 7 them to reconsider their objection? There may 8 be good and sufficient reason, Senator Holland, 9 why the mayor and the police commissioner of the 10 city of New York - 11 SENATOR HOLLAND: Well, you know, 12 Senator - 13 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- may feel 14 that this legislation is not appropriate for 15 that one city. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 17 Senator Holland. 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: Again, Senator, 19 you've seen the memo from the mayor. I think 20 that's historic more than anything else and, 21 again, I just have to continually point out - 22 and this is probably only the beginning -- we're 23 only talking about licensed pistolholders, you 1 know, and I've told you this in the past, what 2 you have to go through in this state to be 3 issued a license to carry a pistol. 4 You have to go to your county 5 clerk or your commissioner down in the City. It 6 takes at least six months. You have to be 7 checked out, your fingerprints by the FBI, the 8 BCI, mental health. In Rockland County, you 9 have to have a letter from your spouse or 10 significant other saying whether you can carry, 11 have that license. It has to be signed by the 12 sheriff, signed by a judge, takes about six 13 months for the initial license and, if you get a 14 second license for a second weapon, that takes 15 at least seven days, and also you have to have 16 it signed by a judge. 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator 18 Holland - 19 SENATOR HOLLAND: Nothing easy 20 about getting a license to carry a weapon. 21 SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator, do 22 you acknowledge - 23 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 1 SENATOR STAVISKY: Another 2 question. 3 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Do you 5 acknowledge that sometimes a spouse or an 6 innocent child may be the victim of a shooting 7 with a licensed pistol? 8 SENATOR HOLLAND: It's possible. 9 It happens, yes. 10 SENATOR STAVISKY: As a matter of 11 fact, in many instances, traditionally, a member 12 of the family has been more likely to be killed 13 with a firearm, licensed or otherwise, than 14 anyone else because the presence of that fire 15 arm makes it easier to take the life. 16 SENATOR HOLLAND: Usually happens 17 at home. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Senator Holland, Senator Stavisky, would you 20 please address your remarks to the Chair. 21 SENATOR HOLLAND: This one - 22 SENATOR STAVISKY: I yield to the 23 Senator on the response. 1 SENATOR HOLLAND: This one - 2 this one usually happens in the home, and we're 3 only talking about somebody carrying it with 4 them while they're in the City. They're not in 5 their home then, and why would it be any 6 different if a license is issued by an upstate 7 judge or the commissioner of police in the city 8 of New York? The same thing could happen; so 9 that's just -- that argument doesn't carry 10 weight. 11 SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 13 Senator Stavisky. 14 SENATOR STAVISKY: What happens 15 in the home, Senator Stavisky, can happen in a 16 hotel room in the city of New York. It could 17 happen in a train terminal in the city of New 18 York or in a taxicab in the city of New York. 19 The failure of people to show restraint in the 20 use of this ultimate weapon of death is not 21 limited to the circumstances of whether they are 22 in a rural area, peaceful rural area -- and I 23 will concede that -- or whether they are 1 elsewhere or whether, in the city of New York 2 suddenly in a fight over a parking space that 3 individual carrying that licensed firearm 4 fighting over a parking space or over an insult 5 that is hurled from the occupant in one car to 6 the occupant of another car -- and they're not 7 asking each other, Do you have Grey Poupon 8 mustard with you? Sometimes over a parking 9 space, people get hot under the collar and 10 sometimes they over-react. Grey Poupon mustard 11 will not kill. A pistol will. 12 I think that you show a disser 13 vice to the principle of home rule, which you 14 espouse, when you fail to consider the home rule 15 request of the mayor of the city of New York and 16 the police commissioner of the city of New 17 York. We are asking in many parts of the state, 18 Senator Holland, for people to be given rewards 19 for turning in their weapons and these programs 20 of giving rewards, gifts, cash in some cases for 21 turning in weapons, are intended to reduce the 22 number of firearms that are in settings such as 23 densely populated urban areas like the city of 1 New York. 2 It's a bill which may be good for 3 a rural area. It's not a bill that is good for 4 the city of New York, and I would urge anyone 5 who has a regard for cutting down the carnage, 6 reducing the carnage, the deaths that occur from 7 weapons, licensed or otherwise, to consider 8 voting against this. 9 Judges do not necessarily do the 10 background check, and you can't ask a spouse. 11 There are many spouses who are dead when they 12 had great trust in the other member of the 13 family and could not anticipate a situation 14 where violence and perhaps the resort to a fire 15 arm would occur. 16 I once had a conversation with an 17 FBI official who said, Come after me with 18 anything, a knife or a baseball bat, and I have 19 a chance of surviving, but come after me with a 20 gun at close range, and the odds in my favor 21 drop dramatically. 22 Give us the opportunity to have 23 home rule in our City, and I will not oppose the 1 reverse situation on your constituents, but do 2 not endanger the people I represent or anyone 3 else in the city of New York. 4 I hope you will withdraw this 5 bill and learn from the fact that it has never 6 passed the Assembly. I hope you will allow it 7 to die quietly before someone else dies not so 8 quietly. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 10 Senator Paterson. 11 SENATOR PATERSON: Will Senator 12 Holland yield for a question, Mr. President? 13 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 14 Senator Holland yield? 15 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 16 SENATOR PATERSON: All right. 17 Senator Holland, we don't mean to suggest that 18 those who carry firearms increase the crime rate 19 by any significant amount. We don't mean to 20 suggest that people who carry weapons are 21 irresponsible with those weapons, and we don't 22 mean to suggest that those who would like to 23 carry their guns in New York City are 1 necessarily in any way an obstacle to the 2 quality of life in New York City. 3 But I don't see this bill as a 4 question of firearms or licensing. I see it as 5 a question of home rule. You said in your 6 previous remarks that the city of New York has 7 issued a memorandum opposing this bill as a 8 matter of history. I want to tell you what some 9 of that history is. 10 In the year 1990, there were 11 3,245 murders in the city of New York and in 12 calendar year 1991, there were 2,254; 1992, 13 1,995, the last year 1993, in the Dinkins 14 administration there were 1,946 murders. In the 15 first year of the Giuliani administration, those 16 murders have decreased by over a hundred. So 17 crime generally, in 13 FBI categories, has 18 decreased in New York City, and we feel that we 19 are trying to fight a crime problem. 20 One of the reasons that we feel 21 that we are fighting a crime problem is just the 22 changing the perception of violence in the City 23 and this is why we would prefer in New York City 1 not to have firearms as much as possible unless 2 the individual is licensed and there is a 3 rigorous test to determine that an individual 4 can receive a license. 5 We appreciate that you 6 short-circuited that test in Rockland County and 7 hope that we can create procedures that will 8 make it such that those who have to carry 9 weapons can get them as soon as possible. 