In November I received a letter from State Sen. Peter Oberacker regarding a New York state requirement for a background check in order to purchase ammunition, which he opposes. As a hunter myself, I had recently purchased hunting ammunition under this new requirement, and found it to be reasonable and in no way impairing my ability to purchase ammunition. I said as much in an email to Sen. Oberacker, in which I suggested he give equal concern for the “rights” of innocent citizens to expect that efforts are being made to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
Sen. Oberacker responded via email a couple days later. The gist of his email was that he found the regulations to be “… inefficient and duplicative.”. He then went on to inform me that he was sponsoring Senate Bill S.7674, which would remove the ammunition purchase background check requirement for anyone holding a valid hunting license. This caused me additional concern. I replied via email using myself as an example. I pointed out that under his proposed legislation if I, holding a valid hunting license, became violent and was credibly accused of domestic violence, I could still purchase ammunition without undergoing a new background check. I asked how this could be viewed as being “protective” of citizens’ rights.
Sen. Oberacker responded quickly. The gist of his email was that under my hypothetical situation, an order of protection would be issued and I would be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. This was even more concerning to me because it shows an unquestioning reliance on how things “should” work in a perfect system, rather than recognizing how the system has actually worked or not worked in this country.
I responded. Some excerpts of my response to the senator are:
• “The process you outline is what might eventually happen in a perfect world where everyone does everything they are supposed to, immediately, and without flaw. It is so far from reality that it would be laughable if the consequences were not so horrific. Every year in this country, thousands of innocent people die as a result of gun violence, despite various forms of gun control laws in the various states.”
• “How do you think the people of Lewiston, Maine would respond to your assurances below? What a sad illustration of how that state’s gun control process failed those folks miserably.”
• “I fully understand that the circumstances and legal technicalities are different for every mass shooting. These differences have been used by the pro-gun lobby as cover to deflect and say things like “that wouldn’t happen under my (our) gun laws, because they are different…”. The only things that are identical among these mass-shootings are that innocent people were killed, the lives of their loved ones forever devastated, and the legal process in place failed to protect them (due to a variety of specific reasons).”
• “Buying a firearm or ammunition is not like walking down to the corner to buy an ice cream. Is it too much to expect that someone who will handle a firearm plans ahead a little? We all know when hunting season starts and when we are running low on ammunition. These are not surprises. Many things we buy require some planning and preparation; why should firearms be any different? So, I disagree with your comment that the new NYS law is “inefficient and duplicative”. I believe we need a more multi-faceted gun control system. Every failure-critical part of our engineered society uses a multi-barrier approach to ATTEMPT to provide an adequate level of protection. It seems pretty selfish to refuse to accept such an inconvenience, when our neighbors’ lives could depend on it.”
• “I noticed that the law you cite (CPL 530.14.1) states that:
“… the court shall inquire of the defendant and the prosecutor as to the existence and location of any firearm, rifle or shotgun reasonably believed to be owned or possessed by the defendant, and the prosecutor will make reasonable efforts to obtain such information …”
I wonder how many “good” people who were in positions to do something prior to the Lewiston tragedy thought they were “making reasonable efforts”? How wrong they were…”
• “Finally, if you were just my neighbor, or someone I had a random conversation with, I could shrug my shoulders knowing that we disagree and say to myself “at least my vote counts as much as his does.” But you are not just my neighbor. As a member of the NYS Senate, you have the power to support, and resist, gun control legislation that affects me, my family, and the entire population of New York. And what happens in New York can affect what happens to our neighbors in Pennsylvania, and their neighbors in West Virginia, and on and on. We are all connected and what endangers New Yorkers’ security trickles down and affects people all across this country. In such a position of power, you owe it to us all to use your best critical thinking, as well as compassion for those outside your political allegiances, as you develop your position on this critical issue.”
I received an out-of-office reply, requesting up to three weeks for a response. I later emailed the senator and specifically asked for a reply. I received a response that same day stating that the senator had responded to me previously and appreciated the points I had raised. The tone and wording was not at all like the previous emails that I had received from Sen. Oberacker. I responded via email, requesting: “Please confirm whether or not today’s reply below was from Senator Oberacker directly, or composed by an aide. I would certainly appreciate a reply from the Senator himself, since this is such an important topic.”
I’ve received no reply from Sen. Oberacker. I believe that this is far too serious a topic to let Sen. Oberacker’s silence end the discussion.