Analysis of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act - Research Paper Example

Analysis of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Analysis of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act Introduction In response to the Newtown shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a new piece of legislation backed by New York state Senator Martin Golden became law known as the NY SAFE Act, or the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act. The NY SAFE Act was designed to reform gun control within the state, setting up a wide variety of different provisions to have more regulatory control over firearms. This essay describes the actual content of the policy, the actors and organizations involved, analyzes the policy implementation criteria, and offers several strategies that could have made a better implementation process. The Policy Provisions The main provision in the SAFE Act is to ban citizens from acquiring assault weaponry. Effective January 15, 2013, it is now illegal in New York to purchase or otherwise attain semi-automatic rifles that have removable magazine cartridges. This had always been an established law, however what the SAFE Act does is grandfather pre-existing assault weapons purchased prior to January 15, making it a new legal restriction that now demands all older assault weapons be registered with state authorities (Renzulli Law, 2013). Magazine capacity is also a provision in the SAFE Act. Magazines that are sold must now only have seven round capacity or less (Renzulli Law, 2013). This provision also has a grandfathering clause that will allow gun owners to have magazines with between seven and 10 rounds. However, even if the purchaser has 10 round capacities on their guns, they can only load seven rounds at a time under this law. There was a 1994 legislation that previously grandfathered the right to have 10 round capacity guns and the SAFE Act abolishes this grandfathered provision in other existing laws (Renzulli Law, 2013). Yet another important part of this new legal policy is imposed on the seller of ammunition products. Under the SAFE Act, all sellers must run background checks on all purchasers. The seller must report all sales transactions and sales volumes amount to state authorities (NY.gov, 2013). The law allows for continuing sales of ammunition over the Internet, however these products can no longer be shipped directly to the buyer’s homes. All Internet ammunition sales must be delivered to licensed sellers where the buyer must pick them up. The SAFE Act also imposes new responsibility on therapists who are working with gun owners. Mental health patients who the therapist believes could be a danger to others in society must now report their findings to their directors who then has the responsibility to report these concerns to the NY Department of Criminal Justice Services (Daviss, Hanson & Miller, 2013). These requirements that impact this external stakeholder group have created many conflicts of interest and concerns by practicing professionals which will be discussed in detail later in the essay. Furthermore, the SAFE Act makes sure that gun holders that have their weapons stolen must report this within 24 hours. Failure to do this, according to the policy, could lead to a misdemeanor. This creates a new type of incentive to make sure that the state authorities are able to better and more rapidly track stolen weapons that could harm members of society. Background checks are also being forced onto public and private sellers in the state, unless the guns are being sold to immediate family members (NY.gov, 2013). The SAFE Act makes sure that these background checks begin as of March 15, 2013. Failure to adhere to this part of the policy can lead to severe fines being imposed on private sellers. The SAFE Act also makes sure that people who have been convicted of felonies or other domestic violence crimes do not gain access to guns. The policy now makes sure that people who own guns, and have family members fitting these criteria, must securely store them so that no access is possible by the criminal family members (NY.gov, 2013). Failing to do this will also lead to a misdemeanor charge if it is proven that the gun owner has been non-compliant in this area. Though there are many other provisions in this very strict legislation, one more important policy element involves new requirements for registering the weapons. It is now a law under this policy for pistol owners holding a permit to renew them every five years. What is good about this policy is that there are also protections about records management with state agencies preventing gun owners from being identified in public view. Therefore, there are some protections related to privacy that have been built into this law. The Actors and Institutions Involved Certain stakeholders involved with the policy have already been identified. Clearly, private gun holders are impacted. The SAFE Act now changes their obligations under the law for permit granting, being willing to submit to criminal background checks, ensuring proper storage of guns, and making sure that only certain ammunition capacity weapons are being used. Whether the law is right or wrong is relative to the ethical beliefs of gun holders and the rest of society. However, the law most largely targets gun owners or those who wish to purchase guns