10 But my question to you is, why 11 would you assume that a memorandum coming from 12 the city of New York is a matter of history when 13 the historical evidence shows that crime has 14 decreased in the city of New York, and although 15 it's not to a level that I would consider to be 16 the threshold of safety and that there should be 17 no fear, at the same point, it is something that 18 we in the city of New York are trying to reserve 19 the right to control, and I wonder what your 20 thoughts were on that. 21 SENATOR HOLLAND: Senator, I'm in 22 agreement with you that there are too many 23 weapons on the streets of the city of New York 1 and I -- and Senator Stavisky and I think that 2 they should be removed. But you should never - 3 and you should never ask a question you don't 4 know the answer of, but in the statistics you 5 cited, do you know how many of those 2200 deaths 6 and 1900 deaths were caused by weapons and how 7 many were caused by licensed weapons in the 8 hands of the licenseholder? 9 SENATOR PATERSON: In answer to 10 the question, Senator Holland, I never suggested 11 that any of them -- I'm sure that some of them 12 were, but I never suggested that any of them 13 were caused by those who were holding a licensed 14 firearm. What I'm saying is that we feel the 15 possession of a licensed firearm is actually 16 something that just means that there's one more 17 weapon on the street, and we would not like to 18 have very many of them unless it's absolutely 19 necessary. 20 SENATOR HOLLAND: I think it's an 21 infringement on the people in my district and 22 the rest of the 57 counties in the state of New 23 York that we can't follow the Second Amendment 1 and carry weapons. 2 You know, Senator, that anybody 3 who's issued a weapon has to go through a safety 4 course. They know how to handle the weapon. 5 They don't take their weapon out and shoot 6 people in the parking lot, as the Senator 7 suggests. They are respectful of their 8 weapons. The problem is the illegal weapons in 9 the city of New York, and I totally agree with 10 you that we should do everything we can to get 11 them off city streets and all the streets. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 13 Senator Paterson. 14 SENATOR PATERSON: Well, thank 15 you for the answer, Senator. 16 On the legislation. It is the 17 position of the city of New York, and it is 18 historical, whether it be a Democratic mayor or 19 a Republican, that we would just advise that the 20 city of New York is really a New York State 21 thoroughfare. There are many people come in and 22 out of the city to such a rapid degree that we 23 would assume that if they're going to be in the 1 City for any period of time, that they go 2 through the City's licensing procedure, and this 3 is what the City would like to maintain. 4 There are a number of pieces of 5 legislation that come across our desks every day 6 in which legislators around the state are asking 7 for certain kinds of home rule, and the reason 8 this is an issue in the first place is because 9 people regularly frequent New York City, so 10 we've had this situation replicate itself on a 11 number of issues such as the desire that New 12 York City has to have its police officers live 13 and work in New York City. There are those who 14 oppose that. The officers often live in other 15 parts of the state and, if you go into those 16 towns, you can't do anything unless you're a 17 resident of that town. 18 So the general point of view is, 19 at least the points of view that I've heard, is 20 that there should be some substantial home 21 rule. So now we bring ourselves to the question 22 of what meets the home rule test. Well, the 23 role of state government is basically to 1 regulate the conduct of towns and cities to 2 force the protection of the people who live in 3 those towns and cities; and so, when you have a 4 situation such as perhaps something we discussed 5 yesterday, the spraying of DDT and what would be 6 aerial sprays, what you're talking about is a 7 significant health hazard that would affect 8 everyone, so the state might want to try to 9 regulate in that area. 10 But when we're looking at what is 11 really a policy determining how a certain class 12 of citizens act, and that would be those 13 citizens who maintain firearms, we are just 14 saying in New York City that we would like to 15 curb the number of firearms around, and we feel 16 that that will curb inevitably deaths, whether 17 they be intentional or accidental, that are 18 caused by those firearms and, for that reason, 19 I'm going to vote no on this particular 20 legislation. 21 I agree with the mayor of the 22 city of New York, and I agree with the previous 23 administrations who would like for people who 1 are regularly going to be frequenting New York 2 City to comply with New York City's standards 3 for licensing firearms. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 5 Senator Dollinger. 6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 7 President, will the sponsor yield to a couple 8 questions? 9 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 10 Senator Holland? 11 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I 13 went back through the history of this statute, 14 the exclusion for New York City, for want of a 15 better term. The best I can tell, it was put 16 into the statutes about 1965. Are you familiar 17 with what the rationale was for excluding New 18 York City from the reach of the state's pistol 19 permit process at that time? 20 SENATOR HOLLAND: I was not 21 here. I do not know, no, sir. 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. Well, I 23 assume, and again assumptions are always 1 dangerous, but I assume that the city of New 2 York said they wanted to control the weapons 3 withinside the City limits by issuing their own 4 pistol permits to people who could meet the 5 standards imposed by the city of New York. 6 Do you think that's a fair 7 characterization of what the explanation was for 8 this? 9 SENATOR HOLLAND: I don't know, 10 Senator, but do you think it would be a good 11 idea if we allowed other counties to do a patch 12 work situation like this so you'd have to have a 13 locked box and couldn't stop your car if you had 14 a weapon? It's unfair. It's blatantly unfair. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 16 President, I'll ask Senator Holland that 17 question with respect to Rockland County in a 18 second. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: O.K. 20 You got another question? 21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: In just a 22 second. But let's just address the question of 23 what was the rationale for putting this in the 1 statute in the first place. 2 SENATOR HOLLAND: I don't know. 3 You assumed something. I don't know whether 4 that's true. 5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, my 6 guess is that that's what the explanation was 7 but what I'd like to ask you is, again through 8 you, Mr. President, can you tell me what's 9 changed between 1965 and 1995 that suggests that 10 we should do something differently now? What's 11 changed? Are there any fewer weapons in the city 12 of New York, any fewer homicides? Is there 13 anything that suggests the city of New York's 14 interest in decreasing the weapons in its 15 borders is any less today than it was in 1965? 16 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 17 Senator Holland. 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: New York has 19 the toughest gun laws in the nation right now, 20 and in answer to your question, it is a much 21 more dangerous city than it used to be. 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through 23 you, Mr. President. 1 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 2 Another question? 3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: New York City 4 has the toughest gun laws in the state, in the 5 nation, isn't that correct? 6 SENATOR HOLLAND: New York City 7 and Washington, D.C., I think. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: So it's safe 9 to say that New York City wants to protect - 10 has the toughest gun laws in the country. 11 SENATOR HOLLAND: They're totally 12 ineffective. 13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, are we 14 arguing effectiveness, or are we arguing the 15 right of the city of New York to make that 16 decision? 17 SENATOR HOLLAND: Simply asked me 18 a question, Mr. President. 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I wanted to 20 find out through you, Mr. President, whether my 21 colleague acknowledges that anything has changed 22 since 1965. This was obviously a judgment of 23 this Legislature to give to New York City that 1 power to impose stricter restriction on access 2 to weapons than we impose everywhere else in the 3 state, and the best I can tell, you can't tell 4 me that anything has changed. That's a more 5 dangerous city. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Excuse 7 me, Senator Holland. You asking that question? 8 SENATOR HOLLAND: No, no, I'm 9 just answering that particular issue again, but 10 -- I'm sorry. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But again 12 through you, Mr. President, as I understand the 13 answer to the question is nothing has changed. 14 If anything, it's gotten worse. The city of New 15 York's interest in patroling its own borders is 16 even bigger than it ever was; isn't that 17 correct, Senator? 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Senator Holland. 20 SENATOR HOLLAND: Something has 21 changed because it's a much more dangerous 22 city. 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, under 1 those circumstances, again through you, Mr. 2 President, don't you think the city of New York 3 should be able to do everything to tighten its 4 own restrictions on weapons inside its borders? 5 SENATOR HOLLAND: If it was 6 effective, I'd believe so, sir, but it has not 7 been effective in any way, shape or form, in my 8 judgment, and I don't think licensed gun 9 holders, weaponholders cause any problem. We 10 have all the information regarding your 11 background. If they cause a problem, the weapon 12 is taken away from them immediately and they can 13 get it no more. It's not -- the problem is not 14 caused -- not caused by licensed gunholders, 15 sir. It is caused by the illegal weapons and 16 the criminals, not by licensed gunholders. 17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through 18 you, Mr. President, so it's my understanding of 19 your answer that because you don't believe it's 20 effective in New York City, in evaluating this 21 legislation we should substitute your judgment 22 for the judgment of the mayor of the city of New 23 York who says that his police department 1 violently opposes this bill, that he violently 2 opposes this bill, and that the City Council, 3 elected to represent everyone in the city of New 4 York, violently opposes this bill. We should 5 substitute your judgment for theirs? 6 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Is 7 that a question of Senator Holland? 8 SENATOR HOLLAND: I'll substitute 9 the Second Amendment to the United States 10 Constitution. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, it's 12 interesting, again through you, Mr. President, 13 you've mentioned Second Amendment. Of course, 14 if there was a Second Amendment that allowed 15 people to bear arms without any restriction, we 16 wouldn't be able to have a pistol permit statute 17 in this state because we couldn't restrict that 18 right at all, could we, Senator? 19 SENATOR HOLLAND: No. No, we all 20 have restrictions throughout the state of New 21 York. However, we can carry licenses that are 22 issued in any of the 57 counties in those 57 23 counties, but we cannot -- against the Second 1 Amendment -- carry them in the city of New 2 York. We can carry them in Buffalo, Syracuse, 3 Rochester. 4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just as a 5 point of clarification, Senator, I believe the 6 thing that prevents us from carrying them in the 7 city of New York is, in fact, that this law 8 specifically says that they can't, this creation 9 of ours, in conjunction with the Assembly and 10 the Governor, not the Second Amendment, that 11 applies, just for clarification. 12 But let me, if I could, Mr. 13 President, ask one other question. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 15 Senator Dollinger. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: That 17 addresses an issue Senator Holland brought up 18 earlier. Now, suppose, Senator that Rockland 19 County ran into a rash of firearm problems and 20 suppose that Rockland County sent a home rule 21 message to this body that said, We would like 22 the authority to issue our own pistol permits 23 and we would like to have the same exception 1 that applies to the city of New York to apply in 2 Rockland County. What would your reaction, as 3 the representative of Rockland County, be to 4 that request? 5 SENATOR HOLLAND: I would make 6 every attempt to dissuade them from that, but we 7 don't have that problem, thank God. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But suppose 9 -- suppose it was. Suppose you had the same 10 kinds of violence Senator Stavisky talked about 11 in New York City, or Senator Paterson, rattling 12 off the thousands of people that were killed 13 with firearms. If that existed in Rockland 14 County and they sent you a home rule message 15 that said, We want the same protection as the 16 city of New York, would you sponsor the bill and 17 give it to them? 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: I would try to 19 dissuade them, but certainly I would consider a 20 request from my county, and then I would do it 21 for the rest of the state as well if that were 22 the case and wouldn't suggest a bill that you 23 couldn't carry in any other than your own permit 1 town. 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. 3 SENATOR HOLLAND: That would be 4 fair on the other side of the issue. 5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. I concur 6 with that. I guess if the city of Rochester, 7 most of which I represent, made the same request 8 of me, I would be in here attempting to get the 9 same type of bill passed. I think that's part 10 of our jobs as representatives to stand up here 11 and protect the interests of the people in our 12 community as expressed through their home rule 13 message, whether it's in favor of a bill or 14 against a bill. That certainly has to be a 15 factor in what we do. 16 On the bill, Mr. President. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: On the 18 bill. 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I look at 20 this as a situation where in 1965 this 21 Legislature addressed the problem of who's going 22 to issue pistol permits in the city of New 23 York. This body, in conjunction with the state 1 Assembly and the Governor, gave the power to the 2 city of New York to do that for themselves. 3 It seems to me that nothing has 4 changed. New York City can determine to have 5 the strictest laws in the universe on guns, use 6 and gun access. They want the power to do it. 7 They feel it's in their best interest. It seems 8 to me that nothing has changed since 1965, and 9 the same rationale applies. 10 I'd point out just one other 11 thing for consideration by this body. We 12 amended this provision in 1990, and we said that 13 we could allow police regulations, weapons - 14 allow retired police officers who are licensed 15 to wear -- to possess weapons outside the city 16 of New York to come into the city of New York 17 and bring those weapons with them. Retired 18 police officers. In the legislative memorandum 19 in support of that bill, this body expressly 20 recognized the power of the city of New York to 21 control weapons within its borders when we said, 22 "While the sponsors of this legislation recog 23 nize the city of New York has a legitimate 1 interest in restricting the number of individ 2 uals who carry firearms within city 3 limits....." 4 We recognized that when we did it 5 in 1990. We said that the city of New York has 6 a legitimate interest. Why we would now say 7 that we're prepared to submit our interests, 8 submit our judgment from Rockland County or 9 Monroe County, a long ways away from the city of 10 New York, that we submit our judgment for that 11 of the mayor or the City Council and the 12 representatives of the city of New York I just 13 can't understand. 14 Nothing has changed. We ought to 15 do what we did in 1990 and recognize this is 16 something that the city of New York has the 17 power to do and recognize the validity of 18 keeping the power in the city of New York. I'll 19 be voting no. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 21 Senator Johnson. 22 SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President, 23 I've really enjoyed listening to the debate 1 carried on the other side of the aisle. They've 2 made the case for this bill if I've ever heard 3 it, but they don't recognize that fact. 4 I think it's rather interesting 5 to hear Senator Stavisky say that we recognize 6 the difference in the environment and the 7 quality of life in New York City vis-a-vis 8 outside the City, and don't we agree it's more 9 dangerous there? 