FRIDAY, JULY 1, 2022 10:23 A.M.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE HOUSE WILL

COME TO ORDER IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION.

IN THE ABSENCE OF CLERGY, LET US PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF

SILENCE.

(WHEREUPON, A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS OBSERVED.)

VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE

OF ALLEGIANCE.

(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW LED VISITORS AND

MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)

A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE

PROCLAMATION BY THE GOVERNOR.

THE CLERK: PURSUANT TO THE POWER VESTED IN ME BY

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION, I HEREBY CONVENE THE SENATE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION

AT THE CAPITOL IN THE CITY OF ALBANY ON THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2022 AT

2:00 A.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING LEGISLATION I WILL SUBMIT TO --

TO -- IN -- WITH RESPECT TO ADDRESSING NECESSARY STATUTORY CHANGES

REGARDING FIREARMS SAFETY IN A WAY THAT ENSURES PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

SAFETY AND HEALTH AFTER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. V. BRUEN AND

CONSIDERING A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO ENSHRINE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE

STATE CONSTITUTION. SIGNED BY GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MRS. PEOPLES-

STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, HAVE THE

GOVERNOR AND THE SENATE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSEMBLY IS

ORGANIZED IN AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION AND IS READY TO PROCEED WITH

BUSINESS?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: YES, MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES, THEY HAVE BEEN SO INFORMED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THEN I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND I MOVE ITS ADOPTION.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE CLERK WILL

READ THE RESOLUTION.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 2, MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES.

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE BILLS INTRODUCED

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

DURING AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. ON THE

RESOLUTION. THIS RESOLUTION ESTABLISHES A SPECIAL APPROACH BY THE

ASSEMBLY FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION THAT BYPASSES ALL OF OUR

COMMITTEES AND WOULD ONLY HAVE THE BILLS THAT ARE BEING INTRODUCED IN

SPECIAL SESSION CONSIDERED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE BEFORE IT COMES TO

THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY. WE HAVE SEVERAL COMMITTEES THAT ARE

HEADED UP BY EXCELLENT CHAIRMEN AND EXCELLENT RANKERS WITH EXPERTISE

AND FOCUS ON DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAW, AND I THINK THIS BODY WOULD

CERTAINLY BENEFIT FROM A THOUGHTFUL, CAREFUL AND THOROUGH REVIEW AND

DISCUSSION BY OUR COMMITTEES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION

THAT DEALS EXTENSIVELY WITH THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO CARRY GUNS WITH

A PISTOL PERMIT FOLLOWING A COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND REVIEW.

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, MENTAL HEALTH BACKGROUND, THE FULL PROCESS OF

VETTING. BUT UNDER THIS RESOLUTION THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY

THE CODES COMMITTEE WHICH NORMALLY WOULD EXERCISE THAT TYPE OF

JURISDICTION. SO NORM -- UNDER NORMAL PROCEDURES IT WOULD GO TO THE

CODES COMMITTEE, OUR RANKER IS A FORMER JUDGE, JUDGE MORINELLO,

GREAT, VERY CAPABLE INDIVIDUAL. YOUR RANKER ON THAT IS MR. DINOWITZ

WHO JUST WON HIS PRIMARY, ANOTHER CAPABLE INDIVIDUAL. AND WE WOULD

BENEFIT FROM THEIR WISDOM AND THEIR EVALUATION. AND LIKEWISE, THERE'S

A PURPORTED BILL THAT'S COMING THROUGH THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH

JUDICIARY. AND SO HERE WE ARE IN SPECIAL SESSION. JUST SPEAKING

PERSONALLY, I HAVE NOT SEEN EITHER BILL THAT WE'RE CALLED HERE TO ALBANY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TO SEE, NO ASSEMBLY BILL NUMBERS HAVE YET BEEN PROVIDED, AND NOW

WE'RE BEING ASKED TO WAIVE THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE PROCESS, SHORT CIRCUIT

IT, AND INSTEAD OF HAVING A THOUGHTFUL, THOROUGH, OPEN, TRANSPARENT

DISCUSSION, IT LOOKS LIKE OUR FOCUS IS TO RAILROAD LEGISLATION THROUGH ON

A SPECIAL SESSION WHERE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE BILLS.

FOR THAT REASON I WOULD RECOMMEND TO MY COLLEAGUES

THAT THEY VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, MR.

GOODELL.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS

SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR FURTHER FLOOR ACTION TODAY. HOWEVER, I NOW

MOVE THAT THE HOUSE STAND AT EASE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE HOUSE STANDS

AT EASE.

(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE.)

* * * * *

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE HOUSE WILL

COME TO ORDER IN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, SIR. JUST

VERY QUICKLY, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO BRING A QUOTE ON YESTERDAY. I

WISH TO WELCOME EVERYBODY BACK BUT THAT'S THE GREATEST THING TO BE

HERE WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. BUT

BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD, I DID WANT

TO SHARE THIS QUOTE TODAY. THIS ONE IS FROM ALBERT EINSTEIN. NO NEED

TO EXPLAIN WHO HE WAS. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO HE IS AND HOW MUCH

HE CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN A MORAL WAY. THE WORLD

WILL NOT BE DESTROYED BY THOSE WHO DO EVIL, BUT BY THOSE WHO WATCH

EVIL AND DO NOTHING. AGAIN, THOSE WORDS ARE BY MR. ALBERT EINSTEIN.

MR. SPEAKER AND MY COLLEAGUES, MEMBERS HAVE ON

THEIR DESKS A CALENDAR NO. 1 FOR THIS EXTRAORDINARY SESSION. I NOW

MOVE TO ADVANCE THIS TWO-BILL CALENDAR WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP

IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON A MOTION BY

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, EXTRAORDINARY SESSION CALENDAR NO. 1 IS

ADVANCED.

EXTRAORDINARY SESSION CALENDAR NO. 1, PAGE 3, RULES

REPORT NO. 1, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00001, RULES REPORT

NO. 1, COMMITTEE ON RULES, HEASTIE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW,

THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE EXECUTIVE LAW, THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW

AND RULES AND THE STATE FINANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO LICENSING AND OTHER

PROVISIONS RELATING TO FIREARMS.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON A MOTION BY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. HEASTIE, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE.

KATHY HOCHUL, GOVERNOR.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. DINOWITZ, DO

YOU YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. AS I

UNDERSTAND IT, THIS LEGISLATION IMPOSES SOME MULTIPLE, LIKE, 50 PAGES

WORTH OF NEW REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE WHO WISH TO CARRY A GUN OR GET A

PISTOL PERMIT; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: DID YOU SAY 50 PAGES?

MR. GOODELL: YES. HOW MANY DID YOU HAVE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I ONLY HAVE 21. DID I MISS

THE OTHER 30?

MR. GOODELL: I'M SORRY THE DRAFT HAD 50. I'M GLAD

TO SEE THAT ONCE WE PRINTED IT OUT IN FINAL FORM IT'S SHORTER. I WANT TO

TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS BILL WHICH DEFINES SENSITIVE LOCATIONS AS

BASICALLY GUN-FREE ZONES, RIGHT?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. GOODELL: AND AMONGST THOSE THAT ARE

DEFINED AS A GUN-FREE ZONE WOULD BE ANY PLACE OF WORSHIP OR RELIGIOUS

OBSERVANCE, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. GOODELL: AND AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF

DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, SOME VERY LIBERAL, SOME VERY

CONSERVATIVE. IF THERE WAS A -- A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION THAT WANTED TO

ALLOW PEOPLE WHO HAD A PISTOL PERMIT TO CARRY THEIR WEAPON, COULD THEY

OPT OUT OF THIS RESTRICTION?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. GOODELL: I SEE THIS ALSO APPLIES TO SUMMER

CAMPS. BOY SCOUTS HAVE A MERIT BADGE FOR RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP.

WOULD THIS THEN PREVENT ALL BOY SCOUT CAMPS FROM ENGAGING IN

MARKSMANSHIP ON ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT

MERIT BADGE?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF IT'S A SENSITIVE LOCATION THEN THEY

WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE LOADED GUNS.

MR. GOODELL: SO ON PAGE 8, LINE 54 IT REFERENCES

SUMMER CAMPS. SO BOY SCOUTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THIS ONLY IF THEY

DIDN'T GO TO A SUMMER CAMP?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF IT'S A SUMMER CAMP IT'S A

SUMMER CAMP.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. I SEE THIS ALSO DEFINES AS A

SENSITIVE LOCATION PUBLIC PARKS. WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE ADIRONDACKS?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE IT WOULD INCLUDE THE PARK

-- THE PARKS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY WHERE THERE'S PRIVATELY-OWNED LAND,

BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE I BELIEVE WHO LIVE THERE. SO IT WOULD

INCLUDE THE PARK.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. SO THE ADIRONDACK PARK BUT

NOT THE PRIVATELY-OWNED LAND WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK.

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, I SEE THAT IT PROHIBITS ANYONE

WITH A PISTOL PERMIT.

MR. DINOWITZ: HOLD ON, I'M TRYING --

MR. GOODELL: I'M PAUSING BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE

YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, NO, I JUST WAS CLARIFYING

SOMETHING ELSE IN ANTICIPATION OF YOU SAYING SOMETHING.

MR. GOODELL: OH, OKAY. I -- I NOTE THAT IN

SUBPARAGRAPH S IT DEFINES AS A SENSITIVE LOCATION ANY GATHERING OF

INDIVIDUALLY -- INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, THAT DOES SAY THAT.

MR. GOODELL: DOES THAT MEAN, THEN, THAT THERE'S A

-- A DEMONSTRATION AND -- AND THERE'S A CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT BECOME

VIOLENT THAT NOBODY WITH A PISTOL PERMIT COULD BE IN THAT AREA?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE

EXEMPTED.

MR. GOODELL: OTHER THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

NO PRIVATE RESIDENTS COULD HAVE A GUN, FOR EXAMPLE, AT A MEMORIAL DAY

PARADE OR 4TH OF JULY EVENT OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC GATHERING?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THAT, BUT WE'RE

SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT PROTESTS HERE.

MR. GOODELL: OR -- OR ASSEMBLY, RIGHT? IT'S

PROTEST OR ASSEMBLY.

MR. DINOWITZ: YEAH.

MR. GOODELL: NOW THIS ALSO BANS THE USE OR THE

POSSESSION OF A GUN ON ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, CORRECT, UNLESS THE OWNER

OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY POSTS A SIGN SAYING GUNS ARE ALLOWED; IS THAT

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT IS CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: SO IF YOU'RE A TENANT IN A MULTI-

UNIT APARTMENT THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY

SOMEBODY ELSE, AM I CORRECT, THEN, THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO

CARRY A LICENSE EVEN IF YOU HAD A PISTOL PERMIT IN THE APARTMENT

BUILDING?

MR. DINOWITZ: SO, THE LANDLORD WOULD HAVE

CONTROL OVER HIS PORTION OR HER PORTION OF THE PREMISES, BUT IF YOU

WANTED TO COME IN TO SAY, MY HOUSE, DON'T BRING YOUR GUN.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. BUT -- BUT IF THE LANDLORD

DOESN'T SAY, GUNS ARE PERMITTED ON MY APARTMENT BUILDING YOU WOULD

NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A GUN ON THAT --

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME

AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT ASSIGNED, BASICALLY.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. GOODELL: AND THIS BANS THE POSSESSION OF A

GUN EVEN BY A LICENSED PERMIT HOLDER IN ANY BAR, RESTAURANT OR ANY

PLACE ELSE THAT MIGHT SELL ALCOHOL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. GOODELL: AND DOES THAT INCLUDE -- OKAY,

THAT'S -- THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR, I THINK.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND A PRETTY GOOD IDEA, TOO.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR

PERSPECTIVE, I'M SURE.

DO WE HAVE ANY --

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, IT'S A GOOD IDEA, PERIOD.

MR. GOODELL: DO WE HAVE ANY DATA ON HOW MANY

MURDERS OR GUN ASSAULTS HAVE OCCURRED BY -- BY THOSE WHO ARE LICENSED

PERMIT HOLDERS IN PLACES OF WORSHIP IN NEW YORK STATE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA.

MR. GOODELL: WHAT ABOUT LIBRARIES? DO WE HAVE

ANY DATA ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY A PERMIT HOLDER, YOU

KNOW, SOMEONE WITH A PISTOL PERMIT IN A LIBRARY?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHEN YOU SAY "WE" ARE YOU

INCLUDING YOU AND I OR COLLECTIVELY?

MR. GOODELL: YEAH. I -- I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T EITHER.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT

APPLIES LIKEWISE, NO DATA ON PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS OR PUBLIC PARKS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. GOODELL: AND I SEE THAT THIS -- AND THAT

WOULD APPLY TO NURSERY SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS AND SUMMER CAMPS. WE

DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, ANY MURDERS COMMITTED --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA OR DATA ON

ANYTHING ON THIS ENTIRE LIST IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN

MURDERED. THE DATA I HAVE IN MY HEAD IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE

MURDERED, MANY OF THEM BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE PERMITS, OF COURSE.

BUT ONE THING I'M PRETTY CLEAR ON IS THAT IF SOMEBODY GOES INTO A BAR

WITHOUT A GUN THEY'RE LESS LIKELY TO SHOOT SOMEBODY DEAD. MAYBE THEY

COULD PUNCH SOMEBODY, BUT IF THEY GO IN WITH A GUN THEY CAN SHOOT

SOMEBODY. AND THE SAME THING IS TRUE FOR ALL OF THESE LOCATIONS. SO

NOT HAVING THE GUNS IN THE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS, TO ME, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND -- AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, GIVEN THESE

-- LAST WEEK'S SUPREME COURT RULING IS TO COMPLY WITH THAT RULING

WHICH REVERSED A LAW IN NEW YORK THAT WAS IN EFFECT FOR OVER 100

YEARS, BUT WHILE COMPLYING WITH IT AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO PROTECT

PEOPLE FROM BEING KILLED.

MR. GOODELL: AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION

ON THE PURPOSE. DID THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN ANY WAY AFFECT ANY

LAW THAT CURRENTLY BANS A LICENSED PERMITTED HOLDER FROM CARRYING A

PISTOL, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A SUBWAY? DO WE HAVE ANY CURRENT LAW THAT

BANS A LICENSED PERMITTED HOLDER FROM CARRYING A GUN ON A SUBWAY?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK -- AND I HAVE TO JUST

CHECK MY NOTES, BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU CANNOT

CARRY A GUN. BUT THE SUPREME COURT RULING ESSENTIALLY INVITED US TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PRODUCE A LIST OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.

MR. GOODELL: RIGHT. (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: -- (INAUDIBLE) SO TO COMPLY WITH

THE SUPREME COURT, RADICAL AS IT IS, WE CAME UP WITH THIS LIST WHICH I

THINK IS VERY SMART.

MR. GOODELL: BUT IS THERE ANY STATE LAW THAT

CURRENTLY BANS POSSESSION OF A GUN EVEN BY A LICENSED PERMITTED HOLDER

IN A SUBWAY OR BUS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT -- NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

MR. GOODELL: AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING EITHER,

BY THE WAY. SO FAR YOU AND I ARE PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH

ON THAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: AREN'T WE ALWAYS?

MR. GOODELL: THERE'S -- THERE'S NO NEW YORK LAW

RIGHT NOW THAT BANS POSSESSION OF A PISTOL OR -- OR ANY GUN FOR THAT

MATTER, IN LIBRARIES OR MUSEUMS OR ZOOS OR PARKS LIKE THE ADIRONDACK

PARK. AM I CORRECT THERE'S NO STATE LAW THAT CURRENTLY ESTABLISHES

GUN-FREE ZONES?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, BUT IF WE PASS THIS THERE WILL

BE AND THAT WOULD MAKE ME VERY HAPPY.

MR. GOODELL: SO UNDER CURRENT NEW YORK STATE

LAW, THE ONLY GUN-FREE ZONES, AM I CORRECT, ARE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS,

SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE ALSO A FEDERAL GUN-FREE ZONE, POLLING PLACES AND

COURTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I'D HAVE TO CHECK BUT THOSE ARE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

CERTAINLY AMONG THEM.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. NOW, I SEE THERE'S A LOT OF

DATA THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED RECENTLY ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE

THAT HAVE A -- HAVE BEEN LICENSED TO CARRY A GUN, PERMIT HOLDERS, AND

THE MOST I THINK CAREFUL STUDY WAS PUBLISHED BY THE HERITAGE

FOUNDATION, AND THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS 801 DOCUMENTED CASES OF A

MURDER COMMITTED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A PISTOL PERMIT, IN THE NATION,

OVER A 15-YEAR PERIOD. THAT'D BE ABOUT 54, AVERAGING 54 A YEAR. IS THAT

CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INFORMATION AS WELL?

MR. DINOWITZ: I CAN'T SAY IT'S CONSISTENT OR

INCONSISTENT. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT I WOULDN'T TAKE INFORMATION FROM

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION TO THE BANK. BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG

BUT I -- LIKE, IF I SEE SOMETHING FROM THEM I REALLY WANT A SECOND

SOURCE.

MR. GOODELL: AND HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OTHER

SOURCES THAT INDICATE THAT THE NUMBER OF MURDERS COMMITTED BY THOSE

WHO HAVE A PISTOL PERMIT IS HIGHER THAN THAT NUMBER?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE DATA WE SEE CONCERNS PEOPLE

WHO ARE MURDERED. AND IT -- IT'S KIND OF -- IT'S KIND OF SHOCKING THAT

THE UNITED STATES ALONE, AMONG COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD, HAS SO MANY

MURDERS; THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS. WE MIGHT AS WELL BE AT WAR GIVEN

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLED EACH YEAR WITH -- WITH GUNS. AND

MR. GOODELL: (INAUDIBLE) I'M AWARE OF THAT DATA

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THIS IS ONE OF MANY EFFORTS TO

TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME -- AND -- AND WE'RE

REALLY TAKE OUR LEAD FROM THE SUPREME COURT WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAID,

COME UP WITH A LIST OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS. SO THESE ARE THE SENSITIVE

LOCATIONS, AND EVERY ONE THEM I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. AND -- AND I

COULD TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY - NOT THAT

ANYBODY I KNOW HAS A GUN - ALTHOUGH MAYBE THEY DO AND I DON'T KNOW

ABOUT IT, I SUPPOSE -- BUT I WOULD BE MORTIFIED IF SOMEBODY CAME INTO

MY HOUSE WITH A GUN WITHOUT MY KNOWING ABOUT IT. BUT UNDER THIS LAW

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND THE SAME THING HOLDS FOR THESE

SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. AND I WANTED TO JUST ASK

YOU ABOUT ONE HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS

HYPOTHETICAL IS BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN THE SUPREME COURT

DECISION. IF YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL IN NEW YORK CITY, FOR EXAMPLE,

THAT LIVES IN A VERY DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY APPLY FOR A PISTOL

PERMIT AND THEY GO THROUGH THE THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECK, THE 16

HOURS OF MANDATORY TRAINING, THE TWO HOURS OF MANDATORY LIVE TARGET

PRACTICING AND THEY PASS EVERYTHING WITH FLYING COLORS AND THEY GET A

PISTOL PERMIT UNDER THIS NEW LAW, WOULD THAT INDIVIDUAL THEN BE

ALLOWED TO CARRY THEIR GUN WITH THEM THROUGH A VERY DANGEROUS

NEIGHBORHOOD ON THEIR WAY TO AND FROM WORK, SAY, ON THE SECOND SHIFT

-- SHIFT IN THE EVENING IF, ONE, THEIR EMPLOYER DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO

BRING IT, AND THE ANSWER I THINK IS NO. YOU CAN'T BRING IT TO YOUR

EMPLOYER UNLESS YOUR EMPLOYER ALLOWS IT, CORRECT? THEY WOULDN'T BE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ALLOWED TO CARRY IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN GET ON A SUBWAY OR

BUS OR TAXI, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CARRY THE

GUN OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT IF THEY LIVED IN AN APARTMENT UNLESS THE

LANDLORD SAID THAT YOU COULD HAVE A GUN IN THE APARTMENT, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. GOODELL: SO BASICALLY IN THAT SCENARIO THAT

INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL RIGHT TO CARRY A

PISTOL AT ALL, EVEN IF THEY PASS THE ENTIRE BACKGROUND CHECK, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY

DIFFICULT GIVEN THE SCENARIO THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. NOW, ACCORDING TO THE

NYPD AND THE MTA THERE WERE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WERE MURDERED IN THE

SUBWAYS LAST YEAR BY A HANDGUN. DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE

INVOLVED SOMEBODY WITH A PISTOL PERMIT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THAT

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE MURDERED SINCE THE PANDEMIC. SOME

PEOPLE WERE PUSHED AND SOME PEOPLE WERE SHOT. THAT'S TRUE.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

DINOWITZ. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. DINOWITZ: ANY TIME.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE U.S.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SUPREME COURT, AS YOU KNOW, JUST HELD THAT NEW YORK'S CONCEALED

CARRY PERMITTING LAW WAS INVALID, AND THE IRONY IS THAT IN RESPONSE TO

THAT THIS LEGISLATURE HAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT IS ACTUALLY MORE

ONEROUS AND MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE BILL THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT. NOW, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAID, AND I QUOTE,

"COURTS, AND BY ANALOGY, LEGISLATORS CAN USE ANALOGIES TO HISTORIC

REGULATIONS OF SENSITIVE PLACES TO DETERMINE THAT MODERN REGULATIONS

PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN NEW AND ANALOGOUS SENSITIVE

PLACES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE." SO THE STANDARD SET BY THE

COURT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT HISTORIC REGULATIONS AND SEE IF THERE'S

AN ANALOGY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING HERE, AS MY

COLLEAGUE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT. NEW YORK STATE HAS NEVER PROHIBITED

GUNS ON SUBWAYS OR TRAINS OR BUSES OR MASS TRANSIT OR LIBRARIES OR

MUSEUMS OR ZOOS OR IN YOUR PRIVATE RESIDENCE IF YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE IN

A MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT, OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNLESS YOU'RE ALLOWED BY

THE OWNER, OR IN EVERY SINGLE BAR AND RESTAURANT IN THE STATE OF NEW

YORK THAT MIGHT SERVE ALCOHOL. WE HAVE NEVER DONE THAT, EVER. AND

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY STATE IN THE NATION THAT HAS THAT KIND OF GUN-FREE

ZONE THAT APPLIES TO VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE A NORMAL CITIZEN MIGHT BE

EXPECTED TO WALK OR RIDE OR BE AT OR WORK AT OR LIVE AT. IN SHORT, THERE

IS NO HISTORICAL ANALOGY. NONE.

NOW, THE SUPREME COURT TALKED FOR 50 OR 75 PAGES

ABOUT HISTORICAL ANALOGIES AND WE ARE CONCERNING LEGISLATION THAT

COMPLETELY IGNORES THAT. AND THE SUPREME COURT SPECIFICALLY GAVE AN

EXAMPLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO LIVES IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD WHO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WANTS TO WALK SAFELY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT NIGHT AND POINTED OUT THE

ONE REASON NEW YORK'S LAW WAS INVALID WAS BECAUSE THAT VERY

INDIVIDUAL --

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

-- WOULD BE BARRED AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS

LEGISLATION DOES. IT FAILS TO MEET THE MINIMUM (INAUDIBLE)

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, AND THEREFORE I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. AGAIN, THANK

YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR HIS MANY ANSWERS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: AND MR. REILLY.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. SO, THE

FIRST THING I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IS THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

SAFETY ACT AND RETIRED MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. IN THIS

LEGISLATION IT REQUIRES FOR THOSE APPLYING FOR A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

TO TAKE A 16-HOUR CLASS AND TWO HOURS OF LIVE FIRE RANGE TRAINING

COURSES. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET IT ON THE RECORD. SINCE RETIRED LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ALREADY TOOK THAT TRAINING AND IF THEY ARE

QUALIFIED UNDER FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SAFETY ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS

H.R. 218, THEY GET QUALIFIED EVERY YEAR. WOULD THIS 16-HOUR

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

REQUIREMENT, WOULD THEY BE EXEMPT FROM THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY WOULD BE, YES.