with the most restrictions and pressure to make sure that gun safety and controls are considered. The most concerned stakeholder impacted by this policy are mental health professionals that must now adopt new risks when dealing with mentally disturbed patients. There are many laws that protect counselor/patient confidentiality and the SAFE Act attempts to undo these laws (Daviss, et al., 2013). By law, it is not the responsibility of the counselor or therapist to serve as a guardian of mental health patients’ lifestyles. They cannot control violence. Some therapist networks are criticizing the SAFE Act believing that it is trying to make therapists take an active role in crime control. This is the job of police officers who are paid and given the responsibility to make sure society is safe. One expert in the field even hopes the American Psychological Association (APA) will be vocal about trying to have this law amended (Daviss, et al., 2013). There also seems to be a conflict of interest that is happening between the power of the SAFE Act and the powers granted to the Federal government. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is a federal law designed to restructure and redefine health care in America. A recent January 16, 2013 proposal from the White House labeled “Improving Mental Health Services” still does not create a Federal law that demands counselors report their beliefs about potentially dangerous mental health patients (Essig, 2013). However, the proposal intends to make treatment improvement a top priority for mental health therapists which would be a Federally-supported legality. The SAFE Act, if this proposal becomes a legal policy, could open the doors for many legal disputes if it conflicts with Federal policy. This is creating a great deal of concern for organizations and individual therapists that must operate under a set of conflicting legal structures. Police officers are also impacted by the SAFE Act. Because the law was rushed through the process of becoming law, there were no clauses put into the policy that identified police officers as being different from regular gun owners in society. Police officers, as part of their training and operations, often carry weapons that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition (Bogen, 2013). Some policing organizations therefore believe that not making clauses that identify police officers as being an exception to the policy could endanger officer safety and even open them up for potential criminal investigation. This is not politically sustainable under the Strategic Triangle model and should have been considered for the impact on political systems that must govern public service members. Also involving policing forces as a stakeholder affected by the policy, one New York Sheriff responded to Governor Cuomo concerns about new school safety rules in the SAFE Act. The new law now transfers powers for reviewing school safety plans to state authorities rather than allowing the sheriff’s departments from handling these activities as they have always done previously (NYSSA, 2013). The NYSSA is concerned that only policing authorities have the experience and knowledge of school needs as well as school layouts. This gives them the impression that state authorities will not have the skills and knowledge necessary to secure school and student safety properly. Without making amendments to the SAFE Act, there is currently no clarity about how this process is going to be shifted to state authorities without creating problems with ensuring proper security. The office of the Governor of New York, including the governor himself, are strongly affected by the passage of this new law. Almost immediately after becoming law, private citizens and special interest groups of many types began filing complaints and even legal suits against the law. The efforts in this were to try to make the law unconstitutional. On January 29, 2013, The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, AR15.com LLC, the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association and the Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against the state of New York. Though there are many claims outlined in this lawsuit, the most important claim made is that the law restricts Federal constitutional rights to bear arms as outlined in the Bill of Rights (NYSRPA, 2013). The governor faces many pressures from angered stakeholders that value their rights associated with carrying arms as well as potential for much negative publicity that could damage his political career. It could also damage his standing with constituents when it comes to gaining their future following and support. Further, a group of stakeholder citizens from Albany, New York are exercising their rights as a controlling group over the actions and policies of the governor. In a detailed letter, these actors are demanding that Governor Cuomo repeal the SAFE Act immediately (Agenturus.org, 2013). This stakeholder group represents gun holders and non-gun holders as well who are strongly angered by the provisions in the Act. This group of actors also believe that the Act attempts to remove the rights established by the United States Constitution. The main concern is that these rights have been established long ago in the Bill of Rights and they believe the SAFE Act attempts to exchange rights for permissions. To this group