Saladino Explains 'No' Gun Vote

Assemblyman says new law is flawed and rushed through too quickly.

Assemb. Joseph Saladino says he voted against the state's new gun law because he feels the legislation isn't tough enough on criminals and was rushed through the legislature too quickly.

Saladino, R-Massapequa, was one of 43 Assembly members to vote "No" on the new law, which was passed last week, a month after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.

The law limits the number of bullets allowed in magazines to seven and requires background checks on ammunition buyers and makes bringing a gun onto school grounds a felony.

But Saladino said the law could be tougher.

"This bill doesn't do anywhere near enough to protect our children," he said.

The Assemblyman said that the bill was rushed though the legislature.

"The proces was atrocious," he said. They gave [the bill] to us at 11 p.m. for a 10 a.m. vote the next day."

As a result of the quick passage, Saladino said law enforcement officers might encounter problems in schools. 

"You can argue that police officers who go into schools with more than seven rounds in the magazines may be in violation of the law," he said.

The Democrats in the Assembly majority have indicated that they will amend the law to fix the potential problem, according to Saladino, who added, "It hasn't happened yet."

Let Patch save you time. Get local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone everyday with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

Saladino said that he plans to introduce his own bill to address problems he has with the new law.

He will call for longer mandated sentences for those who murder school-age children. He also wants additional security in schools and wants to find better ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, while adding a component to the law addressing drug addiction and limiting access to guns for those who are undergoing drug rehabilitation.

Members of the Massapequa Moms Facebook group who are concerned about his vote in the wake of the school shooting recently approached Saladino, asking for a meeting. Saladino said he will meet with the group.