10 Well, that's certainly a good 11 reason for this bill to pass. I don't think the 12 people who live outside the City should be in 13 danger by going in there and, if they have a 14 concealed weapons permit, a carry permit, they 15 should certainly be able to carry it where the 16 crime is most rampant in this state. Makes 17 sense to me. 18 Senator Paterson said they want 19 to curb firearms in New York City. What have 20 they done to curb firearms? Simple fact is New 21 York City is fair hunting grounds for any 22 criminal because they pretty well can depend on 23 not finding anyone capable of defending 1 themselves with a firearm or, for that matter, 2 with a can of mace. 3 That's absolutely ridiculous to 4 say that you're not allowed to protect yourself 5 in the city of New York. 6 Senator Dollinger said nothing's 7 changed in 30 years and New York City's got the 8 strictest laws. And guess what? Nothing's 9 changed. Crime's gone up and up progressively 10 over the years, and there's nobody there that 11 can fight back. Certainly that is an 12 anachronistic policy that's failed and it's time 13 to look in another direction as 21 other states 14 have done. 15 21 other states have advanced 16 concealed carry permits to anyone of good 17 character, not a criminal, a mental case; they 18 let them carry concealed weapons. Crime has 19 dropped 33 percent; homicides have dropped 33 20 percent in those states where they've put those 21 into effect. So you're safer with more people 22 carrying weapons -- more honest people, licensed 23 people, carrying weapons. 1 Robbery rates down 37 percent, 2 aggravated assault rates down 13 percent, 21 3 percent lower total violent crime rates in the 4 states where they've permitted honest citizens 5 to carry weapons. That seems to me it's time 6 for New York City and their representatives to 7 re-examine their failed policy. 8 And you're asking questions of 9 Senator Holland about do we have the strictest 10 laws in New York City, and he said yes, New York 11 City and Washington, D.C., and, of course, those 12 are the crime and murder capitols of the 13 nation. So obviously those laws are very 14 conducive to criminal activity and make it very 15 dangerous for honest people to walk the streets 16 in those communities. In fact, if you call up 17 your Congressman, he doesn't walk two blocks in 18 Washington, D.C., and he knows what he's living 19 under, the strictest crime control law because 20 we're controlling the guns and keeping them out 21 of the hands of the honest people while the 22 criminals have free rein to run the streets at 23 their -- at their leisure, and to assault anyone 1 they want. So I think it's time to change the 2 New York City policy, and this just dramatizes 3 that. 4 The argument for home rule is a 5 specious argument. Senator Dollinger said 6 there's home rule for New York City; therefore, 7 they should tell you that your people can't 8 protect themselves if they come to this most 9 dangerous city in our state. I think that's an 10 immoral home rule and certainly shouldn't stand 11 in this instance. It should really be perhaps 12 the other way around. 13 You know, when Joe Holland was 14 asked to agree that there are too many guns on 15 the streets of the city of New York, he should 16 have said something further beyond that. He 17 should have said in the wrong people's hands. 18 Now, in other cities in this 19 nation, they have taken -- the police have taken 20 the offensive to get the guns out of the wrong 21 hands by strict enforcement, by searching when 22 people are stopped for drugs or for even driving 23 erratically on the street, or stopped going 1 through a red light. If they have an 2 opportunity they suspect these people might be 3 engaged in criminal activity, they searched 4 their vehicles and they found many weapons. 5 They got a lot of weapons off the streets, and 6 this experiment, which recently took place in 7 Kansas City, Missouri and Indianapolis, Indiana, 8 they find out -- they find there was some type 9 of 50 percent reduction in gun-related homicides 10 because they didn't try to prevent honest people 11 from possessing weapons. They tried to get the 12 guns away from the people that use them 13 illegally, and I think you've all heard this 14 before. There are 200 million weapons in this 15 state in the hands of the citizens -- in this 16 nation, rather, in the hands of our citizens and 17 only 100,000 are used in crime. All the rest 18 are possessed for peaceful activities, for self 19 protection, hunting, target shooting, whatever. 20 So that guns are no threat. The 21 guns in the wrong hands of the criminals are a 22 threat. Those are the guns you have to go 23 after, not restrict honest citizens who have a 1 license from going in any other part of their 2 own state with a weapon. 3 So I think you're really on the 4 wrong track, New York City. You have got to 5 wake up and smell the coffee, find out your 6 problems obviously -- your policies for the last 7 30 years are obviously a gross failure. You 8 have to reassess your policy, get in tune with 9 the times but, as far as this particular bill, 10 there's no reason in the world to say a person 11 who is licensed anywhere in New York State 12 cannot go into New York City to defend 13 themselves, to help protect someone else. 14 In fact, the case was made when 15 everybody was screaming about assault weapons, 16 including everybody on your side of the aisle, 17 several of the people on that train said, Oh, if 18 someone only had a licensed weapon, one of the 19 citizens in our community, they could have 20 stopped this guy before he killed half a dozen 21 people and shot another 15 or whatever. 22 So it makes a lot of sense to 23 have honest armed citizens within our midst to 1 protect us, take the place of police who can't 2 be everywhere all the time. So I mean this is a 3 good bill. Joe, I commend you for putting it 4 forth. Everyone should vote for this bill. 5 It's not going to increase crime; it's going to 6 increase the safety for the citizens in this 7 state and restore our constitutional right as 8 Joe Holland sees it, to carry your own weapon if 9 you indeed have a license in our state. 10 Thank you. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Senator DiCarlo. 13 SENATOR DiCARLO: Yes. Mr. 14 President, I wasn't going to speak on this bill 15 but since there isn't any other Majority Senator 16 from the city of New York who has spoken on this 17 bill, I think it's important that I do rise in 18 support of the legislation. 19 First point I'd like to make is I 20 -- I don't agree that it's more dangerous on 21 the streets in my district than it is in any 22 other district in many upstate communities. I'd 23 be willing to bet that there were probably more 1 murders in some of my colleagues' districts in 2 upstate New York than there have been in my 3 district in Bay Ridge and Staten Island, number 4 one, so I do take offense to both sides of the 5 aisle when they talk about New York City and 6 they lump us all together as sort of being crazy 7 dangerous area. My community is not one of 8 those, and I would stand up for that point. 9 Number two, I don't know why 1965 10 this was done at all. I don't agree with New 11 York City being able to separate itself from the 12 rest of the state and decide what law-abiding 13 citizens are going to protect themselves and 14 which law-abiding citizens in the state are not 15 and shall we, the people in the city of New 16 York, have a right to protect ourselves just 17 like any other citizen in the state of New 18 York. 19 So I would like to see this rule 20 changed or this law changed prohibiting the 21 honest people in my district from protecting 22 themselves. The argument is made that the City 23 Council and home rule and the mayor, the mayor 1 is a good friend of mine. The mayor is wrong on 2 this. We in the city of New York have a right 3 to protect ourselves, and if people would argue 4 that the city of New York, God knows most of the 5 members of the City Council in New York City, 6 their philosophies do not represent the philoso 7 phies of the people in my district, and I thank 8 God that we have a state Legislature that at 9 times will stand up and tell the city of New 10 York and most of the legislators in the city of 11 New York that we're also going to stand up for 12 Senator DiCarlo's constituents because most of 13 you do not represent the feelings of the 14 constituents in my community. 