of stakeholders, these actions are inappropriate and will not be tolerated in any fashion. Furthermore, police agencies and therapists already identified in the research are concerned that the SAFE Act will harm the process of delivering therapy. This group of actors believes that mental health patient knowledge about the new reporting requirements will prevent patients from disclosing violent thoughts and intentions (Spector, 2013). The main concern is that this could change the effectiveness of therapy sessions and treatment when patients deliberately avoid discussing important feelings and emotions with therapists and counselors. If these concerns are valid and true, then this represents serious concerns for the mental health practice and organizations that could have liability related to treatment practice. The Precision and Quality of Policy Implementation Criteria There are many policies in the SAFE Act that will be very difficult to enforce. The first policy involves the sellers that must report and change their selling habits to comply. Many sellers are complaining that neither state authorities or the police are informing them of specific timelines to change their ammunition selling practices. Offers one gun shop owner, “I want to comply, but nobody is telling me anything. Everybody is freaking out and buying 10-round mags” (Alexander, 2013, p.2). Right from the start, it seems that implementation as it relates to the sellers is not being properly managed. Some store owners, unsure of exactly what their obligations are under the Act, are simply referring callers and concerned buyers to the State Police Department (Alexander, 2013). This shows that there is very little oversight in training sellers with the right knowledge necessary to comply which could have long-term consequences if sellers are hit with fines or even criminal investigations. This is not a politically sustainable method of implementation aligned with the value benefits of the Strategic Triangle. There must be an accountability force to take responsibility politically for implementation. The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is also concerned about the methods of enforcement of this law. They believe that the language describing the nature of banned assault weapons is not clear enough which could lead to problems with interpreting the law by many actors and institutions. Furthermore, this same association believes that the restrictions would affect people who are considered harmless to society such as hunters and target shooters that, according to the association, should still be allowed to carry certain assault weapons. It is very important that the language used in the SAFE Act is easily understood by all stakeholders in society. Without changes to the language that defines the specific assault weapons that are not allowed, it is likely there will be buyers and sellers that will still continue to seek these products. These actors could always use the defense in the event of being charged with crimes that the language was not easy to understand. This could also impact real criminals that want to disobey the law and use language problems as a defense to prevent criminal charges. Strategic Options that could have Made a Better Launch Clearly, the government, including Senate and the governor’s office, could have thought this process through with more consideration. The bill was rushed through from proposal to law in a single day. This was in response to the social condition that was appalled by the issues associated with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown. What should have been done is given the law much more examination to identify important stakeholders that would be impacted. With the way this was done, the SAFE Act did not consider police officer needs, professional therapist needs, or even whether students would be protected properly by transferring power to yet unknown state agencies. It seems, based on all of the research information, that Governor Cuomo and the proposal’s supporters wanted desperately to satisfy social concerns about school safety and gun safety rather than give the law more analysis. Government actors involved in making the SAFE Act an actual law should have spoken with members of policing organizations, regular citizens, gun holders, and even professional organizations to gain their important input. The governor’s office and many members of government do not have actual experience with therapy systems and the authority structures that drive counseling practice. This is only one example, however if they had considered the impact on many stakeholder groups, it is likely the law could have been developed to satisfy more important actors affected by the law and also charged with its enforcement. Analysis should have involved market research, examination of gun store owner processes and systems, and even government record keeping agencies to come up with a plan that would make reporting and records management more efficient. This is aligned with the Strategic Triangle as these stakeholders represent the customers that are being served by public service agencies. This recommendation is feasible and can easily be accomplished by setting up meetings. Many professional agency actors are familiar with these shared decision-making processes and, if given a chance to enjoy a role in important decision-making, will be more motivated to participate. Furthermore, the people responsible for making this a law should have: 1. Made sure the language was easily understood by all actors and agencies involved even if it meant consultation with legal experts. 