MR. REILLY: CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU. SO IT -- I JUST WANT TO GET

THAT CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CLEARLY STATE THAT IN THE

BILL. BUT THEY ARE -- BUT THE RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE

EXEMPT FROM THIS SENSITIVE LOCATION, CORRECT? THERE'S A CARVEOUT FOR

THEM?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I

WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE SENSITIVE LOCATION IS WHAT STREETS WILL

DEFINE TIMES SQUARE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THE CITY OF NEW YORK

WOULD DEFINE THAT.

MR. REILLY: SO WE ARE DEFERRING TO ANOTHER

MUNICIPALITY THE LAW THAT IS ABOUT TO BE CREATED BY THE STATE

LEGISLATURE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. REILLY: HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT BEFORE?

MR. DINOWITZ: PROBABLY.

MR. REILLY: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I CAN'T, BUT I'M SURE WE HAVE.

MR. REILLY: SO THEY'RE -- SO WHAT IF THEY SAID THAT

TIMES SQUARE WAS THE WHOLE ISLAND OF MANHATTAN? WOULD THAT BE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OKAY TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY WOULD YOU THINK THEY WOULD

SAY THAT? TIMES SQUARE IS TIMES SQUARE. EVERYBODY KNOWS TIMES

SQUARE.

MR. REILLY: WELL, DO YOU CONSIDER -- SO IS --

MR. DINOWITZ: EXCEPT ME, I NEVER LEAVE THE

BRONX, SO I -- I CAN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD --

MR. REILLY: SO IS 47TH STREET AND BROADWAY

CONSIDERED TIMES SQUARE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW HOW I WOULD DEFINE

TIMES SQUARE -- BUT I'M NOT THE CITY OF NEW YORK -- I WOULD DEFINE

TIMES SQUARE AS THE PLACE WHERE ALL THE PEOPLE GATHER ON DECEMBER

31ST, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. BUT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, I'M SURE, HAS A --

COME UP WITH A VERY SPECIFIC AND REASONABLE DEFINITION OF WHAT

CONSTITUTES TIMES SQUARE.

MR. REILLY: SO -- WELL, THAT'S THE CROSSROADS OF

AMERICA, RIGHT, WHERE BROADWAY AND 7TH AVENUE CO -- THEY COME

ACROSS EACH OTHER, RIGHT? SO TIMES SQUARE WHERE THE BALL DROPS, 42ND

STREET BETWEEN 7TH AND BROADWAY, RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? BUT TIMES

SQUARE MAY BE DEFINED AS 8TH AVENUE TO 6TH AVENUE, FROM 36TH

STREET TO 47TH STREET. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE

MORE DEFINITIVE, I THINK.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK FIRST THEY WOULD HAVE TO

-- THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIGNS. SECONDLY, IT IS THE CROSSROADS OF THE

WORLD. OKAY, HERE. I GOT IT. THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS TIMES

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SQUARE AS SUCH AREA IS DETERMINED AND IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF NEW

YORK PROVIDED SUCH AREA SHALL BE CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY IDENTIFIED

WITH SIGNAGE, WHICH IS WHAT I JUST MENTIONED. THEY HAVE TO HAVE

SIGNS.

MR. REILLY: SO IF THEY GO -- SO IN YOUR OPINION,

SINCE YOU'RE DEBATING THE LEGISLATION, IF THE CITY DETERMINED THAT

COLUMBUS CIRCLE, 59TH STREET AND 8TH AVENUE, IS NOW TIMES SQUARE

WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW, IT -- IT'S HARD TO

RESPOND TO WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER - DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY - BUT

A PRETTY ABSURD HYPOTHETICAL. TIMES SQUARE IS TIMES SQUARE, AND IT'S A

-- IT'S A VERY LIMITED AREA. BUT IT'S ALSO PERHAPS THE MOST DENSELY-

PEDESTRIAN AREA ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

MR. REILLY: AND WHERE WOULD YOU DEFINE THAT

MOST DENSELY-POPULATED AREA? WHERE WOULD YOU --

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD -- WELL, I WOULD DEFER TO

THE CITY OF NEW YORK BECAUSE AS I SAID, I DON'T KNOW KNOW THE

ANSWER. I DON'T GO INTO MANHATTAN UNLESS I HAVE TO.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. FAIR

ENOUGH. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES THE

PENALTIES FOR CURRENT LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT VIOLATE -- FOR A VIOLATION OF

FIREARMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE WE CREATE TWO NEW

CRIMES, AND THAT WOULD BE A CLASS E FELONIES PUNISHABLE BY ONE TO FOUR

YEARS IN JAIL. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CHANGED THE -- THE PENALTIES FOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

CURRENT LAWS.

MR. REILLY: SO THOSE NEW LAWS THAT ARE BEING

CREATED, RIGHT, THOSE STATUTES THAT ARE BEING CREATED IN THIS LEGISLATION,

WHO WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO PROSECUTION IN THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THOSE

PROVISIONS.

MR. REILLY: AND WHAT WOULD THAT VIOLATION CONSIST

OF?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE VIOLATION WOULD CONSIST OF --

OH, HERE WE ARE -- CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN

A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO IF THEY VIOLATED THE PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO

SENSITIVE LOCATIONS THEY COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THAT.

MR. REILLY: IS THERE -- I'M SORRY.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO

CONVICTION OF A CLASS E FELONY PUNISHABLE BY ONE TO FOUR YEARS IN

PRISON.

MR. REILLY: WHAT IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA OF THAT -- OF

COMMITTING A CRIME THAT WOULD VIOLATE THAT -- THAT STATUTE?

MR. DINOWITZ: A PERSON IS GUILTY - AND I'M

LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE - A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF

A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION WHEN SUCH PERSON

POSSESSES A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN OR UPON A SENSITIVE LOCATION

AND SUCH PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SUCH

LOCATION IS A SENSITIVE LOCATION. THAT'S ON PAGE 8 OF THE BILL IF YOU

CHECK THE BILL.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. REILLY: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THAT'S ONE OF THE TWO CRIMES.

AND THERE'S A SECOND CRIME SIMILAR REGARDING CRIMINAL POSSESSION IN A

RESTRICTED LOCATION.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. IS THERE -- SO IS ANY OF THE

CRITERIA THAT THE PERSON HAS TO BE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER?

MR. DINOWITZ: HAS TO BE A WHAT?

MR. REILLY: A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. EITHER THEY VIOLATED THE --

THIS PROVISION, THEN THE SECOND PROVISION IS ON PAGE 10 OF THE BILL WHEN

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTED LOCATIONS. UNLESS THEY'RE EXEMPTED THEN

THEY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IF THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT

THEY WERE IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION OR THAT THEY WERE IN A RESTRICTED

LOCATION.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO IF SOMEONE HAS AN ILLEGAL

FIREARM AND THEY'RE IN TIMES SQUARE, WOULD THEY BE CHARGED WITH A

CLASS E FELONY?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THEY'RE NOT EXEMPTED, YES, THEY

COULD BE.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. OKAY. SO DO YOU KNOW OF ANY

OTHER STATUTES THAT THEY MAY BE CHARGED WITH IF THEY HAVE A LOADED

FIREARM IN TIMES SQUARE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE.

MR. REILLY: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER STATUTES

THEY MAY BE CHARGED WITH IF THEY HAVE A LOADED FIREARM IN TIMES

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SQUARE (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU'RE NOT -- YOU'RE NOT

SUPPOSED TO POSSESS A FIREARM IN AND OF ITSELF IF -- IF IT'S ILLEGAL.

MR. REILLY: SO THEY WOULD -- THAT PERSON WOULD

BE ARRESTED FOR, WHAT, A CLASS C VIOLENT FELONY, ILLEGALLY POSSESSING A --

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON -- OF A FIREARM?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY COULD BE ARRESTED FOR TWO

CRIMES. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

MR. REILLY: SO THE -- SO THE CLASS E FELONY THAT

YOU DESCRIBED IN THIS LEGISLATION, THAT'S SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CONCEALED

CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS, CORRECT? BECAUSE THE STATUTE DOESN'T EXIST

PRESENTLY.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. REILLY: NO?

MR. DINOWITZ: IT -- IT RELATES -- IT -- IT INCLUDES

PEOPLE -- IF YOU COME INTO TIMES SQUARE, SAY, WITH A SHOTGUN THAT'S NOT

A -- I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS ENCOMPASSED IN THIS BESIDES WHAT

YOU JUST MENTIONED.

MR. REILLY: SO THE CURRENT LAWS WOULDN'T COVER

THE CRIME OF HAVING AN ILLEGAL FIREARM IN TIMES SQUARE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WE DON'T NEED IT.

MR. REILLY: SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T NEED A

CLASS E FELONY.

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY?

MR. REILLY: WE ALREADY HAVE A CLASS (INAUDIBLE)

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: -- (INAUDIBLE). ISN'T YOUR SIDE OF

THE AISLE THE ONES THAT WANT MORE PENALTIES? WELL, HERE'S MORE

PENALTIES.

MR. REILLY: YOU DON'T -- YOU HIT A VERY INTERESTING

POINT THERE. DO WE COVER 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS THAT ARE CARRYING AN

ILLEGAL FIREARM? DO WE MAKE THEM GO TO CRIMINAL COURT TO BE HELD

ACCOUNTABLE OR IS THAT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RELEVANT TO

THIS PARTICULAR BILL, BUT WHAT -- WE'RE CREATING TWO NEW CRIMES WHICH

PEOPLE -- ONE OF WHICH BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DO BOTH AT THE SAME

TIME -- ONE OF WHICH SOMEBODY COULD BE CHARGED WITH IN ADDITION TO

ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CRIME THAT THEY MAY OTHERWISE BE CHARGED WITH.

MR. REILLY: SO -- BUT THE REASON WHY THIS BILL IS

BEING INTRODUCED IS BECAUSE -- IT'S STRICTLY BEING INTRODUCED BECAUSE OF

THE CHANGES BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN REGARD TO

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE SUPREME COURT, AS I

SAID, PRETTY MUCH INVITED US TO MAKE THESE CHANGES.

MR. REILLY: I INVITED THE LEGISLATURE NUMEROUS

TIMES TO MAKE CHANGES TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR GUN VIOLENCE ALL ACROSS

OUR CITY AND OUR STATE AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO --

MR. DINOWITZ: THE SUPREME COURT INVITES, WE TRY

TO ACCEPT. NOW, I'M JUST READING THAT CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON

IN THE SECOND DEGREE, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WEAPON IN THE SECOND DEGREE WHEN WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME

UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER SUCH PERSON, POSSESSES A MACHINE GUN, A

LOADED FIREARM, A DISGUISE GUN, SUCH PERSON POSSESSES FIVE OR MORE

FIREARMS, SUCH PERSON POSSESSES ANY LOADED FIREARM, AND IT -- IT GOES ON

BUT I THINK YOU GET THE POINT. THERE ARE -- YOU KNOW PEOPLE CAN BE --

IT -- IT'S LIKE -- MAYBE THIS IS NOT A GOOD COMPARISON, BUT IF YOU'RE

DRIVING A CAR AND A -- AND A -- AN OFFICER STOPS YOU, AS YOU WELL KNOW,

OFTEN THE OFFICER WILL GIVE OUT MORE THAN ONE SUMMONS BECAUSE THERE

COULD BE MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION THAT YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH. AND

THE SAME THING WOULD BE TRUE HERE. THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT CRIMES

THAT YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH.

MR. REILLY: NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THERE'S LESSER

INCLUDED OFFENSES THAT GET CHARGED. I -- I UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO LET'S SHIFT A LITTLE GEARS HERE. DO YOU KNOW HOW

MANY SHOOTING INCIDENTS THERE WERE IN NEW YORK CITY YEAR TO DATE?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, I DO NOT. I KNOW THAT FROM --

IT -- IT WENT UP SIGNIFICANTLY ONCE -- AFTER THE ADVENT OF THE PANDEMIC. I

BELIEVE - I COULD BE WRONG - I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS ACTUALLY DOWN THIS

YEAR COMPARED TO LAST YEAR, BUT LAST YEAR WAS PRETTY BAD.

MR. REILLY: SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A FEW STATS

ON THIS AND THEN FOLLOW UP WITH A QUESTION. 634 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SHOT

IN NEW YORK CITY. ALL RIGHT? SHOOTING -- 634 SHOOTING INCIDENTS, 758

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SHOT. ALL RIGHT? MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN -- IN THE SAME

INCIDENT. HOW MANY ARRESTS? 2,388 FOR THE POSSESSION OF AN ILLEGAL

FIREARM, 1,799 INCIDENTS. SO YOU MAY HAVE AN ILLEGAL GUN IN A CAR,

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MULTIPLE OCCUPANTS, THEY GET ARRESTED. GUNS RECOVERED, 2,063. DO

YOU KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS

THAT EITHER COMMITTED THE SHOOTING, WERE ARRESTED FOR THE POSSESSION OF

THE FIREARM OR THEIR GUNS WERE RECOVERED?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I WOULD IMAGINE THE NUMBER IS

VERY LOW --

MR. REILLY: IT IS.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- OF THE TOTAL. BUT I WILL SAY THIS:

THE -- THE AMOUNT OF GUNS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS STATE IS LARGELY DUE TO

GUNS COMING IN FROM OTHER STATES. AND BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS SO

SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN'T DONE MUCH

ABOUT IT. EVEN WITH THE NEW LAWS THAT WERE PASSED, THAT'S NOT GOING TO,

IN MY OPINION, RESOLVE THE PROBLEM UNTIL THERE'S ACTION NOT ONLY ON THE

STATE LEVEL BUT ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL. WE'RE GOING TO STILL HAVE

THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH FEDERALLY, BUT

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO WHAT WE CAN DO HERE ON THE

STATE LEVEL. AND KEEP IN MIND, THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE

OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE LAWSUIT, WHO BROUGHT THE LAWSUIT, DIDN'T HAVE TO

BRING A LAWSUIT BUT WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THE LAWSUIT AND GOT A 6-3 RULING

BY THE SUPREME COURT ON IT. SO THANKS TO THEM WE'RE DOING THIS. SO,

YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO WE'RE DOING IT THANKS TO

THEM. I GET IT. I GET IT. SO LISTEN, I KNOW YOU STATED THAT WE WANT TO BE

TOUGH ON CRIME, RIGHT? WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HOLD

THOSE ACCOUNTABLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT USE A FIREARM. SO IN -- IN

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BRONX COUNTY, RIGHT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE SENTENCE THAT'S

ISSUED FOR SOMEONE THAT'S CONVICTED OF AN ILLEGAL FIREARM?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO

THAT, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE QUESTION HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE BILL

BECAUSE THE BILL HAS TO DO WITH A VERY NARROW SUBJECT, WHICH IS TO

ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE RULING IN THE BRUEN CASE IN THE SUPREME

COURT.

MR. REILLY: WELL, WE'RE -- WE'RE -- ACTUALLY IT

DOES, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GUN CRIMES, RIGHT, AND WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE LAWS IN PLACE AND WE GIVE ENOUGH --

ENOUGH RESOURCES TO OUR POLICE OFFICERS, TO OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, RIGHT?

SO THERE ARE -- THERE ARE GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALREADY. SO THE ANSWER

TO THAT QUESTION, THE AVERAGE SENTENCE BY THE BRONX DA AND THE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FIVE MONTHS FOR AN ILLEGAL FIREARM. FIVE

MONTHS. SO THERE ARE ENOUGH LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT WE CAN HOLD

PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, DON'T YOU THINK?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT DIS -- I -- I BELIEVE IN

FUNDING THE DAS AND THE POLICE. I'M NOT FROM THE "CUT A BILLION

DOLLARS OFF THE POLICE" CROWD. BUT THIS LEGISLATION IS DEALING WITH

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. THAT'S -- THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION

OR THE BULK OF THE LEGISLATION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS

HERE. AND I WILL SAY THIS: I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY COMING INTO MY

APARTMENT WITH A GUN. I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY IN A PARK WITH A GUN. I

DON'T WANT SOMEBODY IN A SCHOOL AND ALL THESE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE

LISTED HERE IF THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT. AND THIS ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS ONE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SMALL PART OF A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, AND IT WAS -- AND WE'RE

ADDRESSING IT BECAUSE A -- A LAW THAT WAS OVER 100 YEARS OLD THAT WAS IN

EFFECT THROUGH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS ALIKE

SERVED US AS WELL AS IT COULD FOR ALL THESE YEARS. BUT IT WAS CHALLENGED,

AND THE CHALLENGE WAS SUCCESSFUL GIVEN THE NEW ALIGNMENT ON THE

SUPREME COURT. AND SO AS A RESULT HERE WE ARE, TRYING TO REACT TO IT. I

BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING PROPERLY REACTS TO IT. I BELIEVE -- I'M NOT

A JUDGE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND WILL -- IT WILL BE UPHELD IF

EVER CHALLENGED. TIME WILL TELL.

MR. REILLY: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. REILLY: SO IN ESSENCE THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES SAID THAT NEW YORK HAD A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM. WE

TALK ABOUT EQUALITY IN THIS ROOM, IN THIS CHAMBER, ACROSS THE HALL AD

NAUSEAM. EQUALITY, EQUITY, BEING FAIR. SO SOMEONE THAT HAD THE MEANS

AND THE RESOURCES TO APPLY FOR A GUN PERMIT, THEY GOT IT. MAYBE THEY

DID A BANK DROP. THEY OWNED A BUSINESS, THEY HAD TO DROP $15,000 IN

CASH EACH NIGHT. THEY GOT THAT PERMIT. BUT THE ELECTRICIAN WHO

BELONGS TO THE UNION WHO JUST WANTS TO DEFEND THEIR FAMILY BECAUSE

MAYBE THEY LIVE IN A HIGH-CRIME AREA, THEY CAN'T GET THAT CARRY PERMIT.

EQUITY, EQUITY, EQUITY. WE HEAR ABOUT IT EVERY DAY. WE TALK --

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

-- ABOUT IT HERE. THAT'S ALL THIS DID. IT TOOK AWAY A

TWO-TIERED SYSTEM AND IT CREATED EQUITY. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. SMULLEN.

MR. SMULLEN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR WILL

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. SMULLEN: WELL, THANK YOU. YOU'VE REFLECTED

ON A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO ASK YOU DIRECTLY ABOUT. HAVE YOU

READ THE DECISION IN THE NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION

V. BRUEN IN WHICH JUSTICE THOMAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DID READ IT, AND I -- AND YOU CAN'T

IMAGINE HOW MUCH RESPECT I HAVE FOR JUSTICE THOMAS.

MR. SMULLEN: COULD YOU -- COULD YOU SAY THAT

(INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MUCH

RESPECT I HAVE FOR JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOST OF THOSE JUDGES. I DID READ

IT, AND I WON'T GIVE YOU MY OPINION OF SOME OF THE STUFF HE SAID

BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE ROUNDABOUT. I MEAN -- BUT IT WAS A

GOOD HISTORY LESSON.

MR. SMULLEN: WELL, CERTAINLY IT WAS A DECISIVE

OPINION FROM THE COURT, A 6 TO 3 DECISION. DO YOU EXCEED THAT NEW

YORK MUST FOLLOW THAT DECISION BECAUSE IT'S HANDED DOWN FROM THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: THE -- THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE

LAND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THE COURT INVITED US TO

ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS, AND IT DID SAY THAT THERE COULD

BE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. WE'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT SAID.

MR. SMULLEN: AND WHAT -- WHAT SENSITIVE

LOCATIONS DID THE COURT PRESCRIBE IN THAT DECISION?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE COURT DIDN'T, SO WE DID.

I BELIEVE --

MR. SMULLEN: IT GAVE SOME GUIDELINES, I BELIEVE.

MR. DINOWITZ: I'D HAVE -- YES, I'D HAVE TO JUST

DOUBLE-CHECK THE DECISION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE --

EXCUSE ME -- EVERY ONE OF THESE -- I GUESS THAT'S 20 POINTS, BUT WE USE

LETTERS -- COMPLIES WITH THE DECISION.

MR. SMULLEN: SO YOU'RE -- YOU'RE ARGUING, THEN,

THAT THE COURT WHICH HANDED DOWN THIS DECISION WHICH GAVE HISTORICAL

BENCHMARKS, THAT ALL OF THE 20 AREAS IN WHICH NEW YORK HAS NOW PUT

IN AS SENSITIVE AREAS ADHERE TO THOSE HISTORICAL GUIDELINES THAT THE --

THAT THE COURT SET UP AS A LITMUS TEST FOR THEM?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M ARGUING.

MR. SMULLEN: GOOD. I -- I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT

I WANTED TO DO IS CONTINUE WITH SOME OF THOSE ACTUAL SENSITIVE AREAS.

MY COLLEAGUE LEFT OFF A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT ONE OF THEM WAS THAT THE --

THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO -- AND THIS IS LETTER K -- HOMELESS SHELTERS,

RUNAWAY HOMELESS YOUTH SHELTERS, FAMILY SHELTERS, SHELTERS FOR ADULTS,

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS, EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND RESIDENTIAL

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IS THERE HISTORICAL

EXAMPLES OF CONCEALED CARRY NOT BEING ALLOWED IN THOSE FACILITIES AT

THIS TIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS LEGISLATION WOULD PREVENT

THAT FROM HAPPENING.

MR. SMULLEN: NO, I JUST ASKED YOU, THE COURTS --

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S A HISTORY

OF -- OF A BAN ON THAT --

MR. SMULLEN: I'LL TAKE THAT AS A NO.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

MR. SMULLEN: SO NO. LETTER L, RESIDENTIAL

SETTINGS, LICENSED, CERTIFIED, REGULATED, FUNDED OR OPERATED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NURSING HOMES. IS THERE A PROHIBITION ON

CONCEALED CARRY IN NURSING HOMES IN NEW YORK STATE AT THIS TIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

MR. SMULLEN: IS THERE -- IS THERE A PROHIBITION IN

ANY OTHER STATE THAT YOU KNOW OF?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER STATES. IF

YOU THINK I DON'T LEAVE THE BRONX THEN YOU COULD ASSUME --

MR. SMULLEN: LETTER -- LETTER M -- I -- I'VE GOT

LIMITED TIME, I APOLOGIZE, MR. SPEAKER -- BUT IN OR UPON ANY BUILDINGS

OR GROUNDS OWNED OR LEASED BY ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, COLLEGES,

UNIVERSITIES, LICENSED PRIVATE (INAUDIBLE) SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PUBLIC

SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS LICENSED UNDER ARTICLE 108 OF THE -- OF THE

LAW, CHARTER SCHOOLS, NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, SPECIAL ACT SCHOOLS, SPECIAL PRESCHOOLS, SPECIAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS, PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS FOR

THE EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ANY STATE-OPERATED OR

STATE-SUPPORTED SCHOOLS. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CURRENT LAWS THAT

PROHIBIT THE CONCEALED CARRY IN THOSE FACILITIES?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.

MR. SMULLEN: OKAY. THANK YOU. LETTER N HAS TO

DO WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. PUBLIC TRANSIT, SUBWAY CARS, TRAIN CARS,

BUSES, FERRIES, RAILROADS, OMNIBUS MARINE OR AVIATION TRANSPORTATION OR

ANY FACILITY USED FOR OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH SERVICE IN THE

TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, AIRPORTS, TRAIN STATIONS, SUBWAY AND RAIL

STATIONS OR BUS TERMINALS. IS IT PROHIBITED TODAY IN THOSE AREAS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT

HERE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, ARE MANY, MANY, MANY EXAMPLES FROM

AROUND THE COUNTRY OF SIMILAR LOCATIONS WHERE THEY DO BAN IT. SO

WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN HISTORICAL BAN OF CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS IN

ANY OF THE PLACES YOU MENTIONED REALLY IS NOT OF ANY RELEVANCE SINCE --

SINCE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION GAVE US PERMISSION, IN FACT INVITED

US, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, TO COME UP WITH AN APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE

LIST OF PLACES WHERE WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BRINGING IN GUNS UNLESS, OF

COURSE, THEY'RE EXEMPT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION.