15 So I thank Senator Holland for 16 bringing up this legislation. I would like to 17 see it expanded so that the law-abiding citizens 18 of my community can also protect themselves. 19 The problem is, as has been said, not with legal 20 gun permits and people carrying legally. Any 21 thinking person who looks at the problem knows 22 that it is the criminal who is -- who is killing 23 people on the streets of New York City and all 1 over this state. 2 The answer is not to prohibit 3 somebody from Rockland County who is down on 4 business in New York City who's carrying a legal 5 gun to keep them out of New York City. The 6 answer is to put people who are not licensed, 7 people who are committing crimes and using 8 weapons into prison. That's the answer. 9 I would -- I would hope that 10 maybe we come up with some legislation to allow 11 the people of the city of New York the same 12 rights as the people of Rockland County to 13 protect themselves in these difficult times and 14 for anybody who would like to come to my 15 district, it is a beautiful place and it is a 16 safe community, and we'd like to keep it that 17 way. 18 Thank you. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 20 Senator Gold. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you, Mr. 22 President. 23 Mr. President, I wasn't going to 1 speak. I thought, after hearing Senator 2 Leichter and others, that the points had been 3 made, and then lo and behold, Senator Johnson, 4 my old friend who deserted us from the third 5 floor, gets up, and you just don't get it. I 6 mean it's a simple issue. This isn't 7 complicated. I mean we'll get to a lot of 8 complicated issues, but this one isn't 9 complicated. We don't want your guns in the 10 city of New York. We don't want your guns. 11 Now, there are things that happen 12 in this state that discourage people from going 13 around the state. I remember years ago probably 14 more than today, but maybe still today there was 15 speed traps, and the AAA would come out with a 16 list and say, Don't drive here, there and the 17 other place. Well, some little towns thought 18 they could raise revenues. They had speed 19 traps. And what happened? They lost people 20 going through the town. 21 Well, maybe the city of New York 22 with the law the way it is today is losing some 23 of your people, Senator Johnson, who are too 1 petrified to come to the city of New York and 2 spend your money there; and you're not going to 3 our shows and you're not going to our 4 restaurants, and we say, Too bad! If you've got 5 to come with your gun, don't come. It's that 6 easy. It's that easy. 7 Now, it's been pointed out that 8 under the Dinkins administration crime in the 9 city of New York started to go down. The 10 Giuliani administration has continued that and 11 crime is going down. 12 When it comes to the victims of 13 those crimes, I don't know where they come 14 from. I don't know whether the people in your 15 district ought to be frightened to death because 16 everyone is hearing about the neighbors coming 17 to the city of New York and getting killed. I 18 know, when I read the papers in the city of New 19 York, most of the victims unfortunately or 20 whatever -- I'm sorry they're victims to begin 21 with, but they're people who live in the city of 22 New York. Gary Ackerman had his dinner ruined 23 with a murder 20 feet away from him, where some 1 guy shot his landlord. The landlord was from 2 the city of New York, and so was he. 3 So I don't know whether or not 4 your people are really coming to the city of New 5 York, and just because they're not armed like 6 Wild Bill Hickok, they're gettin' killed and the 7 word is gettin' out, but the people in the city 8 of New York don't want your guns. That's all. 9 Now, Senator DiCarlo said that he 10 supports the mayor, but the mayor is wrong. 11 Well, I got news for you. The mayor has a 12 constitutional right to be wrong. That's 13 right. Got a right to be wrong. Now, I know 14 some of you believe that David Dinkins was a 15 raving maniac liberal and didn't want to pay 16 attention to his memos. But Rudy Giuliani? 17 You're not going to say that. Law and order 18 candidate, taking care of the city. Crime is 19 too much, and he's going to take care of it, and 20 he says to you, his Republican colleagues, 21 Fellows and one lady, give me a chance. I'm 22 working it out. I don't want the guns in the 23 city of New York. We want economic development 1 in the city of New York, but if you have to come 2 down with your guns, don't come to the city of 3 New York. And that's the bottom line. 4 Somebody on your side made the 5 comment that -- that home rule is important but 6 it ought to be right, and I say hogwash. 7 There's not one of you on that side of the aisle 8 as you vote, as Senator Abate learned the last 9 few days, as rigid soldiers without using your 10 minds. If there's a Republican bill, by God, 11 it's got to pass, you can't think about it. But 12 I mean there's not one of you who has ever, ever 13 stood up on a Republican bill and said, "I know 14 it's home rule, Charlie, but this one you're 15 wrong." I've never heard that, never. 16 All of a sudden when the 17 distinguished Republican mayor of the city of 18 New York submits a memo asking for respect on 19 home rule now, there's a new rule in the New 20 York State Senate that home rule only applies if 21 you're right. Come on! Give me a break! Maybe 22 far right, but not -- not in any logical sense. 23 And I would say that, you know, 1 we've had this debate year after year. I think 2 we all owe Senator Holland a great debt because 3 he gets everybody's adrenalin up every year, but 4 thankfully the bill is going no place, and it 5 shouldn't go any place. It is wrong. It's 6 wrong because the mayor of the city of New York 7 from one administration to the other has said, 8 We don't want it. We'll take the risk, and 9 that's the bottom line. 10 That's why I'm going to vote no 11 and some of the other people will vote no. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 13 Senator Montgomery. 14 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. 15 President. I'm looking at the memorandum and it 16 says here that there's such a danger to the 17 constituents, I suppose of the sponsors of this 18 legislation, because they say that any stop such 19 as for a quick meal could, in theory, subject 20 someone to criminal action and criminal sanction 21 if they are carrying their guns even if they're 22 in a locked box, I suppose. Hopefully they're 23 in a locked box. So I suppose if you stop at 1 the McDonald's or you drive through Burger King, 2 and you have your pistols and the police happen 3 to stop you, you could go to jail. 4 Mr. President, I would just like 5 to ask Senator Holland a question or two. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 7 Senator Holland, will you yield? 8 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes, yes. 9 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you, 10 Senator Holland. 11 Senator Holland, I suppose you, 12 you know, the concern for your constituency in 13 this situation is such that you need to do this 14 legislation. How many people from your district 15 have been shot in the City because they weren't 16 carrying their pistols and couldn't defend 17 themselves? 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: A number. I 19 don't have the number, but I know a number. 20 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: You don't 21 have the number, but you do have the number? 22 SENATOR HOLLAND: No, I don't 23 have the exact number, but a number of them 1 have. 2 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: How many 3 have been killed in that way? 4 SENATOR HOLLAND: I don't have 5 the exact number, but a number of them have, 6 maybe three, recently. I can -- I can give you 7 a specific: A landlord from Monsey was shot in 8 the hallway in the city of New York, if that's 9 answering your question, but I don't have a 10 specific number. 11 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right. 12 Thank you, Senator Holland. The - 13 Mr. President, may I ask a 14 question of Senator Johnson? 15 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Will 16 Senator Johnson yield? 