 Massapequa Patch on Facebook

ed January 24, 2013 at 11:38 PM
No guns should be regulated....read the 2nd amendment!
Kristen Ferrari January 24, 2013 at 11:54 PM
People were very emotional after Newton and while its nice to have our elected officials respond, Assemblyman Saladino is right in his feeling that this legislation was rushed and flawed. Why was the governor in such a rush? What would be wrong with taking some time to consider the many different components of a tragedy like Newton? Being the first to look strong in the headlines is not making anyone safer.
Anthony Sesack January 25, 2013 at 12:38 AM
Criminals do not buy firearms LEGALLY from a local gun shop. They either steal them from legal gun owners or buy stolen ones off the street. The new legislation that was rushed by Gov Cuomo is NOT helping anyone. First, he should institute the Death Penalty for anyone committing a murder(s) with an illegal firearm. And I don't mean 25-Life. I mean, walk to the head of the line for lethal injection. Banning the amount of rounds in a magazine is just making legal gun owners out to be victims of violent crimes when more than 5 assailants invade your home. This isn't the movies. 1 shot 1 kill doesn't always work. You may need more than 1 shot to take down 1 assailant. You might miss 1, 2, 3 shots. Now you're screwed. How will you protect you or your family? This individual touches on school teachers being trained to carry firearms if schools will not permit armed security: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEmDdR-iVuE
Michael Taustine January 25, 2013 at 01:01 AM
Common sense dictates that action be taken. Politics dictates the flawed bill that passed. Cuomo did what was necessary to get it done, now it can be fixed, as needed. No action taken would be indefensible.
ed January 25, 2013 at 01:21 AM
Just a "few" flaws with the "New" New York Gun Law 1) The high capacity magazine ban does not exclude law enforcement. All of the police will have to turn in their magazines next year or face arrest. 2) Private security firms that guard or nuclear power plants and armored car guards are also limited to only 7 round magazines. 3) If you think a Grandfather who gives his 21 year old Grandson his bolt action hunting rifle is ok - Wrong! A Grandfather cannot sell or give his hunting rifle to his Grandson with having a federal background check, failure to do so results in them both being criminals. 4) The mini-14 rifle is "ok" under the new law BUT the target version (used for target shooting) is banned because it has a thumbhole stock!? 5)The browning BAR hunting rifle is banned because it has a threaded barrel tip, interestingly the states website shows a picture of this gun as not banned, but the law specifically bans ALL semi autos with a threaded barrel. Confusing, to say the least. 6) Many semi auto handguns will NOT function without the magazine inserted as a safety feature. Most come with 8 and 10 round magazines. The new law prohibits the sale of magazines that exceed 7 rounds. Therefore you can purchase or sell a gun (with the proper permit), just not one that works. I support laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. But this new law does nothing other than infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizens
Cosmo January 25, 2013 at 02:16 PM
This was just like Obamacare. Lets pass a law and then read it and see what they passed and fix it. Lets see a bill that will take illegal guns away from the criminals. Until you can do this you are spinning your wheels.
ed January 25, 2013 at 03:06 PM
They are coming after guns because they know the planned economic collapse is around the corner. They have been planning it for years and history always repeats its self. First they take your guns, declare martial law, and take total power from the people. Its amazing how many people are to stupid to realize this.
Dan January 25, 2013 at 03:33 PM
I'm very proud of Saladino's stand and vote. Keep up the good work Joe and defend this Nation's Citizen's from further Govermental intrusion into our lives. The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Further laws WILL NOT change derranged individuals from obtaining any kind of weapons and committing havoc should they be disposed to do so. Government oversight of anything hasn't worked. Stricter Rockerfeller drug laws....didn't work. It's the enforcement part of this equation that people are overlooking. Ask the DA what their conviction rate is for illegal gun possession in your County. Ask them how many gun arrests result in convictions? The statistics will make your knees buckle. Trust me I know first hand. Plea deals are made constantly that allow those arrested, some repeat offenders, to plea to a lesser charge, usually non-gun related, so that the DA can get the case closed and off the calendar. No concern for the law as it's written. Just clear the judicial calendars. There in lies the problem. No jeopardy. No convictions. No enforcement as it should be and was intended to be. This is a complex problem but let's include the prosecution side of the whole process which is glaringly absent in all these discussions.
Dan January 25, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Common sense dictates that a full examination of the facts that led to the Sandy Hook actions be examined and then take steps to remediate a reoccurance. Derranged individuals and criminals commit these crimes Michael. Not law abiding honest citizens who are being penalized for merely owning lawful firearms. There's a big difference here and haste made waste as they say. Nothing meaningful was actually accomplished by this bill. Just more political blundering and doublespeak. Will this bill as it is make you sleep better at night knowing that criminals will have to comply with these new regulations? Get it right. This is a complex issue and it involves many variables, like mental health, access to firearms in the home, and of course what is done to those who violate the law in the Courts. All of us who obey the law and own firearms are NOT criminals. Even if you'd like to think so.
Joe January 25, 2013 at 06:11 PM
Assemblymen Joe Saladino was right with his neg vote. Now that Massapequa's assembly district is split up, I would like to know how Tom McKevitt voted. Ed all active law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement must comply with the regulations as you said. There usually are exceptions for law enforcement. But the language in this case is so broad in scope that something will have to be done. You have to ask yourself; Didn't Andrew speak to the Superintendent of the NYS Troopers? No he didn't because he was rushing to grab the headlines the day before Barry got on the air with the Federal version. The PBA's in NY are presently lobbying to have the law amended so that their on duty 15 round mags will be legal, and the officers will be allowed to bring the loaded weapon home. The tail wags the dog. OBI owner Bob Matherson had it right years ago when Mario was at the helm. "Get out of NY before it's too late!" RIP Bob M. Today Bob might be be saying, "Storm the Bastille"!
Ralph Nesberino January 25, 2013 at 08:23 PM
Dan- I guess you might be speaking of DA Rice and her overpaid investigators. How come these figures are not readily available to the common folk- the law-abiding citizenry who pay their taxes, and then get treated as outsiders in the process.
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:20 PM
Don't trust Saladino to do the right thing. He voted against a bill that would prohibit domestic violence offenders from owning firearms. He also voted against renewal requirements for pistols.
Dan January 25, 2013 at 09:21 PM
Joe. Sadly McKevitt voted YES to pass this bill. He needs to be notified of how his "new" constituents feel about his passing this flawed ill conceived bill. Loudly and clearly.
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:21 PM
Yes, the Second Amendment is quite clear "WELL REGULATED."
Dan January 25, 2013 at 09:23 PM
Gee who'd guess that John is against anything a Republican has to say? At least you're consistent in your distain. But how do you really feel abou this issue?
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:24 PM
Anthony, guns are being bought legally and brought to NY.
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:25 PM
It starts with "Well Regulated." Right at the beginning.
Dan January 25, 2013 at 09:26 PM
