Rss

Press release – March 19, 2014 speaking event at Sons of Italy about NY Safe Act

As provided to news media on 3/10/14

For immediate release
Please contact 6072429247 – campaign of Michael Vasquez for Congress – for further comment or questions
*************************************************************************

3/10/14 (Binghamton, NY)
We have confirmed that NY 22nd congressional candidate Michael Vasquez will be one of the speakers at the Register Voters Not Firearms – NY Safe Act protest event. This event is to be held at the Sons of Italy Hall, 126 O’Dell Ave., Endicott NY 13760. The event is sponsored by SCOPE, Inc.

The event is open to the public and the press, and will start at 7pm.

Vasquez political position cards

Political position cards for the Michael Vasquez for Congress campaign

Michael Vasquez will be one of 6 confirmed speakers at the event. Mr. Vasquez will be speaking on the importance of public opposition and voting to enact a repeal of this infringement on the 2nd Amendment, as well as his December 2012 prediction [http://www.mvass.com/2012/12/18/gun-restriction-legislation-does-it-really-help/].

Candidate Vasquez stated,

“It is vital for voters in New York to step up and let their voices be heard, in the Primaries and the General Election this year. The only way to combat the growing presence of Government interference in the lives and choices of the public is to remind the elected politicians that they are not nobles dictating to the public, but servants of the public as defined by our Constitution.”

Candidate Vasquez went on to state,

“I have firmly and consistently supported the 2nd Amendment over my years of political commentary, which I believe that NY Safe Act thoroughly violates. I thank SCOPE for the opportunity to join with what I believe are a majority of members of the NY-22, New Yorkers across the State, and Americans across the nation in opposing this violation of our Rights.”

Michael Vasquez has been a vocal opponent of gun restriction and ban legislation throughout his time as a political commentator, with articles and videos reaching back before 2008. Mr. Vasquez is the owner of M V Consulting, Inc with articles written under his legal alias “Michael Vass.”

SCOPE Inc, created in 1965, is a civil rights organization focused on the protection and preservation of the right of firearms ownership as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They have rated Michael Vasquez A+ on 2nd Amendment issues.

NY Revolution, also speaking at the event, is a grass roots organization whose mission statement is the purpose of waking up Americans to the reality of our civil liberties.

Also speaking is 2nd Amendment Coalition of WNY, a Facebook organization out of Westerm NY, seeking to protect the Constitution.

Oath Keepers will be represented at the event, is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, peace officers and first responders that seek to fulfill the oath mandated by Article VI of the Constitution they have taken.
————————————————————————————–

A flyer of the event can be seen here:
Sons of Italy – anti Safe Act event – Endicott, NY on 3/19/14 @ 7pm

2014 starts with a jolt of legal decisions

Mere hours into the start of 2014 and already there have been legal outcomes that are going to affect millions of Americans. Some will be happy, but assuredly not all. Yet, to varying degrees, all of these decisions will affect the nation. Considering that 2014 is a mid-term election year, these legal actions and their results – as well as other issues – demand that we ask ourselves 3 questions (which I will ask at the end of this article).

Starting in New York, the controversial NY SAFE Act was ruled as constitutional by Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in Buffalo. At the same time, Judge Skretny also ruled that the limitations on magazines (to contain 7 rounds maximum),

“…fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the state’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.”

The NY Safe Act has been seen as a model of what President Obama has been pushing to have Congress enact nationally – and part of his Executive Orders issued in 2013, circumventing Congress. The argument being that in restricting certain types of firearms the ability of the criminal and criminally insane to engage in mass shootings will be diminished (though VP Biden admitted in February 2013 that the Executive Orders will have no impact – which was sadly proven correct later that same year). This flies in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of shooting deaths occur with handguns (like the Binghamton Civic Center shooting) and the 2003 First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws which determined,

“The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”

As well as the overall result of a gun restriction ban of “assault” firearms I reviewed in an investigation of the data over 30 years in an article Jan 11, 2013,

“…if the movement for gun restrictions as the primary safeguard to the public are correct, 75% of these kinds of tragedies will continue relatively unabated. Is the battle being waged against the 2nd Amendment, as some claim, and opposition like the NRA worth potentially stopping 1 – 2 events per year? To the families that have lost a loved one, of course. But if we are trying to increase the safety of the nation, shouldn’t the focus be on what is motivating the majority of these hateful crimes? Shouldn’t the resources be poured in to finding the root cause and eliminating it?”