17 SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes. 18 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator 19 Johnson, how many of your constituents have been 20 shot in New York and have been killed because 21 they didn't have a pistol to protect themselves? 22 SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, I'd like 23 to know what difference that makes. 1 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Well, I'm 2 just trying to -- you are a sponsor -- you are a 3 co-sponsor of this legislation, Senator Johnson, 4 along with a number of my colleagues on that 5 side, and I've heard you talk about a compelling 6 need for this legislation, and I'm trying to 7 figure out what is the need. How -- how serious 8 is this problem? 9 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I 10 don't know if you're aware of it or not, but 11 licensed pistolholders are not committing 12 crimes. In fact, an interesting statistic is 13 that roughly ten percent of the licensed pistols 14 are licensed in the city of New York while 90 15 percent of the murders are in the city of New 16 York and vice versa. A hundred percent of the 17 licensed pistols that are in the rest of the 18 state and only ten percent of the murders, so 19 obviously it has nothing to do with the number 20 of pistols and the number of crimes. In fact, 21 there is an inverse ratio between the number of 22 pistols and the number of murders. 23 So we're talking about a lot of 1 other things, hundreds of thousands of assaults 2 in the city of New York, and rapes and all kinds 3 of things, and in other states where they've 4 permitted people to carry weapons, the assaults 5 and the robberies and the murders have gone 6 down. 7 So I'm saying the city of New 8 York is out of sync'. It's anachronistic. It's 9 got a program that doesn't work, and it's time 10 to open up the program, re-examine what you're 11 doing in the city of New York about guns because 12 you're not getting them out of the right hands. 13 So all we're saying here is that 14 a license issued in this state in any 15 jurisdiction should be valid statewide. I mean 16 if a New York City licenseholder can go up in 17 Delaware County and carry his weapon or any 18 other place in the state, why can't a person, 19 Delaware County or Jefferson County go to New 20 York City and carry a weapon? Why not? Why 21 not? Why should not one law be a statewide law 22 to carry it everywhere in this state? That's my 23 question. She's trying to answer it by saying 1 obviously it's a flawed policy. It should be 2 corrected. 3 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. 4 President. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 6 Senator Montgomery. 7 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm not an 8 attorney and I know I'm getting a non-answer 9 with Senator Johnson. I simply asked how many 10 of his constituents have been killed in New York 11 City because they didn't have a gun to protect 12 themselves, and someone shot them to death. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 14 Senator Johnson. 15 SENATOR JOHNSON: All right. I'd 16 like to know how many have to be killed before 17 we have a right to carry a weapon in New York 18 City? What number would you think would be 19 appropriate, Senator, should be killed before 20 you're allowed to protect yourself? 21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm just 22 trying to find out, get a ball park figure, 23 Senator, of how - 1 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I'm 2 telling - 3 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- how - 4 why the urgency of this legislation. 5 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator - 6 SENATOR GOLD: Are we saying - 7 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I mean are 8 we debating gun control in this house, is it 9 because there is such a huge problem with people 10 dying because of the -- the excess number of 11 guns in the hands of people across the board, 12 legal or illegal, and so we have this 13 legislation and we debate these bills? My 14 assumption is - 15 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 16 Senator Skelos. 17 SENATOR SKELOS: If I could 18 suggest, because I know the stenographer is 19 having a problem, if we can direct the questions 20 and the answers through the Chair, please. 21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. 22 President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 1 Senator -- Senator Montgomery. 2 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. 3 President, I'm only trying to assess the 4 significance of the need for this legislation 5 vis-a-vis the number of people who are 6 represented or whose interests are represented 7 based on the fact that we have X number of 8 people in the last three years, four years. 9 Senator Holland gave me an answer 10 that was fairly specific. I'm just trying now 11 to find out from the sponsors, what are we 12 talking about? What is the problem, Mr. 13 President? So I'm just asking Senator Johnson 14 if he would answer how many people from his 15 district that he is representing have been 16 killed in my district or anywhere in the city of 17 New York by guns because they didn't have a 18 weapon to defend themselves. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 20 Senator Johnson. 21 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, my 22 answer is that the City people, the New York 23 City people are so used to reading about the 1 murders every night, every morning in the paper 2 that they're totally immune to any concern about 3 people being killed. They know people cannot 4 defend themselves except those who get a New 5 York City license and, therefore, they're the 6 only lives worth protecting, those 10,000 or so 7 New York City people that have a license. The 8 rest of the people are not allowed to defend 9 themselves; they're not worth the concern the 10 concern, I'm afraid, of the legislators in New 11 York City and, therefore, they will not be able 12 to protect themselves, and that's your answer 13 and I accept it. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 15 Senator Montgomery. 16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. 17 President, briefly on the bill. 18 For Senator Johnson, even though 19 I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I think he 20 spoke to the issue to some extent and it sounds 21 to me as if there really is not a compelling 22 reason for this legislation. I did not hear it 23 from Senator Johnson. I did not hear it from 1 Senator Holland, and I would imagine if I asked 2 Senator Trunzo, Senator Larkin, a number of 3 people who are on this bill, Senator Libous, I'm 4 sure that I would get a similar answer to 5 Senator Johnson. 6 So it is -- and what we're 7 saying, those of us particularly on this side of 8 the aisle who represent the city of New York, 9 any one of its boroughs, we're saying that we - 10 we're experiencing a down-sizing in terms of the 11 number of crimes committed, especially violent 12 crimes. 13 The police commissioner of the 14 city of New York is working very hard on that. 15 He's been to every borough, every community, 16 every neighborhood, and talked to people about 17 it and African-American people are just as 18 concerned about it as any other community in the 19 City. The mayor is concerned about it. He's 20 working on it. That's his number one issue. 21 We all care about saving the 22 lives of people, every life that's taken, and if 23 it means that we want to have a little bit 1 higher standard for the city of New York because 2 of its density, because of the uniqueness of the 3 population and the problems and the situation 4 there, then that should not be a cause for the 5 rest of the state to be up in arms, not to use a 6 pun. 7 We do not need your weapons in 8 the City. We do not want your weapons in the 9 City, and we ask you to honor that, honor our 10 standard and honor our need to protect the 11 citizens in the City to a little bit greater 12 extent than perhaps is needed for those of you 13 who represent upstate districts and Long 14 Island. 15 Thank you, Mr. President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 17 Senator Hoffmann. 18 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr. 19 President. 