MR. SMULLEN: BUT WE'RE TALKING NEW YORK. AND

RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY -- IT'S NOT PROHIBITED TO CONCEALED CARRY IN LETTER

N. NOW LETTER O, THESE IS [SIC] FOR LICENSE FOR PREMISE FOR CONSUMPTION

OF ALCOHOL OR THE NEW CANNABIS CONTROL BOARDS. IS IT CURRENTLY AGAINST

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THE LAW TO CONCEALED CARRY IN BARS AT THIS POINT?

MR. DINOWITZ: ANYBODY WHO WOULD ARGUE THAT A

GUN --

MR. SMULLEN: I'M NOT ASKING A HYPOTHETICAL --

MR. DINOWITZ: PLEASE -- PLEASE. I'M NOT ON TRIAL

HERE, I'M ASKING A QUESTION SO PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT. I WAS SAYING THAT

ANYBODY WHO WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN A

BAR WHO MAY ULTIMATELY IT GET DRUNK, HAVE A GUN ON THEM, WOULD --

THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLE TO ME. ALL OF -- ALL OF THESE POINTS HERE FROM

A THROUGH T ARE PLACES WHERE WE BELIEVE, AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE

INCLUDING YOUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD BELIEVE, THAT IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA

FOR PEOPLE TO BRING GUNS INTO.

MR. SMULLEN: WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EDITORIAL

THERE. BUT HOWEVER, NONE OF THOSE PLACES ARE PROHIBITED NOW UNDER

THE CURRENT LAW AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AND THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENTLY

PROHIBITED IN OTHER STATES. SO IT WOULD SEEM TO FAIL THE HISTORICAL TEST

WHICH THE COURT HAS HANDED DOWN AS THE LITMUS FOR NEW YORK STATE TO

HANDLE. LETTER P, ANY PLACE USED FOR THE PERFORMANCE, ART,

ENTERTAINMENT, GAMING, SPORTING EVENTS, THEATERS, STADIUMS, RACETRACKS,

MUSEUMS, AMUSEMENT PARKS, PERFORMANCE VENUES, CONCERTS, EXHIBITS,

CONFERENCE CENTERS, BANQUET HALLS, GAMING FACILITIES, VIDEO LOTTERY

TERMINALS LICENSED BY THE GAMING COMMISSION. CURRENTLY ALLOWED,

NOT PROHIBITED BY CURRENT LAW. ANY LOCATION BEING USED AS A POLLING

PLACE. THAT IS ONE IN WHICH THE COURT ACTUALLY DID PRESCRIBE.

COURTHOUSES AND POLLING PLACES. LETTER R, ANY PUBLIC SIDEWALK

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

RESTRICTED FROM GENERAL PUBLIC ACCESS FOR A LIMITED TIME, LIKE THE NEW

YORK CITY MARATHON, HEIGHTENED LAW ENFORCEMENT PROTECTION. ANY

GATHERING -- LETTER S -- OF INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE. YOU CAN'T HAVE A

CONCEALED WEAPON IN A PROTEST NOW. IT'S -- THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE THE

CASE IN THE SUMMER OF 2020. LETTER T, THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS

TIMES SQUARE IN WHICH MY COLLEAGUE IS GOING TO NOTE. I WENT THROUGH

THESE AREAS BECAUSE WE'RE SETTING UP WHAT'S GOING TO BE ALMOST

EVERYWHERE IN NEW YORK STATE. YOU SAID EARLIER THAT PUBLIC PARKS,

INCLUDING THE ADIRONDACK PARK, STATE-OWNED LAND WOULD BE PROHIBITED

FROM THIS. I WANT TO ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, IS -- IS THE CARRYING OF A

HUNTING LICENSE, DOES THAT ACT AS A -- AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION FOR

BEING ABLE TO CARRY CONCEALED IN A -- IN A LAWFUL MANNER?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THERE IS A HUNTING

EXCEPTION. BY THE WAY, THE POINTS IN THE COURT DECISION, THEY

MENTIONED A FEW THINGS LIKE POLLING PLACES I THINK TO ILLUSTRATE, TO

CONVEY AN IDEA BUT IT WASN'T AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. INTERESTING THAT THE

COURTS THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO HAVE GUNS IN COURTS.

MR. SMULLEN: SO, I ASKED ABOUT THE ADIRONDACK

PARK. HOW WOULD THIS BILL AFFECT THE CURRENT LAWS IN UPSTATE NEW

YORK? HOW WOULD THIS BILL AFFECT THE CURRENT LAWS IN UPSTATE NEW

YORK? THE COURT SET DOWN A REMEDY FOR A -- A -- A LAW THAT PRIMARILY

AFFECTS NEW YORK CITY. HOW IS THIS LAW, WITH THESE SENSITIVE AREAS,

HOW IS IT NOW GOING TO APPLY TO ALL OF UPSTATE NEW YORK?

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION WOULD

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

APPLY TO ALL OF NEW YORK.

MR. SMULLEN: ALL OF NEW YORK.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YES. IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL

OF NEW YORK --

MR. SMULLEN: IN THE 20 CATEGORIES.

MR. DINOWITZ: COULD I FINISH, PLEASE? THIS --

WE'RE PASS -- WE ARE THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, THE NEW YORK

STATE ASSEMBLY, WE'RE PASSING THE LAW FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IT'S

TRUE THAT NEW YORK CITY IS MORE DENSELY-POPULATED THAN THE REST OF THE

STATE, BUT THIS WOULD AFFECT THE WHOLE STATE. AND THERE IS SPECIFICALLY

IN THERE AN EXEMPTION WHERE IT SAYS PERSONS WHO LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN

HUNTING ACTIVITY, INCLUDING HUNTER EDUCATION TRAINING. SO THAT -- THAT IS

AN EXEMPTION. BUT YES, THIS IS A STATEWIDE LAW, THIS IS NOT A NEW YORK

CITY LAW.

MR. SMULLEN: SO WE'VE -- WE'VE TRIED IN THE PAST

TO SUGGEST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REMEDY THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THIS

DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT, INCLUDING ONE THAT I (INAUDIBLE)

WHICH IS THAT THE SAFE ACT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE FIVE COUNTIES OF

NEW YORK CITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BODY REJECTED THAT REPEATEDLY FOR

YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, AND IT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED SOMETHING LIKE

THIS COMING UP WHERE IN THIS CASE THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM HAS TO NOW

REMEDY WHAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY STATE LAWS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, HERE'S YOUR REMEDY. THIS IS

IT. RIGHT? THIS IS THE REMEDY.

MR. SMULLEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. SMULLEN: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. SMULLEN: SO, THIS IS VERY CLEAR IN MY MIND

WHEN JUSTICE THOMAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

WHAT HE SAID WAS THIS: "IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER FROM 2008

AND MCDONALD V. CHICAGO IN 2010 WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS PROTECT THE RIGHT OF AN ORDINARY LAW-ABIDING

CITIZEN TO POSSESS A HANDGUN IN THE HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE. IN THIS CASE

PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS AGREE THAT ORDINARY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS

HAVE A SIMILAR RIGHT TO CARRY HANDGUNS PUBLICLY FOR THEIR SELF-DEFENSE.

WE, TOO, AGREE AND NOW HOLD CONSISTENT WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

THAT THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL'S

RIGHT TO CARRY A HANDGUN FOR SELF DEFENSE OUTSIDE THE HOME. THE PARTIES

NEVERTHELESS DISPUTE WHETHER NEW YORK'S LICENSING REGIME RESPECTS

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY HANDGUNS PUBLICLY FOR SELF DEFENSE. IN

43 STATES THE GOVERNMENT ISSUES LICENSES TO CARRY BASED ON OBJECTIVE

CRITERIA, BUT IN SIX STATES, INCLUDING NEW YORK, THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER

CONDITIONS ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO CARRY ON A CITIZEN'S SHOWING OF

SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIAL NEED. BECAUSE THE STATE OF NEW YORK ISSUES

PUBLIC CARRY LICENSES ONLY WHEN AN APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES A SPECIAL

NEED FOR SELF DEFENSE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE'S LICENSING REGIME

VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION." I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THIS BILL THAT

WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED TODAY, WHICH HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN MADE

AVAILABLE TO THIS BODY OR TO THE PUBLIC AT-LARGE, WITH 20 AREAS THAT ARE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

NOW DEEMED SENSITIVE SPACES IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE THREE AREAS

THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, THAT THE REALITY IS

BEING SHOWN FOR WHAT IT IS. THIS IS THE SAFE ACT. NOT ONLY VERSION

2.0 BUT VERSION 3.0 THROWN IN. WHERE VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE IN NEW

YORK STATE, NOT JUST NEW YORK CITY, EVERYWHERE IN NEW YORK STATE

IT'S NOW GOING TO BE PROHIBITED BY NEW YORK STATE LAW TO DO THE VERY

THINGS THAT A 6 TO 3 MAJORITY OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT REQUIRED NEW YORK TO ABIDE BY. THIS IS EGREGIOUS. IT IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND IT SHOWS THE DISDAIN THAT THIS BODY HAS FOR THE

HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND BECAUSE THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION

HANDED DOWN. AND THERE ARE MANY MORE AREAS OF THIS LAW THAT WE ARE

PROPOSED TO PASS TODAY THAT CAN BE ARGUED ABOUT. REQUIREMENT OF

PEOPLE TO HAVE TO BE TRAINED TO A VERY HIGH LEVEL, HIGHER THAN EVEN LAW

ENFORCEMENT ARE TRAINED, IN ORDER TO BE ISSUED A PISTOL PERMIT. AND WE

DON'T EVEN KNOW YET WHO ARE GOING TO BE AUTHORIZED AS LICENSING

OFFICERS TO NOW LICENSE MANY MORE TENS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT HUNDREDS

OF THOUSANDS OF OUR CITIZENS WHO TODAY WHEN THIS LAW GETS PASSED

COULD BECOME VIOLATORS OF VARIOUS CRIMES, NEW CRIMES, THAT THEY'RE

UNAWARE OF THAT ARE BEING PUT FORTH BY THIS BODY IN A REACTION OF ANGER

AND DISRESPECT TOWARDS THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND. WE CANNOT AGREE

WITH THIS. WE CANNOT ABIDE BY A DECISION SUCH AS THIS. AND I THINK IT'S

INCUMBENT UPON ALL CITIZENS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS BODY TO

VOTE NO FOR THIS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REACTION TO BEING TOLD BY THE

HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND WHAT WE SHALL DO AS A STATE WHEN IT COMES TO

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS WHERE THE SECOND

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AMENDMENT SAYS THAT THESE RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I URGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO, AND I URGE

EVERYONE, ALL THE CITIZENS THAT ARE HEARING THIS MESSAGE AROUND NEW

YORK TO CALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, TO CALL THE GOVERNOR FOR THIS

GRANDSTANDING EVENT WHERE WE'VE COME TOGETHER IN AN EXTRAORDINARY

SESSION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FLOUTING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT. MR. SPEAKER, I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. DURSO.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUICK QUESTIONS, PLEASE?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO BE QUICK?

MR. DURSO: WELL, EACH ONE MIGHT BE QUICK BUT

THERE'S NUMEROUS. SO THAT'S OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: I ASSUME THE

SPONSOR YIELDS?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, YES.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. SO, I'M

JUST GOING TO JUMP AROUND A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE BILL IF THAT'S OKAY. SO

ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL IN RELATION TO BODY ARMOR. IT SAYS THE

BILL AMENDS SECTION 20 -- 270.20 OF THE PENAL LAW SAYING DEFINITION OF

BODY ARMOR TO MEAN ANY PRODUCT THAT IS PERSONAL PROTECTED BODY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

COVERING INTENDED TO PROTECT AGAINST GUNFIRE. SO NOW OBVIOUSLY IT'S

JUST AMENDING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, CORRECT, IN REGARDS TO WHAT BODY

ARMOR IS OR CONSISTS OF?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. DURSO: SO -- AND -- AND I UNDERSTAND -- IT'S

MORE OF AN OPINION, BUT JUST WONDERING WHY THAT WE DIDN'T SEE THAT IT

WAS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME -- AT THE END OF SESSION WE OBVIOUSLY HAD A

-- A GROUP OF GUN BILLS THAT WE VOTED ON, ONE BEING BODY ARMOR, AND

THERE WAS NO CARVEOUT FOR EMS WORKERS, FIRE PERSONNEL, SCHOOL SAFETY

OFFICERS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WHY WE THOUGHT THAT NOW MIGHT NOT BE A

GOOD TIME SINCE WE WERE BROUGHT BACK IN FOR EXTRAORDINARY SESSION

AND THIS IS IN THE BILL WHY WE WOULDN'T ADD THOSE IN NOW.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY IDEA

TO PUT IT IN THE BILL SO IT'S IN THIS BILL, AND IT BECAME CLEAR TO US IN THE

PAST FEW WEEKS THAT THIS MADE A LOT OF SENSE.

MR. DURSO: BUT -- BUT -- SO IT MADE A LOT OF SENSE

TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF BODY ARMOR BUT NOT WHO CAN ACTUALLY WEAR

IT, INCLUDING THOSE WORKERS THAT ARE EMS WORKERS, FIRE WORKERS, SCHOOL

SAFETY OFFICERS, SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PUT THIS IN

THERE TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE IN IT BUT JUST NOT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO

NEED TO WEAR IT, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. THIS -- THIS CONFORMS OUR

DEFINITION TO THE FEDERAL DEFINITIONS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES WITH

RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, WHO CAN WEAR BODY ARMOR BUT IT -- IT JUST SIMPLY

CONFORMS THE DEFINITION.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO AGAIN, SO WE'RE NOT

CHANGING IT ALL RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST CHANGING THE DEFINITION TO MATCH UP

WITH THE FEDERAL DEFINITION, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. AND -- AND IF YOU LOOK, THE

CHANGES REGARDING BODY ARMOR ARE VERY -- VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND

SIMPLE HERE.

MR. DURSO: OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. MR. DINOWITZ, AND

SO JUST IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE HAD SPOKE ABOUT, POLLING

PLACES WERE ONE THAT CAME UP. IT MAY BE A SILLY QUESTION, BUT POLLING

PLACES WE KNOW SOMETIMES ARE SCHOOLS, CHURCHES. DEPENDING ON THE

AREA THAT YOU LIVE IN, IT COULD BE A MORE RURAL AREA. SO THE FACT THAT YOU

CAN'T CARRY A WEAPON INSIDE OR A GUN -- EXCUSE ME, A HANDGUN WITH A

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IN A POLLING PLACE, WHAT ABOUT WHEN IT'S NOT

POLLING TIME? SO IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER, LET'S

SAY, THAT IN A RURAL AREA YOU USE AS A POLLING SITE. WHEN IT'S NOT TIME TO

VOTE, IF IT'S NOT ELECTION SEASON, DOES THAT RULE STILL APPLY?

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S A POLLING SITE WHEN IT'S A

POLLING SITE. WHEN IT -- ON ELECTION TIME, ON PRIMARY DAY. LET ME JUST

MR. DURSO: (INAUDIBLE)

MR. DINOWITZ: ANY LOCATION BEING USED AS A

POLLING SITE. SO THAT'S LIKE TWO OR THREE TIMES A YEAR.

MR. DURSO: SO JUST CURRENTLY AT THE TIME WHEN

THERE'S ACTUALLY --

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THERE'S AN ELECTION.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DURSO: VOTING (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: MORE THAN TWO OR THREE TIMES

BECAUSE WE HAVE EARLY VOTING.

MR. DURSO: CORRECT. BUT SAY IN THE MIDDLE OF --

I'M JUST USING MARCH, LET'S JUST SAY, AND IT'S A COMMUNITY CENTER, RIGHT,

THAT YOU IN YOUR LOCAL RURAL AREA USE AS A POLLING SITE. THOSE RULES

WOULD NOT COMPLY DURING THAT TIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT -- THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION

WOULD APPLY TO WHEN AN ELECTION IS TAKING PLACE AT THAT SITE.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU.

MR. DINOWITZ: IN OTHER WORDS IT'S -- LET'S JUST SAY

IT'S NOT A POLLING SITE IF THERE'S NO ELECTION GOING ON.

MR. DURSO: OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. THAT'S --

THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD IS ANY GATHERING OR, YOU KNOW,

ASSEMBLY PROTEST, RIGHT, YOU CANNOT CARRY IF YOU HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY

AT THAT TIME, CORRECT? YOU WERE -- YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE, SO --

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. DURSO: NOW JUST FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY THAT I

AM PARTIAL TO ONE PARTY. NOW, WE ALL KNOW IN THIS CHAMBER, WE DON'T

SEE PARTY, RIGHT, WE JUST SIT HERE AND VOTE. BUT IF I WAS PARTIAL TO ONE

PARTY AND LET'S SAY I HAD A MEETING OF PEOPLE IN THAT PARTY, RIGHT?

WOULD THAT CONSTITUTE "ASSEMBLY" BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? SO

SAYING IF I HAD A ROOM FULL OF REPUBLICANS, RIGHT, AND SAID I'M HAVING A

REPUBLICAN MEETING BUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME ARE CARRYING

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE. IS THAT CONSIDERED

ASSEMBLY AND ARE THEY BREAKING THE LAW AT THAT TIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S -- THE PROVISION SIMPLY SAYS

ANY GATHERING OF INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. SO IF I'M ASSEMBLING A -- IF I

CALL TODAY, I'M THE LEADER OF THE EAST LAKE AVENUE REPUBLICAN

COMMITTEE AND I HAVE 35 PEOPLE SHOW UP WHEN WE ASSEMBLE AS

REPUBLICANS AND I HAVE THREE PEOPLE IN THERE THAT HAVE A CONCEALED

CARRY LICENSE, ARE WE BREAKING THE LAW BECAUSE WE ASSEMBLE UNDER

BEING A REPUBLICAN PARTY? THAT'S JUST MY QUESTION.

MR. DINOWITZ: I HAVE A FEELING YOU MIGHT HAVE

MORE THAN THREE, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.

MR. DURSO: DEFINITELY.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF I WERE IN CHARGE I WOULD NOT

THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

MR. DURSO: BUT I JUST -- I AGAIN, AND I'M --

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT -- I

THINK THE WORD "PROTEST" OR "ASSEMBLE" YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT TOGETHER.

SO MY -- THE WAY I LOOK AT IT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OUTDOOR EVENT.

MR. DURSO: SO I -- (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S PROBABLY AN OUTDOOR EVENT.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO MORE FOR THE LEGISLATIVE

RECORD, IF I HAVE MY LOCAL REPUBLICAN MEETING AND THREE PEOPLE COME

AND WE ASSEMBLE, RIGHT, TO HAVE A -- A RALLY FOR A CANDIDATE, RIGHT,

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WOULD THEN -- IF I'M RALLYING FOR A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE AND I HAVE A

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, AM I BREAKING THE LAW? THIS IS -- I MEAN, IT'S

-- AND IT SAYS RIGHT HERE, ASSEMBLE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, HERE'S -- HERE'S MY ADVICE.

MR. DURSO: SURE.

MR. DINOWITZ: PEOPLE GOING INTO A BIG POLITICAL

MEETING, LIKE WE HAVE EVERY YEAR A COUNTY COMMITTEE MEETING. WE

COULD HAVE HUNDREDS OF DEMOCRATS THERE, BUT IT COULD JUST AS EASILY BE

100 REPUBLICANS IF IT WAS SOMEWHERE NOT WHERE I LIVE. I -- I CAN'T

IMAGINE THAT YOU'D WANT PEOPLE COMING IN THERE WITH -- WITH CONCEALED

GUNS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IF IT'S -- IF IT'S NOT A

CLEAR -- IF IT'S NOT A CLEAR CASE, THAT'S FOR A JUDGE TO DECIDE. SO IT'S A

QUESTION OF FACT, I WOULD THINK.

MR. DURSO: SO, I MEAN, YOU GAVE YOUR OPINION,

RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE)

MR. DURSO: YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT MY

QUESTION IS WE'RE DEBATING THE LAW THAT WE'RE NOW WRITING AND THAT I'M

SURE WILL BE SIGNED INTO LAW INSTANTANEOUSLY -- I MEAN, WE'RE WAITING

FOR HUNDREDS OF OTHER BILLS TO GET SIGNED. THOSE WON'T GET DONE BUT

GOOD THING WE'RE WORKING HARD.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WE'VE GOT ALL YEAR TO DO

THOSE, THOUGH.

MR. DURSO: BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, TOMORROW,

IF THIS IS SIGNED, THE NEXT DAY I GO TO HAVE A RALLY FOR OUR REPUBLICAN

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

GOVERNOR CANDIDATE OR ANY CANDIDATE THROUGHOUT LONG ISLAND, AND I'M

ASSEMBLING, RIGHT, UNDER THE STATUTE OF THAT WE'RE REPUBLICANS. AM I

BREAKING THE LAW? I KNOW YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULDN'T SUGGEST IT, BUT

SINCE WE'RE ARGUING THE LAW I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW WAS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I CAN'T SAY THAT I'M THE FINAL

AUTHORITY ON THIS, BUT I WOULD SAY IF THERE'S A POLITICAL RALLY THAT I WOULD

THINK THIS WOULD BE COVERED.

MR. DURSO: SO YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD -- WE'D BE

BREAKING THE LAW.

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE COVERED.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK.

MR. DURSO: I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE

COVERED, SO YOU'RE SAYING --

MR. DINOWITZ: AS A SENSITIVE LOCATION, YEAH.

MR. DURSO: SO THAT WOULD BE A SENSITIVE LOCATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK SO.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. THAT -- THAT'S -- SO YOU FEEL, FOR

THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD, STANDING HERE, WE HAVE A POLITICAL RALLY AND I AM

FULLY LICENSED TO CARRY AND I GO TO IT, I AM THEN BREAKING THE LAW?

I MEAN, I DIDN'T THINK WE'D SPEND THIS MUCH TIME ON

THIS QUESTION, BUT...

MR. DINOWITZ: I MEAN, IT -- IT SAYS HERE -- AND I'LL

READ IT AGAIN -- ANY (INAUDIBLE) INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE. SO A POLITICAL RALLY --

MR. DURSO: RIGHT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I BELIEVE, WOULD COME UNDER

THAT.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO JUST SO I KNOW, WHEN I GO

HOME AND WE HAVE A POLITICAL RALLY AS REPUBLICANS, RIGHT, AS YOU JUST

SAID, YOU -- YOU WOULDN'T SUGGEST HAVING --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT. IF --

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT A RALLY WITH YOUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, WHY

WOULD YOU NEED A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

MR. DURSO: NO, WELL MAYBE IT'S JUST WHEN I'M

WALKING BACK OUT OF THE PLACE. BUT EITHER WAY, WE NOW JUST,

UNDERSTANDING SO THAT WE'D BE BREAKING THE LAW BY RALLYING TOGETHER

BUT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND ACCORDING TO EVEN NEW YORK STATE'S

NEW BILL --

MR. DINOWITZ: UNLESS YOU COME -- UNLESS YOU

COME UNDER THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE BILL.

MR. DURSO: CORRECT. I'M JUST SAYING ME. BECAUSE

I DON'T FALL UNDER ANY OF THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS. SO ME, IF I WENT OUT

AND GOT A CARRY LICENSE, A FULL CONCEALED CARRY, AND I GO TO A POLITICAL

RALLY THAT MAYBE WE -- WE PICKED AN AREA THAT'S JUST AN UNSAFE AREA AND

I'M BRINGING MY CHILDREN WITH ME AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE

PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE I'M GOING TO A POLITICAL RALLY --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE

YOU COME UP WITH THESE HYPOTHETICALS.

MR. DURSO: (INAUDIBLE)

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE HAVING -- YOU'RE HAVING A

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

POLITICAL RALLY BUT MAY BE BRINGING IT INTO AN UNSAFE AREA, MAYBE YOU'RE

GOING TO BRING YOUR CHILDREN. I'M REALLY --

MR. DURSO: WELL, I -- I CAN COME UP WITH SOME

CRAZY HYPOTHETICALS BUT YOU ALSO GAVE ME YOUR OPINION AND WOULDN'T

TELL ME WHAT THE LAW STATES. SO --

MR. DINOWITZ: THERE'S NO LAW YET, THERE'S

LEGISLATION.