2. Considered the nature of policing organizations and the laws that currently protect them to make sure that the SAFE Act did not attempt to undo these protections. Governor Cuomo and the rest of the supporting government that made the SAFE Act a law could still make this law more practical and reasonable for implementation. They should be listening to policing agencies that have actual, first-hand experience dealing with gun-related criminal actors. Many authorities that are paid to ensure public safety are concerned with lack of clauses exempting them from potential criminal investigations. At the same time, if these government representatives take advice from policing agencies they can create language that is not difficult to interpret. This could be done using surveys or questionnaires to find out what the main, majority concerns really are about this Act and then work to amend it properly. This is a very low cost method of maximizing benefit to overseers and beneficiaries aligned with concepts from the Strategic Triangle. Market research requires little capital for development and little labor to make sure it is distributed to important actors and organizations. There is one more policy in the law that will be very difficult to implement and enforce. This is the ban on assault weapons on the Internet. There are very few technologies and systems in place in New York (and across the country) that can give authorities opportunities to monitor buying behavior. Even the Patriot Act makes it very difficult to catch all violators that perform their actions on the World Wide Web. It is unreasonable to believe that this could be 100% enforced and it would be very costly to develop labor and technologies to make sure that certain buyer habits are observed and prosecuted. This should be removed from the Act unless New York authorities can come up with an effective monitoring system that watches only sellers and buyers with licensed and unlicensed online gun companies. It is not difficult for some sellers to simply create a new website and abandon an old one, opening a new business to provide these weapons and then terminating it before authorities catch up with them. This is especially true when such gun sales occur internationally and it is difficult for U.S. officials, much less New York officials, to prosecute these criminals. Conclusion Though there are many policies that will definitely provide protection and more security to New York citizens, there are also problems with its structure, language and implementation. The SAFE Act has angered many different actors and organizations and this is causing problems with gaining social acceptance of this law because of all the negative publicity it is receiving. If the recommendations followed in this research project are followed, it will likely create a better system of enforcement and gain more social satisfaction about its ability to enhance security in the state of New York. References Agenturus.org. (2013). Declaration to Overturn the NY SAFE Act of 2013. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from http://www.agenturus.org/myblogs/declarationgunrightsNYS.pdf Alexander, Jon. (2013). Confusion Sets in for Gun Dealers after NY SAFE Act is Enacted, PostStar.com. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://poststar.com/news/national/confusion-sets-in-after-ny-safe-act-is-enacted- banning/article_6091d1c4-61f5-11e2-9ecb-001a4bcf887a.html Bogen, Jeffrey W. (2013). New York’s SAFE Act Undoes Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act, The Poughkeepsie Journal. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20130204/OPINION03/302040301/New- York-039-s-SAFE-ACT-undoes-Law-Enforcement-Officers-039-Safety-Act Daviss, Steve, Hanson, Annette & Miller, Dinah. (2013). Gun Control and Mandatory Reporting of Dangerous Patients, Psychology Today. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shrink-rap-today/201301/gun-control-and- mandatory-reporting-dangerous-patients Essig, Todd. (2013). Gun Violence and the Mental Health System: Why Treatment Must Come First, Forbes. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2013/01/17/gun-violence-and-the-mental-health- system-why-treatment-must-come-first/ NY.gov. (2013). NY SAFE Act FAQs, Office of the Governor of New York. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq NYSRPA. (2013). Notice of Claim to the Attorney General of the State of New York, The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFENoticeOfClaim.pdf NYSSA. (2013). Sheriff’s Response to NY SAFE Act, New York State Sheriffs’ Association, Inc. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from http://www.nyscc.com/images/NYSSA_Response_to_NY_SAFE_Act.pdf Renzulli Law. (2013). New York Adopts the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://renzullilaw.com/articles-and- publications/new-york-safe-act/117-new-york-safe-act/241-new-york-adopts-the-secure- ammunition-and-firearms-enforcement-act-of-2013 Spector, Joseph. (2013). Experts Fear Proposed N.Y. Gun Law Might Hinder Therapy, USA Today. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/ny-gun-law-therapy/1836323/ Read More