20 Once again, we're seeing a 21 departure from the traditional debate in this 22 chamber. I was pleased to hear Senator DiCarlo 23 speak about the importance of having a healthy 1 difference of opinion with a member of an 2 elected body, the mayor of the city of New York 3 who holds his party's position, and I too find 4 myself having a difference of opinion not for 5 the first time as you did, Senator DiCarlo, but 6 for the eleventh time that this bill has come 7 up, differing from my colleagues on this side of 8 the aisle on this subject, and I think that we 9 have to continue airing this issue because there 10 are several aspects of it that continue to be 11 clouded by the emotions, and the element of 12 fairness is sometimes buried behind the rhetoric 13 and the very strong sense of protectionism that 14 many colleagues in this chamber, and I'm sure 15 all of us feel at one time or another for our 16 own constituents. 17 But the aspect of fairness is one 18 that I would just like to direct a few brief 19 remarks to, because I've heard so many times 20 from my constituents and people in other parts 21 of the upstate region that they do not 22 understand why they feel unwelcome in New York 23 City with their firearms, and I -- I'm very 1 concerned that Senator Gold has once again 2 chosen to send an inhospitable message to people 3 in the 48th Senate District and other parts of 4 New York State by saying as strongly as he did 5 on the floor today that "we don't want you" or 6 "we don't want them with their guns", and I 7 think probably the -- the most frustrating thing 8 of all for me to deal with here is the fact that 9 you have chosen, Senator Gold and some other 10 members on this side of the aisle, to make a 11 statement that implies some irresponsibility on 12 the part of my constituents who are law-abiding 13 and licensed pistol owners, and imply that 14 somehow they are not capable of carrying them 15 well, and that they put themselves in other 16 peril when they come into New York City. 17 The point is really not whether 18 or not they are legal and whether they have 19 passed all of the tests. The fact is that they 20 have been given a right and they have proven 21 themselves in one portion of New York State. 22 Therefore, they should be accepted with that 23 right in every portion of New York State 1 including New York City. 2 To suggest that someone should 3 not be allowed to come to New York City, to say 4 they are not welcome here with their guns is 5 like telling people that they are not welcome 6 because of their particular style of dress, 7 because of the color of their hair or because of 8 some other physical distinguishing 9 characteristic. 10 Having the right, having been 11 given the right, having passed the test and all 12 of the safety and licensing provisions as 13 upstate citizens in New York State, to 14 legitimately possess a pistol, should be honored 15 by the city of New York as well, period. No 16 ifs, ands or buts. It is a right for New York 17 State citizens, and it should be respected by 18 all of us, and I hope that we will be able to 19 put this aside soon. With all of the other 20 winds of change afoot, this would certainly be a 21 nice year in which we do recognize the right of 22 legitimate licensed pistol owners to carry those 23 pistols any place in New York City without fear 1 of an inappropriate arrest, without the fear of 2 having been suddenly put in a position simply 3 because they are traveling through New York 4 City, in fact, of breaking a law that they would 5 have no intention to violate and, in fact, are 6 in complete compliance with in all other parts 7 of the state. 8 I do take exception also with the 9 use of the phrase "home rule message" as it's 10 been bandied about today. Home rule messages 11 historically are used by municipalities, 12 including the ones that I represent, to obtain a 13 special right and protection for the people 14 within that municipality, labor agreements, 15 special deployments of the police force. 16 I remember being on both sides of 17 home rule messages in the years that I've been 18 in here and in the years that I've served on the 19 city of Syracuse Common Council. I remember a 20 labor issue dealing with the deployment of 21 police officers and a fourth platoon, a 22 specialized time period not at that time allowed 23 under state law. The city of Syracuse requested 1 a unique dispensation from state law to allow 2 them to deploy the police department in shifts 3 as they saw fit rather than in a state mandated 4 format. That was respected by the Legislature 5 of the state of New York at that time as a valid 6 home rule request, but to suggest the city of 7 New York, in its attempt to discriminate against 8 every law-abiding pistol owner in the state of 9 New York is, in fact, employing a home rule 10 measure is not a valid comparison at all, and I 11 reject that as do the citizens of the 48th 12 Senate District. 13 So I would hope that this would 14 be the final time that we would debate the 15 statewide pistol permit bill in this chamber, 16 and I once again will vote in the affirmative, 17 Mr. President. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Senator Stavisky. 20 SENATOR STAVISKY: Will Senator 21 Johnson yield? 22 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 23 Senator Johnson, will you yield? 1 SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes. 2 SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator 3 Johnson, am I correct that there are parks and 4 beaches and other recreational areas in your 5 county and in the adjacent county that will not 6 allow non-residents to make use of those 7 facilities? 8 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, you 9 talking about town parks? 10 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, and - 11 SENATOR JOHNSON: A town -- town 12 parks, municipal parks? 13 SENATOR STAVISKY: Town parks, 14 municipal parks. 15 SENATOR JOHNSON: For the benefit 16 of those taxpayers, that's correct. 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: What is that? 18 SENATOR JOHNSON: The use 19 restricted to those taxpayers that live in those 20 towns, yes. 21 SENATOR STAVISKY: I see. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 23 Senator Stavisky and Senator Johnson, would you 1 please address your remarks through the Chair? 2 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I think 3 he's answered, but the answer is that no, unless 4 you are a property owner there, you may not have 5 access to the town, village, county parks, 6 beaches and recreational facilities, am I 7 correct? 8 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Is 9 that a question? 10 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Senator Johnson. 13 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, you're 14 supporting the proposal that everyone should 15 stay out of New York City who is not a New York 16 City resident, O.K.? 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: No, I'm asking 18 you a question - 19 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 20 Senator Stavisky. 21 SENATOR STAVISKY: If you will 22 please respond to my question. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 1 Senator Stavisky, you asking a question of 2 Senator Johnson? 3 SENATOR JOHNSON: I don't know 4 who he's asking the question of. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: That's 6 what I -- what I wanted to find out. Who is 7 asking the question? 8 SENATOR STAVISKY: I don't know. 9 May I repeat it? 10 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 11 Senator Stavisky. 12 SENATOR STAVISKY: So that it 13 reaches that row. You have impressed me 14 enormously, Senator, with the notion that we are 15 one state, we are all friends and the farmers 16 and the cowmen should be friends, they said in 17 Oklahoma. 18 Am I correct, Senator Johnson, 19 that there are local parks, beaches and 20 recreational facilities in your county and the 21 next county that will not allow people from 22 other parts of New York State, this unified 23 state of ours, to use the recreational 1 facilities? 2 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Is 3 that the question to Senator Johnson? 4 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 6 Senator Johnson. 7 SENATOR JOHNSON: The answer is 8 yes, but I don't think it has any bearing on the 9 subject at hand, but I mean it's an interesting 10 diversion. Thank you. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Senator Stavisky. 13 SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator 14 Holland yield? 