Well regulated means what as you see it? How about the "shall not be infringed" part of the whole Amendment?
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:30 PM
Justice Scalia being a strict constitutionalist in his majority ruling wrote that guns can be regulated. He's not some crazy gun-grabber. And yes, "shall not be infringed". So join a Militia which you are not being infringed on doing so you can have a regulated gun.
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:31 PM
Dan, do you agree that people who commit domestic violence should have access to guns?
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:31 PM
And if you love the constitution, this is the same idiot who wanted mandatory drug tests for students.
John Rennhack January 25, 2013 at 09:36 PM
Oh and "longer mandated sentences.." Because closing the barn door after the horse got out is a smart move. How about requiring background checks, licensing after required training, registration, psych evals (like in switzerland and Israel), insurance, and mandatory gun safe. If your firearm is stolen because it was not secured, you go to jail. If you allow access to your firearm to anyone besides a licensed and registered user (excluding licensed instructors) you lose your firearms.
Joe January 25, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Dan, Thanks, I will call and have his staff explain McKevitt's vote, if you are correct he will loose the support of all my family members and friends. We must start right here in our home town by holding these elected officials responsible for their actions. I can't wait until I hear his explanation.
Joe January 25, 2013 at 11:35 PM
John, that should be on a case by case basis!
Dan January 26, 2013 at 12:03 AM
I not only live by the Constitution but it IS the core of American values and heritage. It's what seperates us from other Nations in our freedoms and guarantees. And for the record I think domestic violence cases should be investigated and evaluated as Joe states, case by case. Often the domestic violence charge and allegation is done merely to harass a partner in a divorce or proceedings that are leading to a marriage dissolution or relationships bitter end. Often the domestic violence charge is baseless in fact or proof. As for your suggestions about background checks, licensing, training, registration, psych evals, gun safes, etc. Many of these things already exist for us legal firearm owners. I can see you are one who like to see the 2nd Amendment abolished. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. Those of us who choose to own firearms legally, and comply with the law take offense to those who feel differently and therefore, we should be disarmed. Also longer sentences is not the point John, it's the initial arrest and charging that is reduced by the DA and in way too many cases the gun charge disappears from the original charge and the arrested is allowed to plea to disorderly conduct, and other ludicirious penal law charges so the DA can clear the calendar and keep the real crime stats from becoming record. Lest we forget, the DA is also a political animal and needs good "press and crime stats" to win your support. I've worked in that system - its a joke.
Joe January 26, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Again, that was at a time when parents, who were frustrated and not capable of handling their children were looking for outside help. I just want to state; If a child is using controlled substances, sooner or later he/she will act out and hurt others and/or possibly revert to a life of crime to support his/her habit. In NYS every school age child is given numerous educational tests for evaluation. This is in the child's best interest as they progress. Why not test them for substance abuse and steroids if the parent suggests they would like their child tested. Is this not in the child's best interest? Not all parents are capable of handling this very complicated problem on their own. If it could only be a black and white issue we would have solved it by now. Listen I don't agree with everything that Joe Saladino does. But in the case of the new gun bill he was absolutely right to vote against this bill. John I know you have your heart in the right place. But please look at both sides of the issue. In Switzerland every resident is required to own a firearm, partake in training and be part of a peoples militia since they don't have a standing army. I don't know that much about Israel. But it seems to me, their weapon of choice for mass murders is the basic strap on body bomb. No thanks , I'll stay here and defend our constitution as others have done before me, with every last drop of my blood!
jean g January 26, 2013 at 01:13 PM
While I agree emotions were high and a "rush" may have happened. In my opinion it is closing the door after the horse has gotten out in many cases. I. Understand criminals will still get guns but if you look at Colorodo....Virginia Tech and even Newton . These were not people with criminal backgrounds. These were people who may have been stopped with the laws in place now. Background checks......psychological check..... And please if one person could explain why Anyone who is a regular Civilian EVER needs these automatic weapons to begin with I would love to hear it. I am glad if these laws ave one school ... Or one life and that we will never know. But you need a background check to work at Wendys but in 40 to 50 % of sales of guns you need nothing........doesn't make sense to me
Joe January 29, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Dan; Thanks I called Tom McKevitt's office today and confirmed that he voted for the bill. His receptionist Lynn said he has received many inquiries about his vote. And many voiced opposition to his position. I am promised a return call since I represent more than 50 voting constituents in his district. Remember a leopard never looses his spots. How sad!
Dan January 29, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Joe. Thanks for the note. I emaied McKevitt and made my position clear about his yes vote. He actually called me back and we talked for a half hour about the vote and the flaws in the bill that punish law abiding gun owners. He was receptive and promised to contact me again before the bill is amended to feel me out about the changes that are necessary in the bill to avoid tying the hands of uniformed on-duty law enforcment that mandates no more than 7 rounds to be loaded and ready. Clearly, the bill was not well thought out as to its restrictions upon law enforcement and retired law enforcement, but he assures me the re-write will be better. I'm still of the mind that the whole bill is unecessary. Let the politicians know how you feel out there like Joe and myself have. If they don't hear from you, they'll continue to pass bad laws that we'll have to live with...sadly. Keep 'em honest and upholding the oaths they swore to defend, the US Constituton and the NYS Constitution.
Joe January 29, 2013 at 11:27 PM
Dan, I just got off the phone with NYS Assemblymen Tom McKevitt. My conversation with him was probably a duplicate of your conversation. 35 minutes. Did he talk about the Kendra Bill which he was very proud of? And did he tell you he wanted to see his kids today? And how we don't understand how they do business in Albany? He like others try to promote themselves while answering questions. Its sad! I just want answers, I'm tired of the months it takes for these people to come clean. I have some experience interviewing politicians for endorsements so I wouldn't hang up until he explained his reasoning. He explained that he liked the part of the bill that the mental health professionals will now be compelled to make notifications. And he thinks that will keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Delusional. Then he tried pandering me by saying it was one of the toughest votes of his time in the Assembly. That is until the next controversial vote. Like with your return call, he ended by telling me that he would keep in touch. When I told him that I represented two pro gun associations and many of their family members he seemed unimpressed. That's OK. Because from the tone of his voice and cavalier manor of his speech I think he's a charlatan. He will have to publicly take a stronger pro gun position for my associations to support him in the future.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something