MR. DURSO: WELL, I -- I KNOW, BUT THIS WILL BE

SIGNED TOMORROW, SO THEREFORE THERE WILL BE A LAW. I JUST WANT TO KNOW

CLEARLY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LAW AND WE -- WE CAN'T ANSWER IT YET.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, NO, I GAVE YOU AN ANSWER --

MR. DURSO: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- AND IT COULD BE SIGNED TODAY, IT

COULD BE SIGNED TOMORROW. IT WON'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST.

BUT I'M JUST READING WHAT IT SAYS.

MR. DURSO: I JUST WANTED CLARITY.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND AS A PERSON AND I CAN READ,

AND IT -- IT SAYS WHAT I JUST SAID.

MR. DURSO: I JUST WANTED CLARITY. THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. DINOWITZ: OKAY.

MR. DURSO: JUST ANOTHER PORTION OF IT WAS WHEN

YOU'RE GOING FOR YOUR CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, THE ISSUING

ENTITY, WHETHER IT'S A COUNTY, STATE, WHETHER -- HOWEVER IT'S GOING TO GO,

YOU WILL THEN HAVE TO GIVE THEM THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE -- EXCUSE

ME, LET ME JUST GET THE LANGUAGE HERE -- THEY CHECK INTO A LIST OF FOREIGN

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OR CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE PAST THREE

YEARS TO CONFIRM INFORMATION REGARDING APPLICANT'S CHARACTER AND

CONDUCT. NOW, SO LET'S JUST SAY IT'S OUR LOCAL POLICE CHIEF OR IT'S THE

COUNTY CLERK OR HOWEVER -- I KNOW COUNTIES AND CITIES AND TOWNS WORK

DIFFERENTLY THAT ISSUE IT. THEY LOOK AT MY SOCIAL MEDIA. WHO DECIDES

UPON WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF MY SOCIAL MEDIA IS GOOD ENOUGH TO

RECEIVE THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THAT VERY EARLY IN THE BILL

-- LET ME JUST TURN TO IT -- IT DEFINES GOOD MORAL CHARACTER ON PAGE 2. IS

THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?

MR. DURSO: YES. SO -- AND IF YOU HAVE THAT

ANSWER, SIR, I APOLOGIZE. COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

MEANS IN THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHICH FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS

ARTICLE SHALL MEAN HAVING THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, TEMPERAMENT --

TEMPERAMENT AND JUDGMENT -- THEY SPELLED JUDGMENT WRONG --

NECESSARY TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH A WEAPON AND TO USE IT ONLY IN A

MANNER THAT DOES NOT ENDANGER ONESELF OR OTHERS. BUT IN ADDITION, THE

LICENSING OFFICIAL SHOULD HAVE TO GO BY THESE GUIDELINES TO MAKE A

DECISION.

MR. DURSO: SO THE LICENSING OFFICIAL HAS SOME SORT

OF DISCRETION, CORRECT? IN REGARDS TO MY SOCIAL MEDIA.

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, BUT WITHIN VERY NARROW

PARAMETERS. AND ONCE THE LICENSING OFFICIAL MAKES A DECISION, IF THE

PERSON DOESN'T LIKE THAT DECISION THERE'S AN APPEALS PROCESS AND IT'S TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S -- BASICALLY THAT THERE'S DUE PROCESS SO THAT

NOBODY IS -- IS JUDGED UNFAIRLY.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND THERE'S

LANGUAGE HERE BUT IT'S -- IT IS A LITTLE BROAD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE

LICENSING PERSON HAS TO LOOK AT THESE AND SEE IF YOU'RE IN GOOD MORAL

CONDUCT IN STANDING IN -- IN THE SCOPE OF THOSE COUPLE OF WORDS,

CORRECT? SO IT'S REALLY UP TO ONE INDIVIDUAL WHETHER OR NOT THEY FEEL

THAT YOUR CONDUCT IS MORAL, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE -- THE LICENSING OFFICIAL HAS TO

LOOK AT THE -- THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS HERE WHICH I'LL -- I'LL REVIEW WITH

YOU VERY QUICKLY. THERE'S AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW, AND AT THE IN-PERSON

INTERVIEW THE -- WITH THE LICENSING OFFICIAL, AS -- AS YOU PROBABLY READ,

THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT NAMES OF -- OF FAMILY

MEMBERS, WHETHER THERE'S A MINOR CHILD AT HOME, FOR CHARACTER

REFERENCES.

MR. DURSO: I'M JUST TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE

SOCIAL MEDIA PORTION.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IT SAYS HERE YOU HAVE TO

PROVIDE A LIST OF FORMER AND CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS OF THE

APPLICANT FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE SEEN FROM

SOME OF THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THEY LOOKED BACK

AT SOME OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE WERE SIGNS THAT

SOMETHING BAD COULD HAVE HAPPENED. SO ALL THIS INFORMATION HAS TO BE

AVAILABLE TO THE LICENSING OFFICIAL. THAT OFFICIAL ULTIMATELY MAKES A

DECISION, THAT DECISION CAN BE APPEALED. THERE'S AN APPEALS PROCESS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND IT'S -- IT'S MEANT TO BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE TO EVERYBODY.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND -- AND JUST ONE

LAST QUESTION WITH THE MINUTE THAT I HAVE LEFT, SIR. WHEN IT COMES TO

PRIVATE BUSINESSES, RIGHT, (INAUDIBLE) SO IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SIGN UP,

CORRECT, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING

PEOPLE TO COME IN WITH A FIREARM, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO

PUT SIGNAGE OR SOME OTHER KIND OF AUTHORIZATION.

MR. DURSO: SO -- SO IF YOU ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO

COME IN WITH A FIREARM YOU HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY HAVE A SIGN UP THAT

SAYS, PEOPLE CARRYING FIREARMS ARE WELCOME HERE, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. DURSO: IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY PORTION OF

THE LEGISLATION SAYING WHERE THE SIGN HAS TO BE, HOW BIG IT HAS TO BE,

HOW VIEWABLE IT HAS TO BE? DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES?

I'M MEAN, WE DO THOSE BILLS ALL THE TIME HERE. I'M JUST ASKING.

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE) I COULD -- I COULD

DOUBLE CHECK THE BILL, (INAUDIBLE) PAGE, I'D HAVE TO LOOK, BUT I DON'T

BELIEVE THAT KIND OF SPECIFICS IS IN THERE.

MR. DURSO: THERE -- THERE'S NOT. SO JUST TO SAY, I

COULD PUT UP A SIGN THAT I COULD READ BUT YOU CAN'T, THEN WE'RE OKAY,

CORRECT, EVEN IF IT'S WRITTEN IN REALLY SMALL LETTERING?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU COULD ALSO GIVE VERBAL

AUTHORIZATION.

MR. DURSO: SO EVERY TIME SOMEONE WALKS IN YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

COULD SAY, IF YOU HAVE A GUN, YOU'RE ALLOWED.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF YOU SAY IT TO EVERYBODY EQUALLY,

YEAH.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, IF --

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

I RAN OUT OF TIME. I LOVE OUR CONVERSATIONS.

MR. DINOWITZ: MAYBE YOU CAN PASS THE QUESTION

ON TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. DURSO, YOUR

TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. LEMONDES.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MR.

LEMONDES, FOR THE RECORD.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: LEMONDES.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. I -- I JUST WANT TO

MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, WE ARE OPERATING HERE TODAY UNDER EMERGENCY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AUTHORITY, EXECUTIVE ORDER 11.7, EXPIRING JULY 14TH, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY?

MR. LEMONDES: SO THIS IS -- WE'RE OPERATING

UNDER EMERGENCY AUTHORITY HERE, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: OPERATING UNDER EMERGENCY

AUTHORITY FOR WHAT?

MR. LEMONDES: THE -- WHAT BROUGHT US HERE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT BROUGHT US HERE WAS A

SUPREME COURT DECISION FROM LAST WEEK. THE -- THE GOVERNOR CALLED

FOR A SPECIAL SESSION OR AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THIS BODY OF THE

LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

MR. LEMONDES: CORRECT. AND THE -- THE

EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO DO THAT WAS EXECUTIVE ORDER 11.7, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I -- I DON'T KNOW.

MR. LEMONDES: THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. SO -- SO

(INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: THE GOVERNOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

CALL A SPECIAL SESSION.

MR. LEMONDES: SO IS THIS AN EMERGENCY?

MR. DINOWITZ: IS THIS AN EMERGENCY? SOME

PEOPLE MIGHT THINK IT'S AN EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR AT ANY TIME --

THIS IS NOT -- MAYBE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE COVID EMERGENCY

ORDER? IF YOU ARE, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THE GOVERNOR AT ANY TIME

HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CALL AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO

CALL US BACK WITH A -- WITH A PARTICULAR AGENDA. IN THIS CASE IT WAS THIS

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BILL BUT NOW IT'S TWO BILLS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE THE

GOVERNOR CALLED US BACK.

MR. LEMONDES: SO EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE SUPREME

COURT RULING WE ARE HERE UNDER, I GUESS, EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD USE THE

WORD "EMERGENCY." THAT'S NOT -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE WORD

"EMERGENCY" ANYWHERE.

MR. LEMONDES: I -- I -- I BEG TO DIFFER.

MR. DINOWITZ: I COULD -- I COULD LOOK -- I COULD

LOOK AT THE PROCLAMATION ON MY PHONE IF -- YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO

GO SEARCHING FOR IT. (INAUDIBLE) EMERGENCY WAS IN IT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY

NOT UNDER AN EMERGENCY ORDER. WE'VE HAD SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE

LEGISLATURE MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES.

MR. LEMONDES: AND IT'S IN -- IN RESPONSE TO A

SUPREME COURT RULING, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S AS A RESULT OF A SUPREME COURT

RULING. WE HAVE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED,

COMPLY WITH THE RULING ITSELF. YES, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THAT RULING.

MR. LEMONDES: AND WOULD YOU THINK THAT IS AN

ABUSE OF POWER? WOULD THE AVERAGE NEW YORKER THINK THAT MAY BE AN

ABUSE OF POWER?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD THINK THE AVERAGE NEW

YORKER WOULD THINK THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THEY WOULD THINK WE'RE DOING

OUR JOB IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IN ORDER TO ENACT LAWS THAT

WOULD MAKE PEOPLE SAFER. SO I GUESS I INTERPRET IT VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

YOU IN TERMS OF OVERDOING IT.

MR. LEMONDES: PEOPLE FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE

STATE MIGHT INTERPRET THIS TO BE AN INFRINGEMENT ON SOMETHING THAT WAS

AFFIRMED BY THIS HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT -- IT'S REALLY

INTERESTING. I'VE NEVER HEARD UNTIL MAYBE LAST WEEK ANYBODY FROM YOUR

SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER SAY HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO, YOU KNOW, TO COMPLY

WITH THE SUPREME -- THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULINGS, BUT I

GUESS, YOU KNOW, THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG TEMPORARILY. GIVE ME ONE

SECOND, PLEASE. SO, I JUST WANT TO READ THIS QUICKLY BECAUSE IT WAS IN

RESPONSE TO YOUR -- YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION. THE -- THE PROCLAMATION

THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNOR SAID, PURSUANT TO THE POWER VESTED IN

ME BY ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION, I HEREBY CONVENE THE

SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN EXTRAORDINARY

SESSION AT THE CAPITOL ON, YOU KNOW, DAY, TIME AND PLACE, CONSIDERING

LEGISLATION I WILL SUBMIT WITH RESPECT TO ADDRESSING NECESSARY STATUTORY

CHANGES REGARDING FIREARM SAFETY IN A WAY THAT ENSURES PROTECTION OF

THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH AFTER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

DECISION IN NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. V. BRUEN.

MR. LEMONDES: PERFECT. THANK YOU FOR READING

THAT. DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE NEW YORKER WOULD THINK THAT WHAT'S

BEING PROPOSED HERE IS IN THEIR BENEFIT --

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. LEMONDES: -- OR NOT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THE AVERAGE NEW YORKER

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF NEW YORKERS, IN FACT, WOULD BELIEVE THAT WHAT

WE'RE DOING IS DEFINITELY IN THEIR BENEFIT.

MR. LEMONDES: AGAIN, WE DIFFER CONSIDERABLY ON

THIS. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT THE DISARMAMENT OF LAW-

ABIDING CITIZENS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. LEMONDES: DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS AN

ATTEMPT AT MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO EXERCISE

THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. AND NOTHING IN HERE TAKES

GUNS AWAY FROM PEOPLE THAT I'VE READ. IT JUST SIMPLY LIMITS CERTAIN

PLACES WHERE THEY CAN BRING IT OR NOT BRING IT. (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. LEMONDES: -- (INAUDIBLE). IT'S NEARLY

IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AS SOME MIGHT INTERPRET IT.

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, SAY IT AGAIN? SAY THE

LAST THING AGAIN. I MISSED A PART.

MR. LEMONDES: MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY

WITH THE LAW AS SOME MIGHT INTERPRET IT.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T BELIEVE THIS --

MR. LEMONDES: SHOULD THIS BECOME LAW.

HOPEFULLY IT WON'T. HOPEFULLY YOU'LL VOTE AGAINST IT WITH ME.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN

FAVOR OF IT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE HERE. BUT I -- I -- I THINK

YOU'RE INCORRECT.

MR. LEMONDES: SO ARE PEOPLE MOVING TO OR FROM

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

NEW YORK, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IN YOUR OPINION?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IT DEPENDS OVER WHAT PERIOD

OF TIME YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. OVER THE PAST -- IN THE CENSUS WHICH

CAME OUT LAST YEAR WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN POPULATION. OUR

POPULATION WENT UP SIGNIFICANTLY, WHICH IS WHY WE HIT THE 20 MILLION

MARK. SINCE THE PANDEMIC I BELIEVE WE HAVE LOST PEOPLE. MANY

PEOPLE LEFT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE IN A LESS CROWDED PLACE,

BASICALLY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. AND I'M (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. LEMONDES: -- (INAUDIBLE) INTERESTING ARTICLE

IN THE NEW YORK POST --

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M IN THE MIDDLE --

MR. LEMONDES: -- 300,000 (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE,

PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ONE PERSON SPEAK

AT A TIME.

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF MY SENTENCE.

AND I BELIEVE A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT LEFT TEMPORARILY. SOME

PEOPLE WILL NEVER COME BACK, SOME PEOPLE WILL COME BACK. BUT I

THINK THE TREND OVER RECENT YEARS, THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE IN

POPULATION IN NEW YORK AND CERTAINLY IN NEW YORK CITY THAT'S BEEN

THE CASE BUT STATEWIDE IT'S BEEN THE CASE. AND THIS -- WE KNOW THE

POPULATION WENT UP.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. THERE -- LET ME

QUALIFY WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION. THE INFORMATION I'M WORKING

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OFF OF IS THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LEFT NEW YORK STATE LAST YEAR,

319,000, 1.2 MILLION OVER THE LAST DECADE. DO YOU THINK THAT LAWS LIKE

THIS, SHOULD IT BECOME LAW -- HOPEFULLY IT WON'T, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL VOTE

AGAINST IT WITH ME -- DO YOU THINK LAWS LIKE THIS INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO

STAY HERE OR TO LEAVE? WHEN IT -- WHEN THEIR OWN STATE TRIES TO -- TRIES

TO -- TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING THE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT THAT IT'S RELEVANT IN THE LEAST,

BUT THE ANSWER IS I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO COME

HERE. AND BY THE WAY, IF WE LOST 319,000 PEOPLE OVER THE PAST TEN

YEARS WE GAINED MANY MORE, WHICH IS WHY THE POPULATION WENT UP

BECAUSE POPULATION IS NEW PEOPLE COMING IN, NEW PEOPLE BEING BORN

MINUS PEOPLE WHO DIED, MINUS PEOPLE WHO LEAVE AND WE HAD A

SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN POPULATION. SO APPARENTLY PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN

NEW YORK. NOW, THE PANDEMIC OF COURSE HAS DISTORTED ALL THESE TRENDS

FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DIED. THAT'S ONE

REASON WHY THE POPULATION WENT DOWN IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. WE'VE

HAD, WHAT, 70,000 DEATHS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD IGNORE THAT. THEY

DIDN'T LEAVE WILLINGLY.

MR. LEMONDES: OKAY. I DON'T WANT GO INTO THE --

I WASN'T GOING TO THE GOVERNOR'S MANDATE TO SEND PEOPLE TO NURSING

HOMES TO DIE, THAT'S NOT WHERE I WAS GOING. BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT HE

DID THAT.

LET ME CONTINUE. SAFE STORAGE IN THIS BILL. DO YOU

THINK THAT THE SAFE STORAGE ASPECTS OF THIS BILL ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO

FIREARM SAFETY?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. I THINK I WOULD CALL IT EVEN

SAFER STORAGE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE THAT WE MADE IN THE LAW WITHIN

THIS BILL.

MR. LEMONDES: AND HOW WILL ENFORCEMENT OF

THIS TAKE PLACE?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE SAME WAY IT WOULD HAVE

TAKEN PLACE WITHOUT THIS BILL, MEANING OTHER CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

WHATEVER THE -- WHATEVER ENFORCEMENT THERE IS, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE

ANY DIFFERENT. WHAT WE DO, THE FAILURE TO SAFELY STORE A SHOTGUN, RIFLE

OR FIREARM IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR WITH A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF

UP TO 364 DAYS. IN OTHER WORDS, JUST UNDER ONE YEAR. AND IT MAY

CHANGE, I BELIEVE WE MAKE -- IS THAT WE APPLY THOSE REQUIREMENTS NOT

ONLY TO HOMES THAT HAVE PEOPLE 16 AND UNDER, BUT RATHER 18 AND UNDER.

MR. LEMONDES: THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. TO

MY COLLEAGUE MR. REILLY'S POINT, THE AVERAGE CRIMINAL CAUGHT WITH AN

ILLEGAL WEAPON IS IMPRISONED FOR FIVE MONTHS, YET IF I WAS TO

ACCIDENTALLY LEAVE MY GUN CABINET UNLOCKED YOU WOULD PUT ME IN JAIL

FOR A YEAR, OR 364 DAYS I THINK YOU JUST SAID.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I -- I WOULD -- EXCUSE ME, I

SAID UP TO A YEAR AND WHAT YOU SAID IS ALSO IRRELEVANT, BUT OKAY.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. DUE TO THE

DISINGENUOUS NATURE AND ASSAULT ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE AVERAGE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

CITIZEN, THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE GREATER EXODUS OF OUR CITIZENS FROM OUR

STATE, THE INABILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE RIGHT

GROUPS OF PEOPLE HERE, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM'S INABILITY TO FIX

RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CRIMES FOR THE OFFENDING

CRIMINALS AND THE DISPROPORTIONATE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RURAL MINORITY

AND URBAN POPULATIONS THAT THE PASSAGE OF THIS, SHOULD IT PASS, WILL

CREATE, I URGE EVERYBODY TO VOTE NO.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. GALLAHAN.

MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU, SIR. A FEW QUESTIONS.

FIRST, WHOM, IF ANY, STAKEHOLDERS WERE CONSULTED IN THIS LEGISLATION,

SUCH AS THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE, THE SHERIFFS' -- SHERIFFS'

ASSOCIATION, ANY JUDGES, ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OR MAYBE THE NRA THAT

HELPED US PUT TOGETHER OUR TRAINING COURSE FOR HUNTER SAFETY THAT MANY

OTHER STATES ARE EMULATING NOW?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE VARIOUS STATE LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENTS -- AGENCIES WERE CONSULTED.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. GALLAHAN: I'M SORRY?

MR. DINOWITZ: VARIOUS STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES WERE CONSULTED, AND I BELIEVE, I THINK, THAT SOME OF THE DA'S

OFFICES AS WELL.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T HAVE THE LIST, SORRY.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO, ANOTHER QUESTION. ARE

CURRENT PISTOL PERMIT HOLDERS, SUCH AS MYSELF FOR 42 YEARS, ARE WE

GRANDFATHERED IN TO THIS PROGRAM OR ARE THERE STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO

TAKE? FOR INSTANCE, I JUST COMPLETED MY REGISTRATION FOR MY FIVE-YEAR

REGISTRATION RECENTLY. SO (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK -- I THINK YOU'RE

GRANDFATHERED IN TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU -- BUT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO

TAKE THE -- I THINK IT'S EVERY THREE YEARS, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT

NEXT TIME. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR PERMIT.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO, I -- I HAVE TO TAKE THE

15-HOUR COURSE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, NOT RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE --

MR. GALLAHAN: BUT EVENTUALLY. I'M GOING TO

HAVE TO -- AFTER 42 YEARS OF SAFE GUN HANDLING, TEACHING KIDS HOW TO --

HOW TO HANDLE GUNS, COACHING, CERTIFIED THROUGH THE STATE, CERTIFIED

THROUGH NATIONAL PROGRAMS, I'M STILL GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THAT 15-HOUR

COURSE.

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE --

I MEAN, I'M NOT -- I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CUTE HERE, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

HAVE -- I HAVE TO TAKE 12 HOURS OF LEGAL TRAINING EVERY YEAR. A LOT OF

PEOPLE TAKE VARIOUS COURSES IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT THEY NEED TO

KEEP UP WITH. SO THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A PENALTY FOR ANYBODY, SO IF --

IF -- YOU WOULD BE IN NOW ONCE THIS IS SIGNED BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE

DONE WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, BUT YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, DO IT

PERIODICALLY EVERY THREE YEARS JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW

THE BACKGROUND CHECK FOR AMMUNITION PURCHASES IS GOING TO TAKE

PLACE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE MR. ZEBROWSKI IS GOING

TO ADDRESS THAT.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE

QUESTION?

MR. GALLAHAN: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE

PROCESS FOR THE BACKGROUND CHECK ON AMMUNITION PURCHASES?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: SURE. YOU WANT ME TO, LIKE, GO

THROUGH A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION? SOMEBODY GOES INTO A -- BUY

AMMUNITION, THE -- THE SELLER OF -- OF THAT AMMUNITION WOULD HAVE TO

CHECK THAT PERSON'S BACKGROUND, SIMILAR TO PURCHASING A GUN RIGHT NOW,

AND THEY WOULD ALSO ENTER THAT INFORMATION INTO A NEW DATABASE THAT

WOULD BE KEPT.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO THAT'S THE SAME AS NICS

CHECK THAT WAS USED CURRENTLY FOR PURCHASING A FIREARM?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: WELL, WE'RE CHANGING THAT

PROCESS WITHIN THIS LEGISLATION. SO IT WILL BE A COMBINATION OF THAT

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

DATABASE AND ADDITIONAL, NOW, STATE DATABASES.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO WHAT IF THERE IS A DELAY IN THAT

BACKGROUND CHECK, AS HAPPENS CURRENTLY NOW QUITE OFTEN WITH

BACKGROUND CHECKS TO BUY A FIREARM? WHAT -- WHAT'S THE SCENARIO

THEN?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: WELL, MANY OF THESE BACKGROUND

CHECKS HAPPEN RATHER QUICKLY, BUT THE -- THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE 30

DAYS.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO YOU HAVE TO WAIT 30 DAYS TO

GET YOUR AMMUNITION?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: I DON'T ENVISION MANY SITUATIONS

BEING A 30-DAY WAIT, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE

THERE ARE CERTAIN FLAGS OR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS NEED TO BE MADE FOR

SOME REASON, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE PERSON PURCHASING. AND

SO THEY WOULD HAVE 30 DAYS AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER

SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, AN ARBITRARY COUPLE-DAY AMOUNT

AND WHERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE FOLKS HAVE

SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS AND, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK TRAGEDIES HAVE

RESULTED BECAUSE OF IT.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO, MY WIFE AND I ARE AVID TRAP

SHOOTERS AND WE TRAVEL ALL AROUND THE STATE AND -- AND OTHER STATES

SHOOTING TRAP. MOST ALL THE NATIONAL SHOOTS AND THE STATE SHOOTS HAVE

WHAT THEY CALL A SHELL HOUSE WHERE A VENDOR COMES, IN A LOCAL

DISTRIBUTOR, WITH AN 18-WHEELER FULL OF SHOTGUN SHELLS AND THEY SELL

THEM OUT OF THE TRAP HOUSE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CARRY SHELLS WITH

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

YOU ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND THEY OFFER A DISCOUNTED RATE BECAUSE

THEY'RE SELLING SO MANY AT ONE TIME. SO IF YOU GET TO THAT SHOOT, YOU

HAVE NO SHELLS AND YOU ARE REJECTED BY THE NICS AFTER YOU SPENT ALL

THAT MONEY ON MOTELS, REGISTRATION. HAVE -- HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY OF THAT

INTO ACCOUNT?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: WELL, IF YOU WERE REJECTED

BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE --

MR. GALLAHAN: NO, NO, NO. JUST BRIEF, I KNOW --

I'VE BEEN -- I'VE BOUGHT MANY FIREARMS IN MY DAY AND I HAVE HAD TO

WAIT. IT USED TO BE THREE DAYS AND THEY GAVE YOU YOUR -- YOUR FIREARM.