15 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 16 Senator Holland, will you yield? 17 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Senator Stavisky. 20 SENATOR STAVISKY: In the 21 interest of statewide fairness, will you accept 22 an amendment to your bill, the present bill 23 prohibiting any form of discrimination against 1 residents of other counties in access to 2 beaches, parks, recreational facilities, 3 operated by local entities? 4 SENATOR HOLLAND: I don't think 5 it's an appropriate amendment, sir, and I must, 6 in answer to what you asked Senator Johnson, do 7 you discourage anybody who doesn't pay taxes in 8 the city of New York from going to the city of 9 New York, is that what you're -- is that the 10 point you're trying to make? 11 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 12 Senator - 13 SENATOR STAVISKY: Are you saying 14 yes or no? 15 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Excuse 16 me. Is that a question or - 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I want to 18 know. That's a question, yes. Do you accept 19 that amendment to your bill? 20 SENATOR HOLLAND: No. 21 SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you very 22 much. Hypocrisy, thy name is embossed on this 23 bill. We are one state. Therefore, bring your 1 weapons into New York City. Forget about the 2 fact that the roads that are used and the public 3 facilities that are used are paid for primarily 4 by the taxpayers of New York City, and I accept 5 that. I'm in favor of reciprocity, statewide 6 support for each others' facilities and access. 7 I think that the unwillingness to 8 allow residents of counties other than Suffolk 9 or Nassau, and they may exist in Senator 10 Holland's jurisdiction as well, is a denial of 11 the very argument for statewide access by 12 weapons. If you had said, we are welcome from 13 any of the upstate counties or the downstate 14 counties, in your county to enjoy a park -- the 15 taxpayers didn't create the parks; God and 16 nature did, and why are you barring people from 17 all over the state from the ability to come and 18 sit under a tree in a park that you put a 19 protective fence around and deny us? 20 Is a bathing suit or sun tan 21 lotion more dangerous than a gun? Why are you 22 not willing to view this as a statewide access 23 in more than one issue, firearms? Is it because 1 there isn't a lobbying group like the National 2 Rifle Association supporting the fairness and 3 the justice that I've suggested for neighbors? 4 We are neighbors of yours. Why can't we use 5 your park? It's not your park alone. It should 6 be everyone's park. 7 And why do you discriminate 8 against people from these districts all around 9 us wishing to come to what you call your park? 10 When you are willing to bend a 11 little bit on that issue of statewide fairness, 12 I might be willing to bend a little bit in 13 relation to this legislation that Senator 14 Holland has sponsored, but don't use a double 15 standard in dealing with us, if you want us to 16 be absolutely open and fair in dealing with 17 you. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 19 Senator Waldon. 20 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 21 much, Mr. President. 22 My country 'tis of thee, sweet 23 land of liberty, of the NRA and our obsession to 1 handle guns, I sing. 2 Year before last, 37,000 people 3 in this nation were killed at the end of a 4 handgun. In the city of New York, more people 5 are killed each year than in the entire nation 6 of Japan. What is our mad obsession with guns? 7 I'm not supporting this 8 legislation, but the point I want to make for 9 our consideration is that the need for guns, any 10 guns not in the military or in the hands of law 11 enforcement personnel, is one gun too many. The 12 most likely way for people to be injured in 13 their homes is, even if a burglar comes in, with 14 a gun that's legally there. More people in this 15 nation are killed fooling around with their 16 father's gun than burglars coming in and 17 injuring those children. 18 I think that the history books 19 will show that this was a nation which said in 20 its preamble and other places, that we are free, 21 but in actuality we are not because when we have 22 such a need and a fascination for the violence 23 that's at the end of a gun, we can never be 1 free. 2 I would encourage all of us to 3 recognize that guns should be in the hands of 4 those who are properly trained, in the military 5 or in law enforcement and no place else, and 6 then perhaps we can be about the business of 7 saving lives instead of taking so many lives 8 with the violent propensities that some of us in 9 America have, both law-abiding and non 10 law-abiding. 11 Thank you, Mr. President. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 13 Secretary will read the last section. 14 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 15 act shall take effect on the 1st day of November 16 next succeeding the date on which it shall have 17 become a law. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: Call 19 the roll. 20 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 21 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 22 the negative on Calendar Number 14 are Senators 23 Abate, Babbush, Connor, Dollinger, Espada, Gold, 1 Goodman, Kruger, Leichter, Markowitz, Mendez, 2 Montgomery, Nanula, Onorato, Oppenheimer, 3 Paterson, Santiago, Smith, Solomon, Stavisky and 4 Waldon. Ayes 36, nays 21. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: The 6 bill is passed. 7 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 8 if we could return now to reports of standing 9 committees. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 11 Senator Skelos, excuse me a moment. 12 Senator Santiago. 13 SENATOR SKELOS: I'm sorry. 14 SENATOR SANTIAGO: Like to be 15 recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 12, 16 please. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 18 Without objection, recorded in the negative. 19 Senator Skelos. 20 SENATOR SKELOS: Now, Mr. 21 President, could we return to reports of 22 standing committees. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 1 Without objection, we'll return to reports of 2 standing committees. The Secretary will read. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo, 4 from the Committee on Civil Service and 5 Pensions, reports the following bill directly 6 for third reading: 7 Senate Bill Number 604, by 8 Senator Trunzo and others, Retirement and Social 9 Security Law and the Education Law. 10 Senator Cook, from the Committee 11 on Education, reports the following bill 12 directly for third reading: 13 Senate Bill Number 762, by 14 Senator Cook and others, an act to amend the 15 Education Law and the Family Court Act. 16 Senator Levy, from the Committee 17 on Transportation, reports the following bills 18 directly for third reading: 19 Senate Bill Number 95, by Senator 20 Volker, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic 21 Law; 22 619, by Senator Stafford, an act 23 to amend the Highway Law, prohibiting abandon 1 ment of Crane Pond Road in the town of Schroon; 2 622, by Senator Stafford, repeal 3 certain provisions of the Highway Law, state 4 highway system in Washington County; 5 623, by Senator Stafford, an act 6 to amend the Highway Law, in relation to the 7 abandonment of certain town highways. 8 Senator Goodman, from the 9 Committee on Investigations, Taxation and 10 Government Operation, reports the following 11 bills directly for third readings: 12 Senate Bill Number 198, by 13 Senator Volker, an act to amend the Tax Law, in 14 relation to the imposition of sales and use 15 taxes by the county of Erie; 16 Senate Bill Number 253, by 17 Senator Saland, an act to amend the Tax Law, in 18 relation to authorizing the county of Columbia 19 to impose an additional one percent sales and 20 compensating use tax. 21 All bills reported directly for 22 third reading. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 1 Without objection, all bills reported directly 2 to third reading. 3 Senator Skelos. 4 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 5 there being no further business, I move we 6 adjourn until tomorrow, January 25, 1995, at 7 11:00 a.m., sharp. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT HOBLOCK: 9 Without objection, the Senate stands adjourned. 10 (Whereupon at 5:01 p.m., the 11 Senate adjourned. ) 12 13 14 15