As I have stated before, the delusion of safety by restricting certain arbitrary definitions of “assault weapons” and reducing magazine size is both misleading and unequal to the infringement on 2nd Amendment Rights. I agree with Judge Skretny that the magazine ban is unsupported and tenuous, as I presented in an article published on March 13, 2013

“… actively misleading the public into a false sense of safety based on pipe dreams and wishful thinking is as dangerous as any firearm ever made. We must also clearly state that using a preposterous fallacy meant to target the fear and emotion of the public to enact a politically motivated outcome is a tactic more akin to those wishing to shackle freedom than embracing or protecting it.”

Surely the debate over the NY Safe Act is not over, and will reach higher courts. Other States and the Federal Government will be watching closely, with a slew of laws to follow the ultimate outcome. Whether or not this has any effect on mass shootings is debatable, and historically leans towards being ineffective. But the impact on the 2nd Amendment may be irreversible.

On a larger scale, also on January 1, 2014, there is the news that the Government has been blocked in forcing the birth control requirement of the Obamacare law. US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor enacted an injunction in the late hours of Dec 31 2013, that prevents enforcement of this provision of the law. The reason is the infringement of religious freedom that is being argued Obamacare restricts.

This is yet another factor that is adding to the obtuse and ever more convoluted impact of the Affordable Care Act. With each passing month more groups and classes of those required to be affected by Obamacare are being delayed or excluded from inclusion. This of course alters the projected mix of population that healthcare insurers have calculated into premiums, and projections of an increase in costs continue to become more reliable.

This is yet another example of the rushed and poorly thought out ramifications of the Affordable Care Act long-term. It may well be just another factor that helps to establish that Obamacare will fail in its purported primary mission of reducing health care costs. The full impact of cancellations, the massive and still existing problems with the Healthcare.gov website, the yet to be determined inclusion of businesses (or their decisions to opt-out of providing healthcare), and the less than projected sign up of millions of Americans as well as other provisions of the law have yet to be felt in earnest.

It is fair to say that as courts address the underlying components of Obamacare, and those excluded are mandated to be included in the wide berth of the law, the reality of what this law will mean to freedoms and costs will be seen later in the year. I hold little hope of clarity or price reductions.

Lastly there was the decision in Florida, by Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando, to strike down the requirement of drug screening for those seeking welfare.

Judge Scriven stated,

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied.”

This of course will impact many States (29 States have considered such laws and 9 have enacted similar laws) as there is a growing view in the populace (who themselves are faced with drug tests to be employed) that such a requirement is valid and worthwhile. Many feel that those seeking public assistance should be held to the same standards as those paying for the assistance via their taxes (which I agree with). In addition, supporters point to the safety and welfare of the households where drug use does exist, that can potentially be aided by the enforcement of these drug tests as a condition of public aide.

At the core of this argument is National Treasury Employees Union v. von Raab., US Supreme Court, 1989. This was the case that the Supreme Court reviewed and upheld that drug testing of Federal employees was constitutional. This lead to the widespread use of drug testing as a requirement in the private sector.

I believe that the Supreme Court decision explains why drug testing of welfare applicants is valid – though the ruling had no private sector applications at the time. [emphasis added]

“Petitioners’ contention that the testing program is unreasonable because it is not based on a belief that testing will reveal any drug use by covered employees evinces an unduly narrow view of the context in which the program was implemented. Although it was not motivated by any perceived drug problem among Service employees, the program is nevertheless justified by the extraordinary safety and national security hazards that would attend the promotion of drug users to the sensitive positions in question. Moreover, the mere circumstance that all but a few of the employees tested are innocent does not impugn the program’s [489 U.S. 656, 658] validity, since it is designed to prevent the substantial harm that could be caused by the promotion of drug users as much as it is designed to detect actual drug use. Pp. 673-675.”