NOW IT'S 30 DAYS. AND I HAD TO WAIT TWICE ON THE THREE DAYS. I WAS -- I

WAS CLEAN AS CLEAN COULD BE.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: SO, WE'RE NOT CHANGING -- THAT --

THAT 30 DAYS ISN'T -- ISN'T A NEW REQUIREMENT IN THIS BILL. THAT'S ALREADY

THE LAW.

MR. GALLAHAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I HAVE

BEEN THROUGH IT MANY TIMES. AND LIKE I JUST STATED, I HAVE HAD SEVERAL

OCCASIONS, THREE OCCASIONS IN MY LIFETIME, WHERE THE NICS CHECK, IT

DIDN'T COME BACK. IT DIDN'T COME BACK POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. IT DIDN'T

COME BACK. THE OLD -- THE OLD BILL WAS THREE DAYS, YOU GOT YOUR

FIREARM. NOW IT'S 30 DAYS TO GET YOUR FIREARM. YOU CAN'T GO THREE OR

30 DAYS TO GET YOUR AMMUNITION IF YOU'RE OUT AT -- AT A STATE SHOOT

SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE NORTHEAST OR IN THE SOUTH. YOU CAN'T -- YOU

CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T WAIT. SO WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT DOES

SOMEONE DO THAT GOES TO THAT SHOOT, SPENDS ALL THAT MONEY, TOURISM

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

DOLLARS, RAH, RAH, RAH, NEW YORK, LET'S SPEND, LET'S GET THEM HERE, LET'S

GET IN THE RESTAURANTS, LET'S GET THEM IN THE GAS STATIONS BUT DON'T SELL

THEM THEIR SHELLS BECAUSE THE NICS CHECK DIDN'T GO THROUGH AND THEY

CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT -- IN THAT COMPETITION THAT THEY DROVE FROM

BALLSTON SPA TO -- TO YOU MY COLLEAGUE OUT OF JAMESTOWN'S GUN CLUB TO

PARTICIPATE IN?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: SO ONCE AGAIN, THE TIME FRAME

ISN'T CHANGING IN THIS LEGISLATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE AN ISSUE

WITH THE 30 DAYS. HOPEFULLY IT WILL RUN AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. I

THINK THE DATA THAT WE HAVE SHOWS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF BACKGROUND

CHECKS COME BACK PRETTY QUICKLY. BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S A BALANCE HERE,

RIGHT? THERE'S A BALANCE BETWEEN STOPPING PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE

WEAPONS OR SHOULDN'T HAVE AMMUNITION, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON

THERE'S SOME RED FLAGS THAT ARE COMING UP AND THERE -- ADDITIONAL TIME

NEEDS TO HAPPEN, AND WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT WITH HAVING AN

EFFICIENT PROCESS FOR FOLKS WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE RIGHTFULLY ABLE TO BUY

AMMUNITION AND -- AND WEAPONS FROM BUYING THAT AMMUNITION. SO,

BUT ONCE AGAIN, THIS LEGISLATION ACTUALLY DOESN'T CHANGE THAT 30 DAYS SO

THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A MORE PRUDENT DEBATE FOR THE LAST TIME WHEN

WE INCREASED IT TO 30 DAYS.

MR. GALLAHAN: WELL, IT DIDN'T PERTAIN TO

AMMUNITION AT THE TIME, SO IT COULD BE DEBATED.

THE TRAINING CLASS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TRAINING

CLASSES. WHO WILL BE PERFORMING THESE TRAINING CLASSES AND WHERE WILL

THEY BE DONE AND WHO WILL BE CONSTRUCTING THE CRITERIA FOR THESE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TRAINING CLASSES?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, RIGHT NOW A -- A NUMBER OF

DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS PERFORM TRAINING CLASSES. I THINK THE NRA

PERFORMS TRAINING CLASSES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

MR. GALLAHAN: ABSOLUTELY. THEY DO IT AT OUR

GUN CLUB ALL THE TIME.

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK 4-H -- I THINK A NUMBER OF

ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY DO THAT AND THAT'S WHO CAN CONTINUE TO DO IT, BUT

IN ADDITION I THINK -- I THINK THAT DCJS WILL BECOME AN AUTHORIZER FOR

THE TRAINING CLASSES. SO THAT'S DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE RADICALLY.

MR. GALLAHAN: WELL -- WELL, IT'S NOT A CRITERIA

NOW IF NOBODY'S DOING IT.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, BUT WHAT --

MR. GALLAHAN: (INAUDIBLE)

MR. DINOWITZ: -- I'M SAYING IS THERE ARE CURRENTLY

TRAINING CLASSES AND MANY OF THOSE GROUPS THAT DO THE TRAINING WILL BE

ABLE TO DO THE TRAINING.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A

PROFICIENCY TEST, A TWO-HOUR PROFICIENCY TEST AT THE END OF THE TRAINING.

WHAT'S THE CRITERIA FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY THAT YOU HAVE TO

OBTAIN IN ORDER TO BE -- IN ORDER TO GET YOUR CERTIFICATE CERTIFIED?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THERE WOULD BE REGS SET UP

AND PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GET A MINIMUM SCORE WHEN THEY --

APPLICANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

ENDORSED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY BY AN AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR,

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

STATING THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLETED THE COURSE AND SCORED A MINIMUM

OF 80 PERCENT ON THE TEST. THAT'S ONLY A B-, BY THE WAY.

MR. GALLAHAN: WELL, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE

TEST, I'M WORRIED ABOUT PROFICIENCY AT THE RANGE. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT

THE PROFICIENCY RATING AT THE RANGE IS GOING TO BE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR

CERTIFICATE.

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES AND THE STATE POLICE.

MR. GALLAHAN: WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE POLICE

PROFICIENCY RATING IN ORDER TO QUALIFY?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT SURE. I KNOW WHAT IT WILL

BE IS 80 PERCENT. I DON'T KNOW, YOU PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN ME.

MR. GALLAHAN: WILL THERE BE A FEE FOR THIS

TRAINING COURSE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE.

MR. GALLAHAN: AND -- AND HOW WILL THAT BE

DETERMINED?

MR. DINOWITZ: I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE DETERMINED,

AGAIN, BY THE STATE.

MR. GALLAHAN: AND DO YOU SEE THIS AS BEING A

DETRIMENT TO OUR POOR AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES TO HAVE TO PAY THIS --

THIS FEE TO BE LICENSED AND REGISTERED IN ORDER TO CARRY A HANDGUN AND

EXERCISE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, FIRST, I'M VERY GLAD THAT

YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT POOR MINORITY COMMUNITIES. THIS CREATES A

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PATHWAY TO LICENSURE. LICENSES OF ALL KINDS USUALLY INVOLVE A FEE,

WHETHER YOU'RE GETTING A DRIVER'S LICENSE, A NOTARY LICENSE, YOU NAME IT,

THERE ARE FEES INVOLVED. THIS IS NOT DIFFERENT. I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT

SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE PAY A FEE FOR VARIOUS THINGS BUT PEOPLE

WHO OWN GUNS DON'T PAY A FEE. IT'S A FEE. AND BY THE WAY, THE FEES

THAT CURRENTLY EXIST WILL BE THE SAME FEES. IT'S NOT -- THIS LEGISLATION

DOES NOT RAISE ANY FEES.

MR. GALLAHAN: AND THERE'S -- THERE'S A NEW

PROGRAM, AN ADDITIONAL FEE. RIGHT NOW IT'S -- IT'S BORDERLINE FOR THESE

FOLKS RIGHT NOW TO OBTAIN A PISTOL PERMIT --

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW --

MR. GALLAHAN: -- FOR THE FEES THEY HAVE TO PAY.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE FEE MAY BE AND TO BRING THAT TO YOUR

ATTENTION THAT MAYBE -- MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE A PROGRAM OUT THERE TO

HELP THOSE FOLKS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I APPRECIATE --

MR. GALLAHAN: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: WE ALL -- MANY OF US --

MR. GALLAHAN: I'M JUST TRYING (INAUDIBLE) SHORT

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. GALLAHAN: IS THERE CURRENTLY MONEY IN THE

BUDGET -- IN OUR BUDGET TO -- TO PUT THIS NEW DIVISION IN THE NEW YORK

STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO OVERSEE THIS PROGRAM?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

COME UP WITH MONEY. NOW, THIS LEGISLATION WON'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE

FIRST OF SEPTEMBER. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SOME MONEY IN THE BUDGET

WHERE THEY CAN APPLY TO THIS, BUT IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL MONEY WE HAVE

ANOTHER BUDGET TO DO NEXT YEAR.

MR. GALLAHAN: SO IF THIS GOES --

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. GALLAHAN: -- INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER,

WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? WHAT LINE ITEM WOULD THAT MONEY

-- WHAT LINE ITEM WOULD THE MONEY COME FROM THE -- IF YOU KICKED THIS

OFF IN SEPTEMBER?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T KNOW. THE FEES WOULD

HELP FINANCE SOME OF THIS AS WELL.

MR. GALLAHAN: WELL, DON'T YOU HAVE TO SET UP

THE DIVISION BEFORE YOU CAN -- YOU CAN START THIS PROGRAM? DOESN'T

THERE HAVE TO BE A DIVISION STARTED SO THAT WE CAN MONITOR, WE CAN --

WE CAN -- WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE PROPERLY APPLYING AND

PERMITTING? AND -- AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN START THIS WITHOUT --

WITHOUT THE DIVISION IN THE STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

MR. DINOWITZ: THE STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS

PERFECTLY ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS, I THINK.

MR. GALLAHAN: THERE'S ENOUGH -- THERE'S ENOUGH

-- WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BODIES IN THE STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO

PATROL OUR STREETS AND KEEP THEM SAFE CURRENTLY. HOW ARE WE GOING TO

-- HOW ARE WE GOING TO ADD THIS BURDEN?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IT'S IRONIC BECAUSE --

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. GALLAHAN: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: -- THE STATE POLICE CURRENTLY PATROL

THE STREETS. BUT BOTH THE STATE POLICE AND DCJS, THEY WOULD BE

ADDRESSING THIS AND I AM ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE

WITHIN THE RESOURCES THAT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN

THE FACT THAT THERE ARE FEES THAT THEY WILL BE COLLECTING.

MR. GALLAHAN: I -- I -- I CERTAINLY DISAGREE WITH

THAT. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH -- THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PERSONNEL NOW TO TAKE

CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF IN THIS STATE.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND -- AND BY THE WAY, IT'S MY

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS GUARANTEED THAT THERE WILL BE

SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR THIS.

MR. GALLAHAN: I'M JUST -- I'M JUST CURIOUS WHERE

IT'S COMING FROM. BUT I GUESS WITH A $220 BILLION BUDGET WE CAN

PROBABLY FIND MONEY FOR THAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: I EXPECT.

MR. GALLAHAN: I WOULD -- I WOULD HOPE THAT WE

WOULD FIND MONEY FOR -- A LITTLE MORE MONEY FOR MENTAL HEALTH BUT

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT, I GUESS, THAN MENTAL HEALTH.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. GALLAHAN: YOU KNOW, WE CAME DOWN HERE

TO THIS SESSION AND EXPECTED TO BE IN THIS ROOM YESTERDAY AT NOON. WE

DIDN'T GET IN THIS ROOM FOR OVER 24 HOURS TO TALK ABOUT AND DEBATE THIS

BILL. AND IT'S -- IT'S A CLEAR CASE, TO ME, OF FAILED LEADERSHIP. THERE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WERE DAYS THAT WENT BY. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BILL IN PLACE BEFORE

WE WERE CALLED DOWN HERE TO DEBATE IT AND TALK ABOUT IT AND TALK ABOUT

ITS MERITS AND ITS DEMERITS. AND IT'S -- IT'S TOTALLY REPREHENSIBLE TO THINK

ABOUT HOW WE HAVE DONE BUSINESS HERE IN THIS CHAMBER IN THE LAST

FEW DAYS. THE PREPARATION WAS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

I -- I CERTAINLY TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S AN

INFRINGEMENT ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND HERE WE ARE ONCE AGAIN

IN THIS CHAMBER, THUMBING OUR NOSE AT THE SUPREME COURT.

MR. -- MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM CERTAINLY IN THE NEGATIVE

ON THIS BILL AND I WOULD HOPE THAT ANYBODY WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD

ALSO FOLLOW SUIT AND VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU, SIR, AND THANK

YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. WALCZYK.

MR. WALCZYK: THANKS, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME (INAUDIBLE) --

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. WALCZYK: WHAT -- AND I'M LISTENING TO THE

DEBATE. WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE TODAY WITH A BILL

THAT WAS GIVEN TO US WITH A MESSAGE OF NECESSITY FROM THE GOVERNOR?

MR. DINOWITZ: WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE FACT

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED A LAW IN NEW YORK

THAT WAS OVER 100 YEARS OLD AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THAT. THE --

AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT ON JUNE 23RD ISSUED THEIR DECISION IN

THE CASE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, FINDING THAT THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT TO CARRY A HANDGUN OUTSIDE THE HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE AND THAT --

THAT -- THE -- THE PREVIOUS LAW, AS I SAID, STOOD FOR OVER 100 YEARS. AND

THEY SAID NEW YORK'S PROPER CAUSE REQUIREMENT FOR OBTAINING AN

UNRESTRICTED LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM VIOLATES THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THAT IT PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH AN

ORDINARY SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS FROM EXERCISING THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY IS

TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT WILL CONFORM WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THAT -- OF

THAT RULING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT -- NOT ALLOW THERE TO BE RAMPANT,

YOU KNOW, VIOLATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO NEW YORK. SO

WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WE CAN PASS LEGISLATION THAT WILL DO A JOB

BUT CONFORM WITH THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE

HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, AFTER ALL. SO -- AND THIS BILL, WE BELIEVE AND

I'M CERTAIN, DOES JUST THAT SUCH THAT IT WILL BE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED

EVEN UP TO THE HIGHEST COURT.

MR. WALCZYK: THROUGH YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND I

THOUGHT YOUR -- YOUR INITIAL REACTION TO MY QUESTION OF WHAT PROBLEM

WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, THE -- THE PROBLEM THAT YOU LISTED OFF THE BAT WAS

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION. I WOULD SAY THAT THE

HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, AS YOU POINT OUT, IS NOT A PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

THEY ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND WHEN THEY MAKE A 6 TO 3

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SUPERMAJORITY DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OR

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD

PROBABLY ALL STAND UP AND LISTEN BECAUSE WE DO ALL RAISE OUR RIGHT HANDS

AND SWEAR TO UPHOLD THAT CONSTITUTION.

SO GETTING INTO THIS -- THIS BILL, PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR

CONCEALED CARRY HAVE A LOT MILITARY QUALIFICATION IN PLACE OF A PISTOL

PERMIT SAFETY COURSE. WILL -- UNDER THIS ENACTED NEW BILL THAT YOU'RE

BRINGING FORWARD TODAY, WILL ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS AT FORT DRUM OR

ANOTHER MILITARY INSTALLATION HAVE A WAIVER FOR NEW REQUIREMENTS?

WILL THEY BE ABLE TO USE THEIR MILITARY QUALIFICATION TO WAIVE THOSE

REQUIREMENTS?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE MILITARY IS EXEMPT FROM THESE

-- FROM LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

MR. WALCZYK: THROUGH YOU --

MR. DINOWITZ: ACTIVE DUTY.

MR. WALCZYK: THROUGH YOU, MR. SPEAKER, I'M

NOT TALKING ABOUT ACTIVE DUTY FIREARMS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION, I'M

TALKING ABOUT PRIVATELY-HELD FIREARMS THAT THEY WISH TO CONCEAL CARRY IN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

MEMBERS. THEY WON'T -- UNDER -- UNDER THE BILL THAT YOU'RE BRINGING

FORWARD TODAY THAT THE GOVERNOR SENT TO OUR DESKS, THEY WON'T HAVE TO

APPLY FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WHATSOEVER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THEY WILL. LET ME JUST

DOUBLE-CHECK.

MR. WALCZYK: I'D APPRECIATE IT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: SURE.

(PAUSE)

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE EXEMPTED. ACTIVE

DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL.

MR. WALCZYK: OKAY, SO ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

PERSONNEL WHEN BRINGING PISTOLS, JUST TO -- JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

I'M GOING TO GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY. MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT

ABUTS FORT DRUM. THERE'S A NUMBER OF SOLDIERS IN THREE BRIGADES THERE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

IT'S THE ONLY ARMY ACTIVE DUTY INSTALLATION THAT'S A MAJOR POWER

PROJECTION PLATFORM IN THE NORTHEAST. MANY OF THOSE SOLDIERS BRING

FIREARMS AND APPLY FOR CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS IN THE STATE OF NEW

YORK. CURRENTLY THEY'RE STILL PART OF THE SYSTEM. YOU'RE TELLING ME

UNDER THE NEW LAW THEY WON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR A CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT AT ALL? THEY'LL BE ABLE TO CARRY CONCEALED WHEREVER THEY'D LIKE

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT HAVING TO APPLY FOR ANYTHING. IS THAT

WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT THE

TWO NEW CRIMES UNDER THE PENAL LAW THAT WE CREATE, CRIMINAL

POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE, A SHOTGUN IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION, OR

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN A RESTRICTED LOCATION, THERE ARE --

THERE IS A LIST OF CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EXEMPT -- WHO -- FOR

WHOM THIS WOULD NOT APPLY, AND ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE

AMONG THEM. BUT LET ME JUST CHECK ONE OTHER THING.

MR. WALCZYK: OKAY, THAT -- THAT DOESN'T ANSWER

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MY QUESTION. I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY --

MR. DINOWITZ: LET ME -- LET ME FINISH, OKAY?

BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE --

MR. WALCZYK: GO AHEAD.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- YOU THE CORRECT INFORMATION.

PERSONS -- NOW THIS IS -- AND THIS IS CURRENT -- PERSONS IN THE MILITARY OR

OTHER SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES IN PURSUANT OF OFFICIAL DUTY OR WHEN

DULY-AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION OR LAW TO POSSESS THE SAME,

THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT. YES. I MEAN, THEY'RE

EXEMPT IF THEY'RE DOING THEIR OFFICIAL --

MR. WALCZYK: ONCE AGAIN THROUGH YOU, MR.

SPEAKER, SEEKING CLARITY, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

PERSONNEL IN THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, I'M TALKING ABOUT ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

PERSONNEL WHO ARE QUALIFIED ON WEAPONS, WHO HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN

ABLE TO SUBMIT THOSE QUALIFICATIONS WITH A PISTOL PERMIT APPLICATION IN

ORDER TO HAVE THEIR PRIVATELY-HELD FIREARMS LEGALLY HERE IN THE STATE OF

NEW YORK AND CARRY THEM CONCEALED.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF IT'S NOT THEIR MILITARY WEAPONS,

IF IT'S A PERSONAL WEAPON THAT IS NOT EXEMPT.

MR. WALCZYK: SO THEIR CURRENT TRAINING, MILITARY

QUALIFICATION UNDER THIS CHANGE WILL NOT -- WILL NOT SUFFICE AS A WAIVER

TO ALL OF THE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT -- THAT YOU ARE PUTTING FORWARD HERE

TODAY? IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT I JUST SAID. IF IT'S THEIR

PERSONAL WEAPON IT'S -- IT'S NOT EXEMPTED. IF IT'S MILITARY, THEN IT IS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. MR. SPEAKER -- WOW. WHY

THE MESSAGE OF NECESSITY ON THIS -- ON THIS BILL?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS

ISSUED -- THAT WAS REQUESTED OR PUT OUT BY THE GOVERNOR. BUT THE

CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR A MESSAGE OF NECESSITY AS A MECHANISM TO

PASS LEGISLATION MORE QUICKLY. I DON'T -- I SUPPOSE WE COULD WAIT A

COUPLE MORE DAYS INTO THE JULY 4TH WEEKEND. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU

WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND THE GOVERNOR DEEMED

THIS TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN ORDER TO REACT APPROPRIATELY TO THE

RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE 6 TO 3 RULING, AND I THINK SHE MADE

THE RIGHT CALL ON THAT.

MR. WALCZYK: WHEN'S THE -- WHEN'S THIS BILL GO

INTO EFFECT? YOU SAID SEPTEMBER --

MR. DINOWITZ: SEPTEMBER 1, 2022.

MR. WALCZYK: -- 1ST. BUT WE NEEDED A MESSAGE

OF NECESSITY AND BILL LANGUAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED ABOUT 15, 16 HOURS

AGO RIGHT NOW TO ADDRESS A BILL THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT GOING --

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

MR. WALCZYK: -- INTO EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST.

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT ONCE AGAIN, NOT RELEVANT TO THE

SPECIFICS OF THE BILL. BUT, YES --

MR. WALCZYK: WELL, THROUGH -- THROUGH YOU, MR.

SPEAKER, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE CITIZENS THAT

WE REPRESENT. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, I

THINK THE OPENNESS IN GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MESSAGES OF NECESSITY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

BUT I DO WANT TO ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. I HEARD THE

DIALOGUE EARLIER ABOUT CARRYING IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK. I -- I NOTICED

THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF SENSITIVE AREAS THAT ARE NAMED, AND EARLIER IN

DEBATE YOU NAMED THE ADIRONDACK PARK AS ONE OF THOSE SENSITIVE AREAS.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT TRAILS CAN CROSS THROUGH BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

LAND IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, WHO CAN CROSS?

MR. WALCZYK: TRAILS.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH, TRAILS.

MR. WALCZYK: THAT CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK USE IN THE PARK. SOME OF THEM CROSS BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

LAND.

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT AWARE, BUT THANK YOU FOR

LETTING ME KNOW THAT. I MEAN, YOU'RE CERTAINLY MUCH MORE

KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THAT THAN I WOULD BE.

MR. WALCZYK: NO PROBLEM. AND, I MEAN, IT'S ONE

OF THOSE REASONS THAT DAYLIGHT ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION LIKE THIS IS GOOD

BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN RECEIVE FEEDBACK ON IT BEFORE YOU BRING IT TO THE

FLOOR AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNS IT INTO LAW. YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT

ON PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK A CONCEALED CARRY WOULD

BE ALLOWED, BUT ON THE PUBLIC AREAS OF A VERY LARGE PORTION OF NEW

YORK STATE SOMEONE WON'T BE ABLE TO CARRY AND CONCEAL; THAT'S CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS: ON

THE PRIVATE LAND THE OWNERS, I GUESS, COULD ALLOW IT AS INDICATED EARLIER.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND -- I'M SORRY -- IF -- IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE

LEGISLATION, AND I MENTIONED IT EARLIER, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH

SENSITIVE LOCATIONS THE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO EITHER KNOW OR SHOULD

HAVE HAD REASON TO KNOW THAT SUCH A LOCATION IS WHAT WE DEFINE AS A

SENSITIVE LOCATION.

MR. WALCZYK: OKAY. HOW WOULD THE -- HOW

WOULD THE BLACK BEAR KNOW?

MR. DINOWITZ: HOW WOULD THE WHAT? SAY -- I'M

SORRY, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR SOMETIMES.

MR. WALCZYK: SO IN MAY -- AND THIS DOESN'T

HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, LUCKILY -- BUT IN MAY A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS

ATTACKED IN HARRIMAN STATE PARK OUT IN THE ADIRONDACKS BY A -- BY A

BLACK BEAR. HOW WOULD BEARS KNOW WHICH AREAS OF THE ADIRONDACK

PARK OR OTHER PARKS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH AREAS ARE PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M PRETTY SURE A BEAR WOULD NOT

KNOW.

MR. WALCZYK: YEAH. GOOD. YEAH, ME -- ME AS

-- I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE A

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: DO I WHAT?

MR. WALCZYK: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED

STATES CITIZENS, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T THINK THAT MY PERSONAL

OPINION IS RELEVANT TO THIS LEGISLATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, SO IT HARDLY

MATTERS WHAT I THINK IN TERMS OF THAT.

MR. WALCZYK: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. WALCZYK: SO, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT BY A SUPERMAJORITY -- AND I KNOW MANY IN THIS HOUSE LOVE TO

THROW SUPERMAJORITIES IN OUR FACE. YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS HAVE

CONSEQUENCES, THIS IS THE POWER THAT WE HAVE. WE COULD DO WHAT WE

PLEASE. IN A 6 TO 3 DECISION THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND FOUND --

FOUND NEW YORK STATE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY FOUND. THE SAME PEOPLE

WHO CREATED CATCH AND RELEASE FOR CRIMINALS ARE NOW -- IN NEW YORK

THEY SEE NO PROBLEM -- THEY SEE NO CONSEQUENCE RIGHT AFTER A VIOLATION

OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, SEEK TO VIOLATE IT ONCE MORE. JUSTICE

THOMAS, HE SAID, THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE A BROAD RIGHT TO

CARRY A HANDGUN OUTSIDE THE HOME. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY

MEMBER OF THIS BODY -- AND NOT TO PICK ON THE SPONSOR WHO PROBABLY

ONLY RECENTLY SAW THE LANGUAGE THAT THE -- THAT THE GOVERNOR SHOVED

THROUGH WITH A MESSAGE OF NECESSITY AS WELL -- BUT I DON'T SEE ANY

PROBLEM WITH ANY MEMBER OF THIS BODY WHO SWORE AN OATH, UPHELD --

HELD UP THEIR RIGHT HAND AND SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION

WITH SAYING -- YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, OF

COURSE. I SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD IT. OF COURSE I BELIEVE THAT UNITED

STATES CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE COURTS ALSO --

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SO JUSTICE THOMAS ALSO SAID, COURTS SHOULD UPHOLD RESTRICTIONS ONLY IF

THERE'S A HISTORY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS EITHER IN THE COUNTRY OR IN THAT

STATE. THIS BILL OFFERS A NUMBER OF RESTRICTIONS THAT DON'T MEET THE

COURT'S BAR WHATSOEVER. THEY DON'T MEET THE HIGH BAR OF THE COURT OR

THE LOW BAR OR ANY AT ALL. SIXTEEN-HOUR CLASSES, ACCURACY TESTS FOR

MARKSMANSHIP, BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT INCLUDE WHAT YOU POSTED ON

FACEBOOK, PROHIBITION IN A HOST OF NEWLY-NAMED SENSITIVE AREAS TO

INCLUDE LARGE SWATHS OF LAND LIKE THE ADIRONDACK PARK, AMMUNITION

DATABASES. THERE'S NO HISTORY OF THIS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THIS IS

A BUNCH OF NEW UNCONSTITUTIONAL STUFF THAT VIOLATES EVERYBODY'S OATH

THAT THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD, AND THEY KNOW THAT THE U.S. -- THAT THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION WILL BE UPHELD BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND

THIS WILL BE THROWN OUT, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT WITH A MESSAGE OF

NECESSITY JUST BEFORE A HOLIDAY WEEKEND FOR NOTHING BUT POLITICS. THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAID NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIONS ARE UN -- ARE AN

UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- OR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE ARBITRARY. YOU

OFFER THESE RESTRICTIONS ON A -- ON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. YOU'VE

DEMONSTRATED NO HISTORICAL TRADITION THAT LIMITS, THE OUT OF BOUNDS OF

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TODAY. THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO CALL A

SPECIAL SESSION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, MAYBE EVEN SOME THINGS

THAT YOU COULD DO WITH A MESSAGE OF NECESSITY. PEOPLE ARE DYING OF

FENTANYL OVERDOSES, FENTANYL THAT'S BEEN SENT HERE FROM CHINA. NEW

YORKERS ARE DYING EVERY DAY, SOMETIMES IN VIOLENT WAYS, AS YOU POINT

OUT. NEW YORKERS ARE CONTINUALLY FLEEING THIS STATE AND OUR

POPULATION CONTINUES TO DECLINE. FOOD PRICES HAVE GONE UP, RETIREMENT

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PLANS ARE IN THE TANKS. INFLATION HAS ATTACKED PEOPLE'S FINANCES, GAS IS

$5 A GALLON. INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS CAN'T FIND LABOR AND EVEN USED CARS

HAVE GONE UP BY 35 PERCENT. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE COULD

ADDRESS AS A LEGISLATURE, AND INSTEAD THE STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT IS

CONTINUALLY IN PLACE AND SUSPENDS AN OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND WE CALL

THIS SPECIAL SESSION TO MISUSE A MESSAGE OF NECESSITY ON SOME HALF-

BAKED PLANS AND CALL THIS EXTRAORDINARY SESSION -

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

-- SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF VIOLATING THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. ANGELINO.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I HAVE

SOME QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR. WOULD YOU ASK HIM TO YIELD, PLEASE?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

AGREES TO YIELD.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU, SIR. DID ANYTHING IN

THIS NEW VOLUME THAT I'M TRYING TO READ THROUGH HERE ON MY TABLET, THE

LICENSING OFFICERS DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL? IT SAYS -- IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO

HAVE AN INTERVIEW IN FRONT OF LAW -- I KNOW SOME COUNTIES ARE

DIFFERENT. SOME HAVE COMMISSIONERS, SOME HAVE A JUDGE.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. NO.

MR. ANGELINO: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THE COUNTY IN

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WHICH I LIVE HAS ONE JUDGE WHO IS THE COUNTY CLERK, SURROGATE COURT,

FAMILY COURT. AND IS A DESIGNEE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW AND

ADVISE THE ISSUING OFFICER?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, YOU'RE ASKING ME IF HE

WOULD BE THE ONE TO CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW?

MR. ANGELINO: NO, I'M JUST CONCERNED. MY

COUNTY COURT JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO INTERVIEW EVERYBODY

AND LOOK AT THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA. I'M -- I'M HOPING A DESIGNEE CAN LOOK

AT THAT. I KNOW NYPD HAS ONE ISSUING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER, BUT

THEY HAVE A WHOLE BUREAU. BUT I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS SAYS THE

ISSUING OFFICER SHALL CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I -- I GUESS THERE WOULD BE

MORE WORK INVOLVED. THAT'S -- WHAT COUNTY, IF I COULD ASK?

MR. ANGELINO: I'M IN CHENANGO.

MR. DINOWITZ: OKAY.

MR. ANGELINO: BUT I REPRESENT FOUR COUNTIES.

SOME HAVE MORE THAN ONE JUDGE, THE COUNTY IN WHICH I LIVE HAS ONE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE -- THE REQUIREMENTS HERE

ARE THE REQUIREMENTS.

MR. ANGELINO: THE --

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT

CHANGING ANY OF THAT STUFF. THAT'S --

MR. ANGELINO: I THINK --

MR. DINOWITZ: IN TERMS OF THE -- THE LICENSING

OFFICERS, THAT'S NOT CHANGING.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. ANGELINO: RIGHT. BUT WHAT IS CHANGING IS

THE LICENSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW.

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. ANGELINO: THAT'S CONCERNING. AND I'M SURE

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK WHO ISSUES THOSE

DOESN'T CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW. I'M -- YOU'RE

PROBABLY RIGHT.

MR. ANGELINO: I DON'T KNOW, EITHER, BUT I KNOW I

HAVE ONE COUNTY COURT JUDGE.

ALL RIGHT. THE -- I HAVE SOME NICS CHECK -- CHECKS

QUESTIONS. IS THAT GOING TO BE DEFERRED TO YOUR COLLEAGUE OR...

MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT KIND OF QUESTION?

MR. ANGELINO: THE NICS BACKGROUND CHECK. I

DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE --

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, MR. ZEBROWSKI --

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: -- (INAUDIBLE) THE AMMUNITION

DATABASE.

MR. ANGELINO: ALL RIGHT. I WILL -- I'LL -- I'LL ASK

THOSE LATER. THE -- AFTER HEARING MY COLLEAGUE FROM STATEN ISLAND, NEW

YORK CITY, HE GAVE OUT THE WHOLE BUNCH OF STATS ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF

SHOOTINGS AND THOUSANDS OF GUNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I'M CURIOUS, IN --

IN THE 20-SOME PLACES THAT ARE NOW SENSITIVE AREAS, HOW WOULD A

PERSON DEFEND THEMSELVES THERE?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I'M NOT SURE WHY SOME PEOPLE

THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED TO WALK AROUND TOWN WITH A GUN TO DEFEND

THEMSELVES.

MR. ANGELINO: BECAUSE THERE'S CRIMINALS OUT

THERE WALKING AROUND SHOOTING PEOPLE.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE THE

POLICE FOR.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. NEW YORK CITY HAS AN

ENORMOUS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND --

MR. DINOWITZ: RIGHT.

MR. ANGELINO: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY HAVE MORE CRIMINALS, TOO.

MR. ANGELINO: OBVIOUSLY.

(PAUSE/AUDIO PROBLEM)

GOOD NEWS, MR. DINOWITZ. WE LOST OUR FEED. WE

HAVE TO TAKE A TIME OUT.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MRS. PEOPLES-

STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU CAN

ENSURE THAT WE WILL RESERVE THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME WITH 11 MINUTES AND

57 SECONDS. BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THE HOUSE STAND AT EASE WHILE WE

REROUTE OUR INTERNET TO MAKE ZOOM WORK.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE HOUSE STANDS

AT EASE.

(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE.)

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

**********************

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: IN EXTRAORDINARY

SESSION, MR. ANGELINO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. SIR, THE

LAST QUESTION I STARTED TO ASK, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE WENT DARK, BUT

I SAID HOW WOULD PEOPLE IN THESE SENSITIVE AREAS PROTECT THEMSELVES?

AND I THINK YOU WERE FOCUSING ON NEW YORK CITY, BUT ALL ACROSS THE

STATE HOW WOULD PEOPLE PROTECT THEMSELVES?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I -- I'M GOING TO ANSWER IT THIS

WAY: IT ALMOST SUGGESTS THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON SHOULD BE CARRYING A

GUN, AND I BELIEVE THAT MANY PEOPLE, MAYBE MOST PEOPLE, EVEN PEOPLE

WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRAINED, COULD CAUSE MORE DAMAGE IF THEY'RE

CARRYING A GUN THAN IF THEY'RE NOT CARRYING A GUN. AND -- AND KEEP IN

MIND, WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH A VERY LIMITED SCOPE HERE. WE'RE

DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH ADDRESSING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SUPREME

COURT RULING. SO THE ANSWER IS WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROTECT US.

I MEAN, I HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN A PERSON WHO -- WELL, I SUPPORTED ALL

THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE POLICE REFORM MEASURES, I OPPOSED THINGS LIKE

DEFUND THE POLICE AND BILLION-DOLLAR CUTS AND ALL THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND IF EVERYBODY HAD A GUN THEN IT'S LIKE SAYING

WELL, WE -- WE DON'T NEED THE POLICE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

MR. ANGELINO: WELL, THE -- THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE

A DUTY TO PROTECT ANY ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. TO GIVE EVERYBODY THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OPPORTUNITY FOR EQUAL PROTECTION, BUT THEY CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE.

THEY'RE A FINITE FORCE, AND IN SOME PLACES THEY'RE MINUTES AWAY WHEN

SECONDS COUNT. AND I WAS FILLING FOR YOU, IT WASN'T A QUESTION.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, LET ME JUST SAY, THE -- I DON'T

THINK WE'RE REALLY -- WE SHOULDN'T BE ARGUING ABOUT THIS. IN A SENSE THAT

ALL THE COURT SAID WAS THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES,

BUT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO -- TO IMPOSE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ALSO TO

LIMIT -- LIMIT THINGS IN THESE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT

SAYING THAT NOBODY COULD EVER CARRY A GUN ANYWHERE, NOBODY HAD TO

GET A GUN. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. IT'S SIMPLY A REASONABLE RESPONSE IN

ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE RULING THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED

AS A SUPERMAJORITY. I WOULD CALL IT A MAJORITY, BUT YEAH, THAT -- THAT'S

WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU. MOVING ON A LITTLE

BIT, THERE WAS A SECTION, AND I HAD TROUBLE FINDING IT SO I'M GOING TO

READ IT OFF THE BRIEF SHEET THAT I RECEIVED. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERBATIM

FROM THE LAW, BUT IT WAS, APPLICANTS ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR A CONCEALED

CARRY LICENSE WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING OFFENSES WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE DATE OF APPLICATION. FIRST IS

ASSAULT THIRD, NUMBER TWO IS DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AND THREE IS

MENACING. THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, NO. THERE'S ALREADY A LIST IN

THE LAW. THOSE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE LIST.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LONG LIST OF QUALIFICATIONS. AND I'LL JUST READ YOU --

I'M NOT GOING TO READ YOU THE WHOLE LIST --

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. ANGELINO: THESE ARE MISDEMEANORS. ANY

FELONY (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. DINOWITZ: YEAH, THESE ARE ADDITIONAL -- THERE

ARE FELONIES ALREADY IN LAW. THIS -- THIS RELATES TO CONCEALED CARRY.

MR. ANGELINO: CAN I -- CAN I ASK -- I ONLY -- I'M

CONCERNED ABOUT A COUPLE. ONE IS CRIMINAL STRANGULATION. IS THAT IN

THERE? AND THE OTHER IS RESISTING ARREST.

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT WOULD FALL UNDER -- THAT --

THAT WOULD COME UNDER, I GUESS, AS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR A

SERIOUS OFFENSE. SO THAT -- THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT.

MR. ANGELINO: IS RESISTING ARREST NOT LISTED BUT

WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT A SERIOUS OFFENSE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I MEAN, THERE'S A LONG LIST. WE

CAN GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IF YOU LIKE.

MR. ANGELINO: NO, THAT'S WHY I SAID I DIDN'T -- I

DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE LIST.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: AS I

SAID THERE'S ALREADY A LIST AND WE'RE ADDING THREE ADDITIONAL ONES TO THAT

LIST. ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE, DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED

MISDEMEANOR OR MENACING.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS ONLY RELATES TO CONCEALED

CARRY, IT DOESN'T RELATE -- IT DOESN'T RELATE TO ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN

CONCEALED CARRY.

MR. ANGELINO: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS QUESTION, ONLY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BECAUSE I LIVED THROUGH THE SAFE ACT ENACT -- WHEN THAT WAS ENACTED

IN 2013, WHEN THAT WAS DONE POLICE OFFICERS ON DUTY, IN UNIFORM,

SHOWING UP FOR WORK EVERY DAY WERE FELONS BECAUSE THEY CARRIED MORE

THAN SEVEN ROUNDS THEN, AND ALSO THEY WERE -- THEY WERE FELONS IF THEY

WERE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. SO ON-DUTY POLICE -- WE TALK ABOUT RETIRED

AND OFF-DUTY. ARE ON-DUTY POLICE OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THIS BILL?

MR. DINOWITZ: IN TERMS OF THE EXEMPTION?

MR. ANGELINO: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: POLICE OFFICERS, RETIRED POLICE

OFFICERS --

MR. ANGELINO: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- PEACE OFFICERS AND THEN THERE'S

MR. ANGELINO: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR

BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR DURING THE SAFE ACT DAYS.

AND I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NICS BACKGROUND

TEST.

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, THE WHAT BACKGROUND?

MR. ANGELINO: THE BACKGROUND TEST.

MR. DINOWITZ: THE BACKGROUND, YEAH.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO OF YOU

STANDING UP.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU. THE -- THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BACKGROUND CHECKS, WHAT IS THE COST FOR THAT?

(PAUSE)

MR. ZEBROWSKI: SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COST

TO THE DEALER AND -- AND THE CUSTOMER?

MR. ANGELINO: THE APPLICANT WHEN (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. ZEBROWSKI: $10.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. AND THAT GOES TO NEW

YORK STATE POLICE? ARE THEY DOING THE BACKGROUND CHECK?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: YEAH, IT'S GOING TO GO TO A FUND.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. THE -- AND THE -- THE NICS

CHECK ON AMMUNITION -- AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TO THE SAFE ACT DAYS --

THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR. I THINK THAT WAS IN THE SAFE ACT?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: YEAH. SO IT ACTUALLY WAS IN THE

SAFE ACT AND BY MEMORANDUM IT HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED ALL THESE

YEARS. AND NOW THAT MEMORANDUM IS BEING REVOKED AND WHAT WAS

PASSED IN THE SAFE ACT, WITH SOME ADDITIONS, WILL NOW BE

IMPLEMENTED WITH THIS LEGISLATION.

MR. ANGELINO: DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THE REASONS

WHY IT WAS NOT ENACTED WITH THE SAFE ACT?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: THE REASON GIVEN WAS

TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. AND THE -- NEW YORK

STATE IS ONE OF THE STATES THAT RELIES UPON THE FBI TO CONDUCT OUR

BACKGROUND CHECKS. HAS ANYBODY TOLD THE FBI THEY'RE GOING TO DO BE

DOING THOUSANDS MORE NICS CHECKS FOR EVERY BOX OF AMMO?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. ZEBROWSKI: WELL, EVERY STATE HAS THE -- THE

OPTION TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING. IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY STATES THAT DO IT

THIS WAY AND, IN FACT, THE LEGISLATION SAYS WE WILL CHECK THAT SYSTEM

AND THIS NEW SYSTEM THAT WE'RE SETTING UP WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE

MORE INFORMATION AND NOW HAVE SOME OF THE IMPLEMENT -- WELL, SOME

OF THE ISSUES THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF THE OFFICIAL NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE FBI OR NOT,

BUT PRESUMABLY IF WE PASS THIS LEGISLATION AND IT'S SIGNED INTO LAW THAT

WILL HAPPEN.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. BECAUSE IN THE SAFE ACT

THEY -- THEY DECLINED TO -- THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WHEN YOU

SAID A SECOND SYSTEM, IS NEW YORK STATE CONSIDERING SETTING UP ITS

OWN NICS CHECK?

MR. ZEBROWSKI: A NICS-TYPE SYSTEM, A

(INAUDIBLE), YES.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND, MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. ANGELINO: SO WE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT THE

SUPREME COURT DECISION AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE SENSITIVE AREAS.

BUT THE -- THE CRAFTERS OF THIS BILL, THE LANGUAGE, NEGLECTED A BIG PART OF

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND THAT WAS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO

DEFEND THEMSELVES IN PUBLIC PLACES AND IN THEIR HOMES. THAT WAS THE

CRUX OF THE ISSUE. NOW WE'VE MADE SO MANY PLACES DIFFICULT FOR A

PERSON TO LAWFULLY CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON. THEIR HANDGUN IS NOW

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

GOING TO BE LEFT AT HOME OR IT'S GOING TO BE LOCKED UP IN A CAR WHERE IT'S

PRETTY MUCH USELESS, AND IT'S ALSO A TARGET FOR PILFERAGE AND THEFT. THE

-- THE RESTRICTION THAT WE'RE DOING IS RIGHT IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

AND IT'S -- I HEARD A COLLEAGUE SAY THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND

BEAR ARMS, AND IT WAS A PUN ABOUT THE BEAR THAT HE MENTIONED EARLIER.

BUT THE LAST LINE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SETTING THIS UP FOR ANOTHER LAWSUIT AND

THAT THIS WILL LIKELY BE OVERTURNED BY THAT SAME MAJORITY OF THE COURT.

THE "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" PART IS CODIFIED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION AND

IT'S NOT TO BE GLOSSED OVER. IT'S BEEN CHALLENGED -- IT'S BEEN -- IT'S BEEN

CHALLENGED IN OTHER STATES AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO

PUT THESE INFRINGEMENTS UPON OTHERS.

I GUESS WE'VE ALL BEEN HERE -- I'M TIRED. EVERYBODY'S

TIRED HERE, AND I GUESS I'LL CLOSE WITH -- ABOUT THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY

THING THAT HAPPENED IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY SESSION WAS THAT WE'RE

VOTING ON SUCH A SERIOUS PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND IT'S STILL DAYLIGHT.

THIS IS NORMALLY DONE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT, AND I'LL END WITH THAT SO

HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE SOONER.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MS. BYRNES.

MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. DINOWITZ, DO

YOU YIELD?

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MS. BYRNES: I'M NOT TIRED, ARE YOU? I'M NOT TIRED,

ARE YOU?

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT ONLY AM I NOT TIRED, I AM MORE

ENERGETIC THAN I WAS EARLIER IN THE DAY. I SUPPOSE WITH THOSE THREE

PIECES OF CHOCOLATE THAT I HAD --

(LAUGHTER)

MS. BYRNES: WHICH WE CAN THANK THE SERGEANT-AT-

ARMS, NO DOUBT.

MR. DINOWITZ: THANK YOU, WAYNE.

MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. A COUPLE OF THINGS BY WAY

OF CLARIFICATION. RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS, YOU CITED -- OR THE STATUTE I

THINK REFERENCES A SECTION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AS TO HOW

THAT TERM IS DEFINED, AND I MUST CONFESS, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT CPL

SECTION. I KNOW IT'S DEFINED, I BELIEVE, IN THE NEW YORK STATE PENAL

LAW ALSO. IS IT FIVE YEARS TO QUALIFY AS A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER UNDER

THIS STATUTE AS OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT REQUIRES TEN YEARS OF

SERVICE?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION.

MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. DINOWITZ: LET ME -- LET ME CHECK ON THAT.

YEAH, WE HAVE TO CHECK. IT MIGHT BE FROM THE TIME

YOU'RE VESTED, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MS. BYRNES: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT.

MS. BYRNES: IT'S JUST THAT OUR STATE LAW AND THE

FEDERAL STATUTES DEFINE RETIRED POLICE OFFICER DIFFERENT. IT'S MY

UNDERSTANDING THAT NEW YORK STATE USES FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE WHERE

THE FEDERAL USES TEN, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO A LOT OF

PEOPLE DEPENDING ON THEIR LENGTH OF SERVICE, AND MY SIGNIFICANT OTHER

ASKED ME TO ASK BECAUSE HE HAS SEVEN.

MR. DINOWITZ: RIGHT.

MS. BYRNES: SO, ANYWAY, SO I DID MY DUTY.

MOVING ON. WHEN WE WERE TALKING BEFORE ABOUT THE

PROVISION ABOUT IT BEING A SENSITIVE PLACE WHERE THERE WAS ANY

GATHERING OF INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS TO PROTEST OR ASSEMBLE, IF WE LOOK IN THAT IN THE CONJUNCTIVE OR

THE DISJUNCTIVE, REALLY -- AND YOU DID INDICATE THAT IF A GROUP OF

REPUBLICANS GETS TOGETHER OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT

THIS WAS AIMED AT. BUT QUITE POINTEDLY, LET ME ASK YOU THAT IF WE --

AFTER THIS LEGISLATION IS PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW, IF THE RIFLE AND

PISTOL ASSOCIATION THAT WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE FEDERAL ACTION, YOU

KNOW, IF THEY GATHER TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO

PROTEST THIS NEW CHANGE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION IT SEEMS

AS IF THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A SENSITIVE PLACE AND ALL BE

PRECLUDED FROM CARRYING ANY -- ANY FIREARMS. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S KIND OF IRONIC, ISN'T IT?

MS. BYRNES: IT IS IRONIC. I MEAN, YOU KNOW,

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THERE'S GOT TO -- IT HAS TO HAVE SOME DEFINITION.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IT'S --

MS. BYRNES: AND IT'S PROTESTING CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS. I MEAN, IT'S AN AWFULLY BROAD EXPRESSION. I MEAN, MR.

DINOWITZ, EVEN YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT -- THAT'S A PRETTY BROAD AND

SUBJECT TO MANY INTERPRETATIONS. WHAT DO YOU MEAN AS THE SPONSOR?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I -- I WOULD SAY THAT SINCE IT

SAYS ANY GATHERING OF INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECTIVELY EXPRESS THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTEST, IF THERE'S A GATHERING OF INDIVIDUALS

WHO COLLECTIVELY GATHER TO PROTEST THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS. BUT IF

THERE'S ANY DOUBT, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.

MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. BUT AS YOU DRAFTED AND

CRAFTED THE LEGISLATION, OR AT THE VERY LEAST ARE THE SPONSOR OF IT AND

DEBATE -- OR AT LEAST DEBATING THE POINTS HERE --

MR. DINOWITZ: THE DEBATER.

MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT, THE DEBATER. I MEAN,

TECHNICALLY THE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION COULD BE REQUIRED JUST

BECAUSE THEY'RE GROUPED TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROTEST THIS

UPCOMING DECISION THEY COULD BE BARRED FROM LEGALLY CARRYING THEIR

LAWFUL FIREARMS, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I MEAN, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO

BRING A CONCEALED WEAPON TO A PROTEST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE.

MS. BYRNES: RIGHT. SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED

MR. DINOWITZ: IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IT MAKES A LOT

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OF SENSE.

MS. BYRNES: -- TO CARRY THEIR LEGAL WEAPONS

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DEFINED NOW AS A SENSITIVE SPACE. AND THAT WOULD

BE THE SAME FOR SCOPE, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, ANY GROUP THAT

NORMALLY TENDS TO HAVE MORE PREVALENCE OF FIREARMS THAN OTHERS, AND

THEY WOULD ALL BECOME THAT IN SENSITIVE AREAS WHEN THEY GOT TOGETHER

AS A GROUP, RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU KNOW, I -- I GUESS WE --

WE THINK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY SOMEBODY WHO IS

GOING TO BE WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE THEIR FRIENDS AND ALLIES

WOULD CARRY A FIREARM IN THE FIRST PLACE. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST ME. BUT

YES, UNDER -- AT A PROTEST THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SENSITIVE LOCATION.

MS. BYRNES: OKAY. EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ACTUALLY

GETTING TOGETHER TO PROTEST THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEY'RE PRECLUDED

FROM EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. CAN YOU SEE THE IRONY IN IT

A LITTLE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YES, I SAID IT IS KIND OF

IRONIC, BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO GET THEIR -- THEIR LICENSE, THEY JUST

WON'T BE ABLE TO BRING IT THERE.

MS. BYRNES: OKAY. GOING TO THE NRA-CERTIFIED

INSTRUCTORS. NEW YORK STATE HAS MADE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT FOR

NRA-CERTIFIED INSTRUCTORS TO OBTAIN INSURANCE IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN

ACTUALLY INSTRUCTING PEOPLE ON FIREARMS SAFETY. DOES THIS LEGISLATION

CREATE ANY AVENUE, ESPECIALLY LIKE IN MY COUNTY, LIVINGSTON COUNTY,

OVER 10,000 PEOPLE HAVE PISTOL PERMITS. SO -- AND THAT'S JUST MY

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

COUNTY, LAST I KNEW. SO IF THEY ALL -- WHEN THEY COME UP ARE GOING TO

HAVE TO HAVE THIS TRAINING THAT IS BEING DESCRIBED, THE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.

WE DO HAVE CERTIFIED INSTRUCTORS. ARE WE DOING ANYTHING TO CREATE AN

AVENUE TO ASSIST THEM IN GETTING INSURANCE SO THAT THEY CAN DO WHAT

THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY TRAINED TO DO?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, THIS -- THIS BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS

THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

MS. BYRNES: OKAY. SO IT IS PUTTING A REQUIREMENT

WITHOUT HAVING ANY AVENUE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE

TRAINING.

(PAUSE)

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, DCJS WOULD BE LIKE IN

CHARGE OF DEALING WITH INSTRUCTORS AND -- AND THEY CAN HELP PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTORS. BUT IN TERMS OF INSURANCE, I MEAN, THIS DOESN'T

CHANGE ANYTHING --

MS. BYRNES: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- AS FAR AS THAT.

MS. BYRNES: SO YOU'D BE RELYING ON DCJS AND

WHOMEVER THEY HIRE OR FIND OR WHATEVER BUREAU THEY PUT TOGETHER TO DO

THIS. BUT IT'S GOT TO BE READY TO GO BY SEPTEMBER 1ST, RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE LAW WILL TAKE EFFECT

SEPTEMBER 1ST.

MS. BYRNES: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY IT WAS

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MUCH BETTER TO DO THIS TODAY THAN WAITING BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE

THEM AS MUCH TIME TO, YOU KNOW, GET -- GET READY FOR THIS.

MS. BYRNES: WELL, WHEN IT COMES TO THE

RESTAURANTS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE AFFECTED AND IMPACTED BY

THIS LEGISLATION EVEN THOUGH IT -- THE GUN LEGISLATION AFFECTS EVERY

BUSINESS, IT AFFECTS EVERYONE IN THE STATE. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT

RESTAURANTS OR WHAT RESTAURANT ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU CONSULTED ABOUT

THIS LEGISLATION TO SEE HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THEM AND ASK THEM THEIR

OPINION AS TO ITS EFFECTS ON THEM AND WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS WERE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I PERSONALLY DID NOT SPEAK TO A

RESTAURANT OR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION --

MS. BYRNES: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT I -- I CAN TELL YOU A FEW THINGS,

THOUGH. SOME YEARS AGO IT WAS VERY CONTROVERSIAL WHEN NEW YORK

CITY INSTITUTED THE NO SMOKING REGULATIONS AND PEOPLE THOUGHT THE SKY

WAS FALLING. AND IT TURNED OUT THAT RESTAURANT BUSINESS ACTUALLY

IMPROVED BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T GO TO THE

RESTAURANTS BECAUSE OF THE SMOKING. NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS

GOING TO IMPACT RESTAURANTS. RESTAURANT OWNERS CAN INDIVIDUALLY

DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE CARRYING CONCEALED

WEAPONS INTO THEIR ESTABLISHMENT BY PUTTING UP A SIGN.

MS. BYRNES: BUT NORMALLY WHEN THERE'S A

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT AND HERE

YOU'RE DOING THE REVERSE. YOU'RE PUTTING THE AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION ON

PEOPLE TO ACT IN A WAY TO NOT EXERCISE IT TO SAY WE AREN'T GOING TO DO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO WE ARE.

QUESTION ON CHURCHES. OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE LISTED THEM

AS BEING SENSITIVE PLACE ALSO. DID YOU TALK TO ANY CHURCHES OR ANY

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE STATE AS TO WHAT THEIR VIEWS

WERE OF THIS LAW AND BEING CATEGORIZED AS A SENSITIVE PLACE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DID NOT.

MS. BYRNES: AND BUSINESSES. BUSINESSES,

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS. DID YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS EVEN

AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL LEVEL TO SEE HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THEM,

BEING IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY OR RURAL COMMUNITY, WHATEVER THEIR

COMMUNITY WAS. DID YOU MAKE INQUIRIES TO SEE HOW THIS LAW WOULD

AFFECT THEM AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO

PRIVATE BUSINESSES SUCH AS RESTAURANTS I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT

NECESSARILY BE TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. I'M SURE YOU WOULD AGREE THAT

THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ON THIS, AND THAT'S

WHAT THIS LAW ALLOWS THEM TO DO. SO FOR EXAMPLE, A RESTAURANT --

MS. BYRNES: YEAH.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THEY WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO

COME INTO THEIR ESTABLISHMENT, YOU KNOW, LOADED WITH GUNS THEY JUST

HAVE TO PUT A SIGN SAYING, ALL GUNS WELCOME.

MS. BYRNES: BUT YOU ARE TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO

BECAUSE YOU'RE TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO

PUT THAT SIGN UP OR TO OTHERWISE ADVISE EACH PERSON, PATRON,

INDIVIDUALLY.

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, LET'S THINK ABOUT IT. FIRST OF

ALL IT, IT INVOLVES, LIKE, RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL. BUT THINK ABOUT

THIS. SOMEBODY GOING INTO A RESTAURANT, I BELIEVE AND I'M SURE MOST

PEOPLE WOULD BELIEVE, WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER

PEOPLE THERE CARRYING A GUN. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO

HAVE A SIGN POSTED SAYING, GUNS WELCOME. YOU KNOW, IT -- IT SEEMS

PRETTY LOGICAL TO ME. AND IF THEY DON'T WANT FIREARMS IN THEIR

ESTABLISHMENT WHILE PEOPLE ARE EATING, THEY DON'T PUT THE SIGN UP. AND

THEY COULD ALSO NOT -- THEY COULD DO IT ANOTHER WAY. THEY COULD MAKE

IT KNOWN VERBALLY THAT PEOPLE CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON ARE

WELCOME. SO WE'RE NOT STOPPING ANYBODY, BUT IT'S UP TO THE OWNER

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE IN FREE ENTERPRISE.

MS. BYRNES: WELL, I THINK THIS IS WHERE MAYBE

YOU COME UP AND VISIT SOME OF OUR MORE RURAL COUNTIES BECAUSE, SEE,

ME AND MY FRIENDS WOULD BE PRESUMING THAT PEOPLE WERE CARRYING IN

EVERY RESTAURANT OR -- OR IN A BUSINESS. WE'VE NEVER PRESUMED THE

OPPOSITE. SO IN -- WITH A RESTAURANT OR PLACE THAT SERVES ALCOHOL, AS

LONG AS THEY PUT UP A SIGN THEY DO NOT --

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT -- IF -- IF -- IF THERE'S ALCOHOL,

NO. NO. I'M SORRY, DID I -- MAYBE I MISSPOKE. IF THEY'RE SERVING

ALCOHOL IT'S A SENSITIVE LOCATION. IF -- IF A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT

SERVING ALCOHOL, A PRIVATE PLACE IS NOT SERVING ALCOHOL THEN THEY CAN

DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW GUNS BY SIMPLY PUTTING UP THE SIGN.

MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU.

MR. DINOWITZ: JUST AS A PRIVATE RESIDENT COULD DO

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THE SAME THING.

MS. BYRNES: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MS. BYRNES: WITH DEEPEST RESPECT, MR. DINOWITZ,

I -- I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS INCREDIBLY OVERBROAD, JUST BY WAY OF TWO

EXAMPLES. WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF A CHURCH WHICH IS AUTOMATICALLY

BECOMES A SENSITIVE PLACE. IT'S A STATUS THAT AFFECTS THEIR PROPERTY

RIGHTS, IT AFFECTS THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND IT'S SOMETHING

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR. MANY CHURCHES ARE SOFT TARGETS. THEY RELY ON

THE PASTORS AND THE CONGREGANTS FOR PROTECTION AND THEY ARRANGE WITHIN

THEIR CONGREGATIONS AND MEETINGS FOR THOSE PURPOSES AND FOR SECURITY.

AND ALSO LIKE MR. DINOWITZ WAS JUST FINISHING UP WITH WITH ALCOHOL,

IRONICALLY THIS LEGISLATION IS SO OVERBROAD THAT IN MY DISTRICT I HAVE A

NUMBER OF -- I HAVE 14 OR 17 SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS. ONE OF THEM HAS

1,400 MEMBERS. IT HOSTS NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EVENTS. ONE OF THE

LARGEST SUPERMARKETS IN THE COUNTRY HAS THEIR PRIVATE SECURITY FORCE THAT

TRAINS THERE, PLUS ALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. IT WOULD BE DEFINED AS A

SENSITIVE PLACE UNDER THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIQUOR

LICENSE. SO THIS STATUS IS BEING FORCED ON THEM, WHICH WILL AFFECT THEIR

PROPERTY RIGHTS; AGAIN, A STATUS THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR. THIS IS A

SPORTSMEN'S CLUB. PEOPLE ARE GOING THERE TO SHOOT SKEET, TRAPS, SPORTING

CLAYS, RIFLES, YOU -- YOU NAME IT. THEY'RE GOING THERE FOR THOSE

PURPOSES AND IT'S BEING DEFINED AS A SENSITIVE PLACE. THIS LEGISLATION IS

SIMPLY A KNEE-JERK REACTION. IT DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF LAWFUL

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

FIREARMS OWNERS AND LAWFUL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO

WITH HAVING PISTOL PERMITS. BUT IT AFFECTS THEM DRAMATICALLY IN HOW

THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS, AND THAT'S DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. AND

NOTHING THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM --

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

-- MAKES THE VIOLENCE ON OUR STREETS GO AWAY.

THANK YOU. I'M VOTING NO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MS. GIGLIO.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD, PLEASE?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. SPONSOR, WILL

YOU YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

AGREES TO YIELD.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. SO, UNDER

THE LAW AM I CORRECT TO SAY THAT RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE EXEMPT

FROM THE CARRY LAWS IN THE SENSITIVE ZONES UNDER H.R. 218 IF THEY

ANNUALLY QUALIFY?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY'RE EXEMPT.

MS. GIGLIO: OKAY. SO THEN RETIRED PEACE OFFICERS

WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT UNDER H.R. 218 AS LONG AS THEY QUALIFY ANNUALLY,

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T SEE RETIRED PEACE OFFICERS

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ON THE LIST.

MS. GIGLIO: BUT UNDER H.R. 218 ANY LAW

ENFORCEMENT THAT IS ANNUALLY QUALIFYING IS EXEMPT?

(PAUSE)

MR. DINOWITZ: OH, IF THEY WERE PRIOR UNDER

LEOSA THEN YES, THEY WOULD BE.

MS. GIGLIO: THEN THEY WOULD EXEMPT IF THEY HAD

THE ANNUAL QUALIFICATION UNDER H.R. 218, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHEN YOU SAY H.R. 218 I WASN'T --

YES, THE ANSWER IS YES.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO AS FAR AS BACKGROUND CHECKS, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR

THE STATE ADOPTED LAWS AS TO WHO CAN REPORT MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND

MENTAL HEALTH RISKS, ADDING SCHOOL BOARDS AND SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

AND MANY OTHER THINGS. SOMETHING THAT I SUPPORTED BECAUSE THAT

MENTAL HEALTH IS A BIG ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO CRIME AND GUN VIOLENCE

IN NEW YORK STATE. SO THE RED FLAW -- RED FLAG LAWS AS AMENDED AS TO

WHO CAN FILE A TERPO, WHICH IS A TEMPORARY RISK PROTECTION ORDER

[SIC], SO THEY CAN FILE IT WITH THE STATE POLICE. THE STATE POLICE CAN

TAKE THAT TEMPORARY RISK PROTECTION ORDER [SIC], THEY CAN FILE IT, THEY CAN

GO TO THE PERSON'S HOUSE AND SAY, WE HAVE A TEMPORARY RISK PROTECTION

ORDER. WE ARE HERE AND WE WANT YOU TO VOLUNTARILY GIVE YOUR -- GIVE

US YOUR GUNS, AND THEN WITHIN THREE DAYS THEY GET TO APPEAR BEFORE A

SUPREME COURT JUDGE WHO DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON IS A RISK

TO THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS. SO -- AND -- AND THAT HEARING IS REFERRED TO

100

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AS AN ERPO, OR AN EMERGENCY [SIC] RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SO WITH THE

STATE POLICE BEING TASKED WITH THIS AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE

POLICE, THE DIVISION OF THE STATE POLICE WHERE THE TEMPORARY RISK

PROTECTION ORDERS ARE UP FOUR TIMES FROM JANUARY OF THIS YEAR TO JUNE OF

THIS YEAR THAN IN ALL OF 2021, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS

PROGRAM AS FAR AS BACKGROUND CHECKS AND COORDINATING WITH EVERY

POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS TASKED WITH ISSUING LICENSES WITHOUT A

BUDGET? I JUST AM CURIOUS AS TO -- THEY'RE -- THEY'RE LIMITED IN WHAT

THEY CAN DO. AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT OUR STATE POLICE HAVE

TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES BEFORE SUPREME COURT JUDGES PROSECUTING

SOMEBODY WHO THEY FEEL THEIR GUN SHOULD BE TAKEN BECAUSE THEY'RE A

RISK TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS? THAT THEY -- LAW ENFORCEMENT, STATE

POLICE, REPRESENTS THEMSELVES BEFORE A SUPREME COURT JUDGE. WERE

YOU AWARE OF THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I MEAN, SOMEWHERE IN THERE

I THINK THERE WAS -- THERE WAS A QUESTION WHICH -- WHICH HAD TO DO WITH

THE FUNDING, AM I CORRECT?

MS. GIGLIO: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD -- I'M UNDER THE -- IT'S MY

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS INDICATED THAT THERE WILL BE

FUNDING AVAILABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS LEGISLATION

WILL GET DONE.

MS. GIGLIO: OKAY. BECAUSE THESE TERPO,

TEMPORARY RISK PROTECTION [SIC] AND THE EMERGENCY RISK PROTECTION [SIC],

THESE THINGS TAKE A LOT OF TIME WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR

101

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

NOT SOMEBODY'S A RISK TO THEM SELF OR OTHERS AND TAKING THEIR GUNS

AWAY. I MEAN, THE STATE IS REALLY LIABLE FOR THAT. SO I THINK IT'S A BIG

THING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

PROSECUTING THESE CASES. AND I JUST WANT TO -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH

THE LETTER THAT THE HONORABLE CRAIG STEPHEN BROWN FROM ORANGE

COUNTY WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT STATES REGARDING THE

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE

1ST -- OH, NO, WAIT. THIS IS JUNE, BACK TO HIM FROM THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL. IT'S TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. I WRITE THIS LETTER AS A COURTESY

TO ADVISE YOU THAT THIS COURT IS REQUIRING THAT YOUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES

BE PROVIDED WITH ANY NOTIFICATION OF HEARING FOR FINAL EXTREME RISK

PROTECTION ORDERS RELATED TO ANY APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE NEW YORK

STATE POLICE FOR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS. THERE HAS BEEN AN

INCREASE IN THE STATE POLICE FILING OF ERPOS IN ORANGE COUNTY SINCE

GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S EXECUTIVE ORDER IN MAY DIRECTING THE STATE POLICE

FOR FILED EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS. AS A RESULT, STATE POLICE

INVESTIGATORS AND TROOPERS ARE DESIGNATED AS PETITIONERS IN THESE

MATTERS AND ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN ORANGE COUNTY SUPREME COURT

TO PROSECUTE THEM. THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN

APPEARING WITHOUT COUNSEL AND ARE PROCEEDING PRO SE IN THESE CIVIL

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THEIR TRAINING

INCLUDES THE LEGAL NUANCES NECESSARY FOR THEM TO PROCEED IN SUCH A

MANNER IN THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; RULES OF EVIDENCE, CONDUCTING

DIRECT CROSS-EXAMINATIONS. IT APPEARS THE GOVERNOR HAS PLACED A

PRIORITY ON THESE PROCEEDINGS, SO THE COURT WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN

102

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS ISSUE GIVEN THAT YOUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES REPRESENT

THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE IN OTHER MATTERS SUCH AS TRAFFIC MATTERS THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL REPRESENTS THE STATE POLICE. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES

TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE'S GUNS SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY BASED ON THE

FACT THAT THEY'RE A RISK TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. AND ARE YOU AWARE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL --

MR. DINOWITZ: THERE WAS NO QUESTION MARKS. I

WAS -- BUT --

MS. GIGLIO: ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT LETTER FROM THE

JUDGE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I'M NOT AWARE OF THE LETTER, AND

-- AND IT CERTAINLY RAISES IMPORTANT POINTS. BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S

RELEVANT TO THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

MS. GIGLIO: BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING --

MR. DINOWITZ: WE'RE DEBATING (INAUDIBLE) --

MS. GIGLIO: -- IT BACK ON THE STATE POLICE TO

OVERSEE, AND THE STATE POLICE ARE SITTING IN TRIALS TO -- FOR EMERGENCY

RISK PROTECTION ORDERS TO ACTUALLY -- FOR A JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR

NOT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE SOMEONE'S GUNS AWAY FROM THEM WHO IS A RISK

TO THEM SELF AND OTHERS. SO THAT IS A MAJOR CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE NOT

ONLY DO WE NEED FUNDING -- FUNDING FOR THE STATE POLICE TO PUT THESE

PROGRAMS TOGETHER, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY NEED MONEY IN THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE. BECAUSE ARE YOU -- IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF THE LETTER

FROM THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ARE YOU AWARE

OF THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BACK TO THE JUDGE?

103

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE LETTER WAS SENT BETWEEN

THE JUDGE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. I WAS NOT PARTY TO THE LETTER.

MS. GIGLIO: SO THEN I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT THE

RESPONSE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS TO THE JUDGE, AND

THEN YOU TELL ME IF YOU THINK THAT THIS IS A WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET

GUNS OFF THE STREETS FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE A POTENTIAL RISK TO THEMSELVES

AND OTHERS. SO THE RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE DATED JUNE 9,

2022 SAYS FROM ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE VINITA KAMATH,

DEAR JUDGE BROWN: THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 1, 2022

REGARDING APPLICATIONS BY THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE FOR EXTREME RISK

PROTECTION ORDERS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63(A) AND EXECUTIVE

ORDER NUMBER 19. FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW IN AUGUST

2019, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENGAGED IN INTERNAL

DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE WITH RENEWED DISCUSSIONS

FOLLOWING GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 19

THIS PAST MAY, FOLLOWING THESE DISCUSSIONS THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT OUR OFFICE WILL NOT REPRESENT THE NEW

YORK STATE STATE POLICE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. HOW IS A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUPPOSED TO CONVINCE A JUDGE THAT SOMEONE IS A

RISK TO THEMSELVES AND TO OTHERS IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING OR THE

REPRESENTATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE SURE

THAT A PROPER CASE IS MADE SO THAT THE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK ARE

PROTECTED?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I'M -- I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN A

POSITION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, BUT

104

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

NONETHELESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGISLATION WE'RE DEBATING.

MS. GIGLIO: WELL, IT DOES IN THAT WE'RE PUTTING A LOT

OF -- ON THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE AND THEN ALSO ON THE

STATE POLICE TO PUT TOGETHER A COMMISSION AND RULES AND REGULATIONS

AND ALSO SPENDING A LOT OF TIME IN COURT TRYING TO GET PEOPLE'S GUNS

AWAY FROM THEM THAT ARE A THREAT, AND TRYING TO GET SEARCH WARRANTS

WHEN THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I -- I WOULD HOPE THAT WE

WOULD FIND APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR THEM SO THEY CAN CARRY OUT ALL THE

FUNCTIONS THAT WE'VE IMPOSED UPON THEM.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU

SAYING THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SO IMPORTANT. I MEAN, WE PUT LAWS OUT

EVERY DAY AND SOME OF THEM ARE GOOD AND SOME THEM ARE BAD. BUT,

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM WHEN WE ARE LIMITED AS TO NOT ONLY

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE STATE POLICE AND WHAT THEIR, YOU KNOW,

POTENTIAL IS TO SOLVE THESE CRIMES THAT THEY'RE OUT ON THE STREET EVERYDAY

TRYING TO SOLVE CRIMES, ROBBERIES. THEY'RE REALLY TASKED WITH A LOT.

AND TO BE SITTING IN A COURT AS A PROSECUTOR WHEN THEY'RE LAW

ENFORCEMENT IS A DISGRACE TO ME AND A REALLY INJUSTICE TO THE RESIDENTS

OF NEW YORK. AND SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT WE NEED TO

DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY

REPRESENTED SO THAT THE WEAPONS DON'T STAY IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE THAT

ARE A RISK AND A THREAT TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS AS REPORTED BY SCHOOL

OFFICIALS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS. I MEAN, WE KNOW IN BUFFALO THAT THIS

PERSON HAD WRITTEN SOMETHING IN THEIR ASSIGNMENT THAT SAID THAT THEY

105

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WERE -- THAT THEY HAD A THREAT. AND THE SCHOOL REPORTED TO THE POLICE,

THE POLICE REPORTED IT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE (INAUDIBLE) WHO SAID THAT

THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT HIM.

