“The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York’s gun control law, the SAFE Act.  Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told them to keep quiet … In January, the New York State Sheriffs’ Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.  Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month … The group included Sheriffs’ Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss … Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.  ”The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law,” Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can’t do that and enforce the law.  One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state’s chief executive under the state constitution … “

It is my understanding he’s trying a similar tactic with the state police, either they keep quiet or he will not come to the table for their union contract negotiations.

This is going to embolden it’s proponents here.

“It’s no secret Sheriff Timothy B. Howard is opposed to New York’s new gun-control law. But Howard, who is running for re-election this year, is now ratcheting up his opposition by filing a friend of the court brief in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the SAFE Act and, even more important perhaps, by suggesting the law not be enforced. “I’m more than reluctant,” he said of the new law Thursday. “I won’t enforce it.” …”

I have never heard an elected official from New York say that about a gun law.

“… Howard is not the only sheriff to oppose the law – his brief was filed by the New York State Sheriff’s Association – but his stance on enforcement does put him at odds with some of his like-minded peers.  ”I don’t get to pick and choose what laws I enforce,” said Putnam County Sheriff Donald B. Smith, a former president of the association. “That’s exactly why we filed the amicus brief.  We need to change this law.” Smith, like Howard, does view the SAFE Act as a step backward and a blow to law-abiding citizens, especially gun owners.  The law, he said, may prove successful in limiting the type of weapons the general public can buy, but it will have little or no impact on what drug dealers, gang members and other criminals can get their hands on.  “I actually call it the not-so-safe act,” Smith said. “Ultimately, why would we put our citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals.” …”

The Albany Police Union’s letter to the Governor answers that question: “You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not making anyone safer.”

“… Assemblyman Sean Ryan, D-Buffalo, almost couldn’t believe his ears when told of Howard’s public stance.  “He said that?” Ryan asked incredulously. “There are all sorts of principled ways of going about this.  Law enforcement officials aren’t allowed to pick and choose.” …”

It is a well established leftist tactic to refuse to enforce laws they don’t like.  Ryan, who voted for SAFE, is just upset because the NYSSA’s stance makes both him and Governor Cuomo look bad.  Speaking of which, I have been informed that the Governor has signaled to Democrat Chemung Co. Sheriff Christopher Moss that he will try to remove him from office if he does not enforce SAFE.  Moss has also been critical of SAFE.

Governor Cuomo has to be very angry over this.

• We have filed both a Complaint and an Amended Complaint in the USDC for the Western District of New York.  Our Amended Complaint claims that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and is unconstitutionally vague.
• Subsequent to the filing of our Amended Complaint, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking the Court to Order all defendants to cease the enforcement and prosecution of the SAFE Act.  The Court has not yet decided our request.
• After a hearing to establish a briefing schedule, Judge William Skretny issued a Scheduling Order.  Under the Order, the following deadlines were set: the time for all defendants to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint was stayed until June 7.
• All defendants have until June 7 to respond to our motion for preliminary injunction or cross-move for dispositive relief.
• The plaintiffs have until July 8 to oppose any cross-motion by the defense and/or reply to any opposition to the motion for PI; and the defendants’ time to reply to any opposition filed by the plaintiffs was not decided, but will be addressed by the Court at a later date.
• The Court set August 23 as the next date for the parties to return to court, characterizing this date as a “status conference/hearing date, with emphasis for now on status conference.”
• To date NYSRPA has spent $164,000 on the suit and have received an additional $80,000 from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.