If you substitute “Welfare recipient” for “service employee” and remove “national security hazards” – almost the the same way that the private sector has done in its interpretation of the law to require drug testing – the reasoning remains intact. Thus the law, in my non-attorney opinion, is a valid law and Judge Scriven is wrong.

As 2014 moves forward, and the number of those seeking public assistance increases (as has been the trend) – placing an ever larger burden on States and the taxes of residents of those States – there will be more focus on this ruling by the Supreme Court and how it applies to the private sector as well as those seeking public assistance.

As a result of all 3 of these events, as well as many more issues, the nation will face tough decisions in 2014. Decisions that will affect the economy, freedoms, and pursuit of happiness of all Americans to some degree or another. The questions that I ask you are simple.

  • Where does your elected politicians stand on these important issues?
  • Is the position they hold the one that you (and a majority of constituent) have?
  • If it is not, why did you elect that politician?

    These 3 questions are the core reason of why I am running for the New York 22nd Congressional District seat in 2014. Many other politicians will be up for election in the mid-terms this year. But the key to re-election, in my opinion, should be the answer to these 3 questions – as opposed to the campaign promises and 30 second polispeak ads that are sure to fill airwaves.

  • America is on wrong track according to 61%

    wrong trackThere may be no better example of the state of the nation, and the effectiveness of current Government, than the fact that 61% of the nation believe America is on the wrong track. The blame for the path America is on is not just partisan, its universal.

    With only 27% stating that personal finances are getting better, 45% think college grads will have trouble getting a job, and 47% think a housing recovery is still 3 years away, Congress remains in gridlock. All the while the national deficit is $16.8 trillion and rising – even with $77 billion in additional taxes and $30 billion in Sequester cuts.

    This isn’t really shocking though.

    Government isn’t listening to the public, and the results are clear. The majority of Americans haven’t believed that America is on the right path since before 2009. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority, and today 55% are still unfavorable towards this law. President Obama is using Executive Orders in a way that even Senator Obama would never approve. Only 15% approve of the way Congress is handling the economy, immigration, gun control, and the rest of their job.

    For the New York 22nd Congressional District, the lack of connection appears to be equally apparent. In just the last couple of weeks I have been amazed by the number of people that either don’t know who represents them in the NY-22, or believe that they are still represented by former Rep. Maurice Hinchey – who retired last year. Given is the fact that so far I have only spoken to a fraction of the constituents that make up the NY-22, but with the current Representative having made 45 town hall style meetings with the public (of which only 9 appear in a Google search of “Richard Hanna meets constituents“) and a re-election, the Southern Tier – at least – remains largely unconnected to Congress.

    But hopefully this will change. Already Rep. Hanna has attempted to clarify why he is in favor of immigration reform, and giving STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] jobs to foreigners. He has made sure to get the press aware that he is meeting constituents – as he did on May 1st. But he has yet to explain, that can be found via Google search, why he did not attend the Joint Economic Committee meeting on resolving long-term unemployment.

    I would like to think that the challenge of a Republican primary is motivating these changes. I would like to think that the knowledge of voters having a real choice is inspiring a re-dedication to the concerns of the New York 22nd District. Especially at a time in the nation when Government, from local to national levels, is actively restricting freedoms (Executive Orders for gun restrictions, NYSAFE Act), compromising law (Executive Orders on immigration, amnesty proposals in immigration reform talks, sanctuary cities), mandating action (Obamacare, Chevy Volt), even potentially removing long-standing safeguards (FCC decency policy). Which says nothing of the on-going fiscal irresponsibility of Government.

    But the trend of millionaire and career politicians has for decades been a study in doing just enough to appear invested in the constituent, right up until a primary threat or election passes. The ultimate result of which brings us back to what path 61% of Americans believe we are on.

    Status quo in elections, mediocre politicians, and a lack of real connection to the issues, concerns, and daily life of constituents needs to end.

    %d bloggers like this: