Do you agree that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms that applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of where they live in the United States?
No. THAT IS NOT The FUNCTION of the 2ND AMENDMENT! Your right to defend yourself is an unenumerated 9th amendment right and the power to use deadly force when necessary is a 10th amendment power we never gave up. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the states so that they don’t remove our ability to defend ourselves by making it impossible to prepare for such circumstances by carrying a weapon. See my position paper attached or on my website’s issues page: https://www.glogowskiforassembly.com/the-second-amendment/
Considering current New York state firearm laws, do you support any additional restrictive state legislation regulating the manufacture, sale, use, or possession of firearms or ammunition?
No. Current firearms laws should be rescinded because they infringe on the right to bear arms, which is a restriction placed not just on the states, but the federal government as well.
Many .50 caliber firearms are used in big game hunting and target competition, and the .50 caliber BMG cartridge has been used for nearly a century. Would you support state legislation prohibiting the ownership and/or sale of any .50 caliber firearms or ammunition in New York?
No. I would oppose such legislation.
New York’s Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation forbids carrying loaded firearms in state parks. More than half of the states now allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in state parks. Would you support legislation that would change the regulation to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms within New York state parks?
Yes. I would support such legislation. And, I would work to make it unnecessary to have a concealed carry permit. It is an infringement on a person’s 9th amendment right to defend themselves, and their 10th amendment right to do so with deadly force.
If you comply with the law requiring you to apply for a conceal-carry permit, you are tacitly acknowledging the state has the right to ignore the 2nd amendment.
If you refuse to comply with the “conceal carry” permit laws, because doing so tacitly recognizes the state’s right to ignore the 2nd amendment, then, unfortunately, and ignore the state’s unconstitutional law and purchase and carry a concealed weapon, the law will instantly make you a criminal. Under the current situation, to remain a law-abiding citizen, you have no other option but to give up your 9th amendment and 10th amendment rights to defend yourself.
I want to work to change this situation – which is one of the many reasons I am running for this office.
In January 2013, Governor Cuomo signed the “Safe Act” into law, amending New York’s existing semi-automatic “assault weapon'” ban. This overreaching legislation forced law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms within a year and doesn’t allow for transfers to other residents of the state. It also required background checks on ammunition purchases effective in January of 2014. That provision was temporarily suspended because the state was unable to create a database to conduct these checks. The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, declared one of the provisions – the seven-round magazine limit – arbitrary and unconstitutional. Given the multiple problems with this poorly crafted and unconstitutional law, would you support?
Complete repeal of the “SAFE Act.” YES
Forty-nine states have some form of firearms preemption that gives the state sole responsibility in the field of firearms regulations. Preemption laws prevent counties and local municipalities from passing local laws and legislation to regulate firearms. New York does not have a firearms preemption law. Therefore, counties, towns, villages, and cities in New York can pass local laws to regulate firearms, in addition to the regulation by New York State. Would you support state firearms preemption legislation, which would have the effect of preventing counties and local municipalities from passing and enforcing their own additional firearms regulations?
I would oppose any laws that recognize the right of any government, local, state, or national, to infringe on people’s right to bear arms. I would work against a law that stated in any fashion that the state has the right (or exclusive right) to restrict any person’s right to bear arms. I would only support the ability of localities to opt-out of any restrictions imposed by the state.
New York is one of only a few states which requires gun registration. The state already had handgun registration and registration of long guns in New York City, and the 2013 “SAFE Act” went even further, requiring numerous semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles to be registered. Criminals do not register firearms, and a registration database has no impact on preventing crime. Registration costs taxpayers millions, if not billions of dollars, through the creation and maintenance of records and automated systems. Because of the excessive cost and ineffectiveness of gun registration, Canada repealed such a system after wasting billions of dollars while criminals continued to ignore the law. For these reasons, many states explicitly forbid the registration of firearms. Would you support it?
A complete repeal of all provisions that require firearm registration in state law, joining the vast majority of states which have no such requirement.
Lawmakers at the state and local level have been introducing legislation to criminalize the failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within a certain period of time. Proponents claim, although they have never demonstrated, that this will deter illegal firearms trafficking. While the NRA certainly does not oppose the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, it does oppose stigmatizing and punishing the victims of crime or those who suffer loss from events that are not their fault. The message these laws send is that persons whose firearms are lost or stolen are to blame or are complicit in the criminal acts of another person. Would you support legislation making it a crime to fail to report the loss or theft of a firearm?
No. 1 would oppose such legislation unless the wording was such that the report is to be made at the earliest possible moment. I would also oppose legislation that made the owner of the weapon responsible for the harm or crime perpetrated by the person that used the weapon. Possession should not be a crime and the sale and purchase of an item or drug should not be a crime. Laws should be restricted to the enactment of an action that caused or causes real harm to another. Laws should not be dependent upon imaginary victims and presumed future scenarios for their justification. Thus, possession of other people’s property, without their permission, is already a crime. I would not oppose stiffer penalties on someone who possesses a weapon without the owner’s permission. For that reason, it is wise if the owner reports a weapon stolen at his or her earliest convenience, but it should not be a crime to not report a stolen weapon. I would also support a law that is similar to Bearer Bonds. It would work as follows: Any weapon not voluntarily registered with the police is owned by the person who is in possession of the weapon; thus, if a weapon is stolen, and it was not registered with the police by the owner, the owner cannot claim the weapon as belonging to him or her – there would be allowed no ‘retroactive’ registration after it was confiscation by a police officer as a result of an arrest.
Microstamping legislation is annually introduced in the New York state legislature to require all semi-automatic handguns delivered to a licensed firearm dealer in New York to mechanically stamp certain information about the firearm (such as the make, model and serial number) on the cartridge case when the gun is discharged. This legislation would not exempt models currently available, making all of these guns illegal for sale in New York unless they are redesigned by their manufacturers, which would vastly increase the cost of these firearms. If enacted, the availability of semi-automatic handguns in New York will be seriously curtailed, as manufacturers may choose not to make or sell firearms for purchase in the state. Microstamping is also an unproven technology that is easily defeated with common household tools and the replacement of a few small parts. Would you support legislation mandating “microstamping” in New York?
No. I would oppose such legislation. I would label this as a back door infringement, and thus unconstitutional and “prohibited”.
Gun control supporters have promoted legislation that would require all new firearms to be equipped with “smart” gun features supposedly designed to prevent a firearm from being fired by someone other than its owner. Their proposals range from utilizing fingerprint technology designed to limit functionality to only one authorized user, to placing tracking and disabling devices in the firearm, which functionally allow the government to track and remotely disable any “smart” gun. “Smart” gun technologies are still in the developmental stage, and studies have found that they are not technically reliable. Gun control advocates never mention the fact that these technologies are commercially unavailable, are proven unreliable, would constitute a significant invasion of privacy, and will substantially increase the cost of new firearms. Would you support legislation mandating the sale of “smart” guns?
No. I would oppose such legislation. I would also work to ensure the industry has the ability to offer the feature as a voluntary feature of their weapons offerings for those that choose such a feature. But I would definitely oppose making it mandatory in any fashion.
New York’s shooting ranges have had long-standing records of safety. They provide important public services including recreation and training opportunities to many citizens and groups, including law enforcement organizations. However, population shifts from urban to suburban and rural areas have moved new groups of residents closer to existing and long-established ranges. This has resulted in lawsuits and complaints filed by newcomers against range owners and operators, as well as the passage of local ordinances or resolutions aimed at curtailing range activities or shutting these facilities down. Currently, in New York, there is very limited protection for established shooting ranges that relates only to noise issues. Would you support legislation that both strengthens and expands the existing law to protect these ranges from frivolous actions relating to noise, lead, and outdoor lighting?
Yes. I would support range protection legislation
Legislation to ban persons on the so-called “Terrorist Watchlist” – which is comprised of several secret federal government lists – from purchasing or possessing firearms has been introduced in Congress and several states. The “Watchlist” currently contains approximately 1.1 million names and is fraught with errors. The listing process is highly subjective, highly secretive, and affords virtually no due process or the opportunity to challenge mistakes. At one point, for example, the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), former U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), and children as young as two were included on the “Watchlist.” The NRA opposes the use of secret government lists to deny Americans their fundamental Second Amendment rights without due process of law. Do you:
Agree that secret government lists should not be used to deny Second Amendment rights and oppose this legislation. The federal government was not given the power to regulate weapons, it too is subject to the 2nd and 10th amendment. The ‘secret’ lists are themselves unconstitutional because they make the presumption that due process is not needed. They are no more legal that the ‘blacklists’ that merchants and landlords used to pass around. Also, in our society where we are the government, (theoretically), the government should have no secrets except the location of military equipment and soldiers during the time of a declared war.
Do you agree that an individual should be entitled to judicial due process – including notice of the relevant accusations, the opportunity to appear at a hearing before a neutral judge and to present evidence in his or her favor, and access to legal representation – before the individual is declared legally ineligible to possess firearms or forced to surrender any firearms the individual owns?
Yes. The Second Amendment is an important liberty interest for all Americans, and it should not be denied without stringent due process. be complied with by all levels of our government. Everyone has a right to bear arms unless, by due process, they have demonstrated a lack of concern for the welfare of others.
Under current federal law, handgun purchases from a federally licensed dealer are restricted to individuals who have reached the age of 21. Some have argued this purchase restriction should be extended to all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, effectively denying them their Second Amendment rights. In addition, some lawmakers want to go even further and prohibit the possession and ownership of firearms by anyone under the age of 21. The NRA believes that 18 to 20-year-old adults have the same constitutional rights as all Americans, and such restrictions only limit the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against violent attacks while doing nothing to combat crime. Do you believe law-abiding adults 18-20 years of age should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms?
I oppose any effort to extend the current handgun purchase prohibition in any way. I believe 18-20 year-olds have the same constitutional rights as all adult citizens, and all current handgun purchase prohibitions should be rescinded.
In 2019, A.1413 (Simon) was introduced in the New York Assembly and would have banned firearms from being raffled as prizes for groups raising money for a whole host of community activities. Many conservation groups, law enforcement associations, and fire departments, among others, utilize these popular raffles to raise money to support their programs and departments. Before taking possession of a firearm, raffle winners are required under existing state and federal law to pass a NICS background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer the same way any typical retail gun purchase would be made. Criminals do not acquire firearms this way, and there is zero evidence that banning this common practice would have any impact on public safety. Would you support it?
Allowing groups to continue this common and legal practice of raffling firearms to raise money for a plethora of good causes in the past. I would work to prevent new barriers that have been put in into law that prevent community-oriented groups from selling raffle tickets. Many organizations depended upon the sale of such raffle tickets for things like quilts, automobiles, antiques, and just about any item you can conceive of. (In the town of Stafford, NY, for years, a new automobile was donated every year to be raffled off to help support the Stafford Volunteer Fire Department. The Town of Stafford NY Fire Department was forced to discontinue its long-held event after such a law was passed.).
In 2019, S.1413 (Parker) was introduced in the New York Senate and would have required New Yorkers to surrender their social media user names and passwords as part of any gun permitting application process. Law enforcement presumably would review an applicant’s social media posts prior to approving any pistol permits and firearms licenses. With no objective standard, a person’s ability to exercise both their First and Second Amendment rights would now be arbitrarily and subjectively scrutinized by New York law enforcement. In addition, this time-consuming endeavor would consume vast amounts of public resources at tremendous expense to the state. No other state has a similar law, and for good reason. This bill is fraught with constitutional issues, serious privacy concerns and presents numerous logistical and fiscal challenges. Would you:
I oppose this unconstitutional infringement of both the First and Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers. I would go further and state that guns should be sold without a permit being required to be held by the purchaser. Possession should not be a crime. If the law enforcement wants to do a background check, and the person voluntarily supplies the information at the time – fine. But, the ability to purchase a weapon should not be dependent upon the filing of that information and the ability to purchase should not be dependent upon the results of that check nor upon the issuance of any ‘permit’.
Would you support state legislation imposing an additional tax specifically targeted at the retail sale of firearms or ammunition? * All firearm and ammunition sales are currently subject to an 11% federal excise tax known as the Pittman-Robertson Act and applicable state and local taxes.
Yes. I would support such a tax. Sales taxes are one of two constitutional taxes, provided the tax is always itemized so people always know how much of the cost is for the firearm and how much they are paying the government
Under federal law, persons convicted of qualifying domestic violence misdemeanors, or who are subject to specified domestic violence protection orders, are included in the NICS background check database and prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. New York law has additional restrictions. For example, New York courts must require the immediate surrender of all firearms by a person when issuing an order of protection, including a temporary order in certain cases (e.g., involving injury, or the use or threatened use of a weapon). The courts have the discretion to impose the surrender of firearms in other cases where orders of protection are issued. In domestic violence cases, which of the following do you support? (check all that apply)
Current state and federal laws already adequately address firearm possession in domestic violence cases and no additional legislation is necessary. New York law should be toughened with respect to both misdemeanor offenses and orders of protection and in other ways. Mandatory surrender of firearms should never be required when a firearm was not involved in an incident under consideration.
Some states have introduced legislation that would require a process to identify and ban the distribution of certain “toxic chemicals,” including lead, which is a core component in most ammunition. Such a sweeping move has the potential to ban the sale and use of virtually all ammunition. Would you support such legislation?
No. I would oppose such legislation.
Nationwide, the number of hunters has been declining over the past several years. Research indicates that states with restrictive minimum hunting ages have the lowest hunter recruitment rates. Statutory minimum hunting ages prohibit parents from deciding when their children are mature enough to hunt. Contrary to the claims, eliminating minimum hunting ages does not jeopardize safety. The 29 states with no minimum age laws have a better collective safety record than the states with such restrictions. Such evidence illustrates that parents can be trusted to make the right decisions for their families. Would you support legislation lowering or eliminating minimum hunting ages?
Yes. I would support legislation reducing or eliminating the minimum hunting age. The age at which a child is taught to shoot should be up to the parent, not the state.
Are you a member of the National Rifle Association, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, or any other firearm/shooting sports/sportsmen’s organization?
No. I was but did not renew.
Have you ever run for or held an elected office?
Yes. I ran in a primary for town council in 1995. I ran for the current position I am seeking in 2012, 2014, and 2018.