WE COULD HAVE SAVED ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN BUFFALO HAD THIS ALL BEEN

DONE PROPERLY AND LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE AS TO HOW TO SOLVE THE

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM. AND BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF BEDS AND BY

PUTTING PEOPLE IN HOTELS THAT ARE HOMELESS, THAT HAVE MENTAL NEEDS IS

NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM, IT'S EXACERBATE -- EXACERBATING THE PROBLEM.

SO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. WOULD YOU -- WILL SENSITIVITY

ZONES BE POSTED SUCH AS LOCATIONS OF ANY PROGRAM THAT'S LICENSED,

REGULATED OR FUNDED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE

LOCATION OF ANY CHILDREN PROGRAM WHERE A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NURSERY SCHOOL, PRESCHOOLS AND SUMMER CAMPS,

HOMELESS SHELTERS, RUNAWAY HOMES, YOUTH SHELTERS, RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS,

LICENSED OR REGULATED OR FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OR ANY

BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS OWNED OR LEASED BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,

COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, LICENSED PRIVATE CAREER SCHOOLS? I MEAN, HOW IS

ONE TO KNOW WHERE THESE SENSITIVE ZONES ARE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, FOR THE MOST PART THERE --

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT SIGNAGE BE POSTED SAYING, THIS IS A

SENSITIVE AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADIRONDACK PARK THAT WAS REFERRED TO

EARLIER, IT'S A PRETTY BIG PLACE. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW,

SIGNS ALL AROUND IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO -- THERE ARE A LOT OF

THINGS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE A REASON TO KNOW.

LIKE, WE DON'T HAVE A SIGN -- AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CUTE HERE AGAIN --

106

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WE DON'T HAVE A SIGN POSTED OUTSIDE SAYING, YOU KNOW, NO MURDERING

HERE. I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT --

MS. GIGLIO: YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK

YOU SO MUCH. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BUILDINGS THAT ARE

LEASED BY STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY IN MY DISTRICT THAT, YOU KNOW,

SOMEBODY MAY NOT KNOW THAT THAT IS A -- A SCHOOL CAMPUS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY WOULD THEY GO THERE, THEN?

MS. GIGLIO: WHY WOULD -- WHY WOULD SOMEBODY

GO THERE? I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT

OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE LEASED BY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR THAT ARE FUNDED

BY THE STATE THAT MAY NOT BE POSTED AND SOMEBODY MAY NOT KNOW. I

MEAN, WHAT IF THE SCHOOL DECIDES TO GO TO THE PONQUOGUE BRIDGE AND

RELEASE A TURTLE BECAUSE IT'S A SCHOOL ACTIVITY AND IT'S FUNDED BY THE

STATE. ARE THEY GOING TO --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THEIR

TRAINING, PART OF THE TRAINING WOULD BE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LEARN ABOUT

THESE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.

MS. GIGLIO: OKAY, BUT THEY MOVE AROUND,

ESPECIALLY IN THE MARINE WORLD SUCH AS ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE STONY

BROOK UNIVERSITY.

SO, THIS BILL MAKES THE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR

SHOTGUN IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION AN E -- A CLASS E FELONY. CLASS E

FELONY IS THE LOWEST FELONY CHARGE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH

CAN OFTEN BE PLEADED DOWN TO A MISDEMEANOR.

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S CORRECT.

107

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MS. GIGLIO: SO HOW DO WE KNOW IF SOMEONE WAS

CHARGED WITH A CLASS E FELONY AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PLEADED DOWN?

ARE THEY -- THEY -- THEN THEY'RE FINED?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE SAME WAY

THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVICTED OF OTHER CRIMES WHERE THERE WAS A --A

PLEA BARGAIN DOWN, IT'S THE SAME THING. IT'S TRUE THAT MANY PEOPLE

CHARGED WITH A CLASS E FELONY MIGHT PLEA DOWN TO A CLASS A

MISDEMEANOR, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THAT -- THAT COULD BE THE CASE WITH ANY

ONE OF A NUMBER OF OTHER CRIMES.

MS. GIGLIO: ANOTHER BACKGROUND FAILS IN -- IN A LOT

OF THESE CASES. SO BACKGROUND CHECKS, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY,

BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL BE REQUIRED UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE

AND THEN FOR A RENEWAL OF A LICENSE AND THEN FOR A PURCHASE OF

AMMUNITION, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MS. GIGLIO: OKAY. AND AGAIN --

MR. DINOWITZ: HE'S HANDLING AMMUNITION, BUT

I'M -- BUT YES.

MS. GIGLIO: PLEASE, IF YOU COULD ANSWER FOR ME.

MR. DINOWITZ: JUST AMMUNITION.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I'M IN ONE OF

THOSE STARLIGHT MINUTES. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

MS. GIGLIO: SO THE QUESTION IS THAT A BACKGROUND

CHECK IS REQUIRED UPON LICENSING, UPON RENEWAL AND UPON AMMUNITION

AT PURCHASE, CORRECT?

108

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. ZEBROWSKI: RIGHT. RIGHT.

MS. GIGLIO: SO THAT EVEN FURTHER GIVES MY CONCERN

FOR HOW BUSY THE STATE POLICE IS GOING TO BE, NOT ONLY WITH THESE

BACKGROUND CHECKS BUT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO,

AND WITH THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY ENTERING THE

POLICE ACADEMY AND WANTING TO BECOME POLICE BASED ON THE

ENVIRONMENT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWER THEN. I

THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE

TEMPORARY RISK PROTECTION ORDERS AND THAT THESE EMERGENCY RISK

PROTECTION ORDERS ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT WE HAVE PROPER

REPRESENTATION SO THAT WE ARE NOT LETTING THESE GUNS BACK OUT ON THE

STREETS OR BACK INTO THE HANDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE A RISK TO THEMSELVES

AND OTHERS AS DETERMINED BY A SUPREME COURT JUDGE WITH THE PROPER

EVIDENCE.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: RIGHT. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO

SAY ABOUT THE -- THE MONEY, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE HAD

CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WHO HAS HAD CONVERSATIONS

WITH THE STATE POLICE. CERTAINLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT TO

INVEST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS OPERATES EFFECTIVELY AND THAT THAT HAS BEEN

THE UNDERSTANDING.

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

BUT THANK YOU.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

SO --

109

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MS. GIGLIO: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: YOU'RE -- I'M

SORRY, MS. GIGLIO, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MS. GIGLIO: OH, OKAY. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MAYBE MS. WALSH

COULD FOLLOW YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT --

MS. GIGLIO: I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE I STAND,

BUT THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: -- BUT IT'S HER TURN

TO SPEAK.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. DINOWITZ,

WILL YOU YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: I SAID THAT SOMEWHAT APOLOGETICALLY. I

KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR A REALLY LONG TIME. I,

TOO, HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS PART OF THE BILL

AND I'LL TRY TO COVER THOSE RELATIVELY FAST. THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH

SHOOTING SPORTS. SO UNDER -- IN THE BILL, PAGE 9 STARTING AT LINE 32 IT

SAYS THAT ONE OF THE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS IS GOING TO BE ANY PLACE USED

110

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

FOR SPORTING EVENTS. SO LIKE IN MY DISTRICT IN -- PART MY DISTRICT,

GALWAY, IT'S A RURAL AREA, THEY HAVE A TRAP SHOOTING TEAM THAT PRACTICES

-- THE SCHOOL KIDS PRACTICE AT A LOCAL ROD AND GUN CLUB, AND SO THAT'S A

SPORT WHERE THEY'RE SHOOTING CLAY PIGEONS AND IT'S -- IT'S AN AWESOME

SPORT THAT THEY PRACTICE. CAN THEY DO THIS UNDER THIS -- UNDER THIS BILL

WHICH SAYS THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE -- IT'S NOT JUST CONCEALED CARRY, IT

COVERS POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.

(PAUSE)

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S JUST -- IS THAT CONSIDERED, LIKE,

A HUNTING EDUCATION TRAINING?

MS. WALSH: NO.

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE)

MS. WALSH: NO, IT'S A SPORT.

MR. DINOWITZ: I GUESS THAT'S COVERED UNDER THIS

LIST.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. THE SECOND QUESTION IS LET'S

SAY THAT YOU -- YOU'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, YOU'VE GONE THROUGH

ALL THE TRAINING, ALL THE BACKGROUND CHECKING, EVERYTHING -- EVERYTHING

THAT -- YOU'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONCEAL CARRY, YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE

STREET AND YOU STUMBLED UPON -- YOU WEREN'T INTENDING TO -- TO SEE IT,

BUT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU IS A PROTEST. MAY YOU STAY? MUST YOU LEAVE?

ARE YOU IN VIOLATION OF THIS LAW IF YOU INNOCENTLY COME UPON THIS

PROTEST OR NOT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK THE LANGUAGE SAYS

WORDS LIKE YOU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. SO PERHAPS THAT'S NOT A

111

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SITUATION WHERE YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S -- IT'S PRETTY

SITUATIONAL AS FAR AS -- LET'S SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW, BUT ONCE YOU'RE

THERE MAY YOU -- CAN YOU REMAIN OR MUST YOU LEAVE RIGHT AWAY?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WHEN YOU GET YOUR TRAINING

THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS PRESUMABLY WOULD BE COVERED. SO IF YOU

HAPPENED TO BE WALKING ALONG THE STREET AND STUMBLED UPON A PROTEST,

THE -- PRESUMABLY THE TRAINING WILL BE SUCH THAT YOU'LL KNOW TO GET OUT

OF THERE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THIRD QUESTION. I -- I HAVE A DISTRICT OFFICE AND I -- I

WON'T GO INTO HOW SMALL MY STAFF IS, BUT IT'S NOT VERY BIG. WE HAVE ONE

OR TWO PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. IT'S OPEN TO WALK IN, SO

PEOPLE WALK IN AND SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE THAT WALK IN ARE INCREDIBLY

IRRITABLE, SCREAMING, MENTALLY ILL, CHALLENGING. AND UNDER THIS BILL,

THOUGH, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS WHO WOULD HAVE

A LAWFUL CONCEAL CARRY COULD NOT CARRY DURING HER JOB IN THAT PLACE

BECAUSE IT IS A STATE-RUN OFFICE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU HIT -- YOU GOT IT. ANY

PLACE OWNED OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING

COURTS. BUT YOU'RE A PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION. YOU

WOULD BE COVERED BY THAT, MEANING THEY SHOULDN'T -- THEY SHOULDN'T BE

TAKING THEIR CONCEALED WEAPONS IN WITH THEM. I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE

DISTRICT OFFICES AND I'M SURE WE ALL HAVE OUR SHARE OF PEOPLE SUCH AS

112

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

YOU DESCRIBED. I KNOW I DO.

MS. WALSH: YEAH.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND WE DEAL WITH THE SITUATION IN

A PROFESSIONAL WAY. WE TRY TO CALM PEOPLE DOWN, WE DO WHATEVER WE

CAN. IF NECESSARY, 911. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO REACT IN AN

APPROPRIATE WAY. BUT YES, WE WOULD BE -- WE WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.

MS. WALSH: VERY GOOD. LAST QUESTION, AND I KNOW

WE'RE MAKING A TRIP BACK TO THE ADIRONDACK PARK BECAUSE I REALLY AM

CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PART. SO FUN FACTS FOR YOU. THE -- IT'S THE LARGEST

PARK IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES. IT IS 1/5TH OF THE AREA OF NEW

YORK STATE. IT IS OVER 9,300 SQUARE MILES - BIG - AND IT IS A PUBLIC PARK.

SO IF I WERE, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A WOMAN SOLO HIKING THE NORTHWAY LAKE

PLACID -- NORTH OF THE LAKE PLACID TRAIL WHICH IS 138 MILES LONG AND I

WAS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, CAMPING AND TENTING ALONG THE WAY, I -- I

-- WOULD I BE ALLOWED TO CONCEAL CARRY FOR MY PROTECTION ALONG THAT

HIKE IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK?

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT UNLESS YOU FALL IN ONE OF THE

EXEMPTED CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE.

MS. WALSH: YEAH, NO, I DON'T FIT INTO ANY OF THOSE

CATEGORIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO HERE WE ARE,

113

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE WHO SAID HOW REFRESHING THAT WE'RE

DEBATING THIS IN DAYLIGHT. THAT IS TRUE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY

REFRESHING THING ABOUT THIS BILL, HONESTLY. THIS BILL, IN MY OPINION, IS

GOING TO BE ABOUT AS EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE AS

CONSUMING CUOMO CHIPS IS TO THE SPREAD OF COVID, HONESTLY. IT -- IT

CREATES AN ILLUSION OF SAFETY, BUT IT'S -- IT'S NOT REALLY PROVIDING ANY

ADDITIONAL SAFETY TO PEOPLE. AND I BELIEVE TRULY THAT THERE IS A

COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR APPRECIATION FOR THE IDEA THAT THERE

COULD BE A LEGITIMATE NEED OR DESIRE FOR SELF DEFENSE FROM BEARS, AS

SOMEBODY POINTED EARLY -- EARLIER, AND JUST -- JUST GENERALLY BAD

PEOPLE. BAD PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT THERE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO DEFEND

YOURSELF. I MEAN, NOBODY'S REALLY COVERED IT YET, BUT THE -- WE DEBATED

THIS BEFORE THE END OF REGULAR SESSION, BUT THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO

BAN ANY KIND OF BODY ARMOR REALLY DOESN'T ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT YOU

MAY HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WORKS IN A BODEGA OR IN A -- IN A

CRIME-RIDDEN NEIGHBORHOOD WHO RUNS A BUSINESS WHO'S NOT GOING TO BE

ABLE TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THEMSELVES, AND THIS BILL KIND OF FOLLOWS SUIT

ALONG THAT -- THAT PROBLEM. YOU CAN GO THROUGH ALL THE CONCEALED CARRY

REQUIREMENTS, GO THROUGH ALL THE SCREENINGS, GO THROUGH ALL THE

TRAINING, GET HUNDREDS, ACE YOUR EXAMS, ALL OF THEM, PASSED ALL OF THE

CHARACTER BACKGROUND CHECK, AND WHEN YOU GET THAT CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT UNDER THIS LAW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CARRY IT ANYWHERE.

YOU'RE -- YOU'RE REALLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CARRY IT ANYWHERE. I

THINK IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I THINK IT WILL BE CHALLENGED, I THINK IT WILL

BE REJECTED BECAUSE AS JUSTICE THOMAS STATED IN THE -- IN HIS DECISION

114

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

IN THE BRUEN CASE, THAT YOU CAN'T DEFINE THE CATEGORY OF SENSITIVE PLACES

TOO BROADLY. IT -- IT HAS TO BE DEFINED NARROWLY ENOUGH. AND I THINK

THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE'VE SPENT IN THIS CHAMBER DEBATING ALL

OF THE DIFFERENT NUANCES ABOUT THE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS PART OF THIS BILL I

THINK DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE -- THAT IT IS JUST A VERY BROAD PIECE OF

LEGISLATION IN THE WAY THAT IT'S DEFINING SENSITIVE PLACE.

I ALSO THINK -- AND NOBODY'S REALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS

YET AND IT'S REALLY AN UNCOMFORTABLE THING TO BRING UP IN A WAY, BUT I

FEEL THAT AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THIS BILL IS REALLY YOU'RE

CREATING AREAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO BE SITTING DUCKS, REALLY.

YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE AREAS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A CHURCH, OKAY? SO

BACK IN 2017 AROUND THE NASHVILLE VILLAGE AREA THE BURNETTE CHAPEL

CHURCH OF CHRIST, A GUNMAN ENTERED, HE SHOT A WOMAN, HE -- WELL, HE

SHOT HER OUTSIDE WHEN SHE WAS GOING TO HER CAR, THEN HE WENT INSIDE TO

THE CHURCH AND HE STARTED SHOOTING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. THERE WAS AN

USHER THERE WHO HAD A PISTOL, HAD A CONCEALED CARRY AND SHOT THE

SHOOTER AND SAVED UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN THIS CHURCH FROM

FURTHER HARM. UNDER THIS LEGISLATION THAT HERO WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A

CLASS E FELONY. AND I JUST THINK THAT FUNDAMENTALLY THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT

A GOOD IDEA. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO BE. I THINK THAT

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BREAK THE LAW ARE GOING TO BREAK THE LAW, AND THAT

THERE SO MANY THINGS THAT THIS BODY COULD DO TO HELP MAKE OUR

COMMUNITIES SAFER, BUT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS -- IS NOT IT.

IT'S NOT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL SUPPORT.

I WANT TO POINT OUT A -- A FACT THAT I FOUND VERY

115

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

INTERESTING. AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF HOMICIDES AND 55 PERCENT OF NON-

FATAL SHOOTINGS INVOLVE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH GANGS OR STREET GROUPS.

NOBODY SEEMS TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. INSTEAD WE'RE GEARING

LEGISLATION TO REALLY ATTACK AND PLACE MORE AND MORE AND MORE HOOPS

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LAW -- LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO ARE GOING TO BE

THOROUGHLY VETTED AND OUR -- UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW THOROUGHLY VETTED

BEFORE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONCEAL CARRY. SO I THINK THAT SINCE THE

SAFE ACT IN 2013, SHOOTING DEATHS ARE UP 220 PERCENT HERE IN ALBANY,

69 PERCENT IN BUFFALO, 90 PERCENT IN ROCHESTER, 79 PERCENT IN

SYRACUSE, AND WHAT ARE WE DOING? I THINK WE'RE GOING AFTER THE WRONG

PEOPLE. I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT A BILL THAT I CAN SUPPORT FOR THOSE

REASONS AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO INSTEAD OF KNEE-JERK

REACTING TO A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT THEY DON'T LIKE, TO REALLY BE A

LITTLE BIT MORE DELIBERATIVE AND THOUGHTFUL IN THE WAY THAT WE GO ABOUT

THINGS BECAUSE I -- I JUST THINK THAT THIS -- I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS GOING

TO BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND I THINK THAT IT REALLY IS GOING TO

CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE CRIMINALIZED, AND AT THE SAME

TIME NOT ADDRESS THE SINCERE PROBLEMS WITH VIOLENCE THAT WE HAVE IN

OUR COMMUNITIES ALL ACROSS THE STATE.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MR. ASHBY.

MR. ASHBY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: DOES THE SPONSOR

116

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. ASHBY: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. EARLIER WE

WERE TALKING ABOUT SENSITIVE AREAS. SOME OF THEM HAVE THE ABILITY TO

OPT OUT, IT SEEMS. RESTAURANTS THAT DON'T SERVE ALCOHOL, FOR EXAMPLE,

WOULD BE ABLE TO PLACE A SIGN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CARRY FIREARMS IN

THERE. WHY -- WHY ARE PLACES OF WORSHIP NOT ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME?

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S -- IT'S -- THERE'S NO OPT OUT. WE

HAVE A LIST GOING FROM A THROUGH T OF SENSITIVE AREAS. IT INCLUDES

RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL. IF A RESTAURANT DOESN'T SERVE ALCOHOL, IT'S

SIMPLY A PRIVATE BUSINESS THAT'S NOT ON THIS LIST, THEY CAN MAKE A

CHOICE. IT'S -- IT'S SORT OF OPTING IN TO ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CARRY A

CONCEALED WEAPON IN WITH THEM. SO IF A -- IF A -- AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER,

IF A RESTAURANT WANTS TO BE A GUN-FREE -- A GUN-FRIENDLY RESTAURANT AND

THEY DON'T SERVE ALCOHOL THEY CAN DO SO BY SIMPLY POSTING A SIGN OR

MAKING IT WELL-KNOWN BY TELLING PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN COME

IN WITH YOUR GUNS, ESSENTIALLY. SO THE RESTAURANT THAT SERVES ALCOHOL

WOULD BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY IN A SENSE AS -- AS -- AS THE RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTION.

MR. ASHBY: SO WHY ARE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS NOT

ALLOWED TO DO THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: FOR THE SAME REASON THAT SCHOOLS

WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, COURTS, HOSPITALS. IT'S

117

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

BEEN -- THIS LEGISLATION WOULD DEEM THEM SENSITIVE -- SENSITIVE

LOCATIONS. I -- I CAN'T IMAGINE -- WELL, YOU KNOW, I SHOULDN'T LIMIT MY

THINKING TO WHAT I BELIEVE, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANYBODY WOULD

WANT GUNS IN A -- IN A RELIGIOUS SETTING.

MR. ASHBY: IT JUST SEEMS -- IT JUST SEEMED STRANGE

TO ME THAT THE EXCLUSION OF ALCOHOL WOULD ALLOW A BUSINESS TO DO THIS

BUT A RELIGIOUS -- A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION -- WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF NOT

TELLING A -- A RESTAURANT WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO BUT A RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTION WE CAN IN THIS INSTANCE.

MR. DINOWITZ: THE -- THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, IF

-- IF THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY THERE -- THERE ARE PEOPLE SUCH AS

SECURITY PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE LIST. I HAVE HERE REGISTERED SECURITY

GUARDS WHO HAVE BEEN GRANTED A SPECIAL ARMED REGISTRATION CARD AND

ARE ON DUTY. SO THEY COULD HAVE SOMEBODY LIKE THAT ON PREMISES IF

THEY'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT -- ABOUT THIS. AND -- AND OBVIOUSLY I

KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN ATTACKS SUCH AS ON THE, YOU KNOW,

THE SYNAGOGUE IN PITTSBURGH. THERE WAS A CASE IN TEXAS NOT SO LONG

AGO, SAME THING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED

AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT WITHOUT

ALLOWING A SITUATION WHERE EVERYBODY CAN COME IN WITH -- OR

EVERYBODY WHO'S LICENSED CAN COME IN WITH A GUN. AND I -- I WOULD

THINK THAT HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN ONE LOCATION WITH A GUN COULD -- IS

NOT A GOOD FORMULA FOR SAFETY, BUT RATHER IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. ALL IT

TAKES IS ONE ANGRY PERSON, ALL IT TAKES IS ONE MISTAKE, ONE ACCIDENT AND

PEOPLE COULD BE HURT. SO I -- I CANNOT IMAGINE WHY ANYBODY WOULD

118

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WANT TO SEE GUNS IN A -- IN A CHURCH, IN A SYNAGOGUE, IN A MOSQUE OR

ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS LOCATION.

MR. ASHBY: ARE LAWFUL CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

HOLDERS A THREAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: PROBABLY NOT IN MOST CASES.

MR. ASHBY: WHEN THEY'RE CASES THAT YOU JUST

PREVIOUSLY CITED, IF THEY'RE NOT A THREAT, WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN?

(PAUSE)

MR. DINOWITZ: THE COURT DECISION, THE BRUEN

CASE, INDICATED THAT WE CAN COME -- WE AND ANY OTHER STATE CAN

PRODUCE A LIST OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS. OTHER STATES, BY THE WAY, HAVE

DONE JUST THAT, INCLUDING IN CHURCHES, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY OF ALL THIS

ENTIRE LIST WHY YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SINGLE OUT CHURCHES AS A PLACE THAT

YOU WOULD PREFER TO HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN WITH CONCEALED FIREARMS.

I MEAN --

MR. ASHBY: I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE SINGLING OUT

LAWFUL CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU JUST SAID

THEY'RE NOT A THREAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: WE'RE NOT --

MR. ASHBY: BUT YET YOU WANT TO LIMIT THEIR

ABILITIES IN THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, YOU WANT TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITIES

OF FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. IF THEY'RE NOT A THREAT THEN WHY ARE WE

PLACING LIMITATIONS ON THEM?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, AS I SAID I DON'T THINK MOST

PEOPLE WOULD NECESSARILY BE A THREAT. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT. BUT THE

119

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

POINT IS IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE SUPREME COURT. THEY CAME

OUT WITH THE DECISION WHICH SOME OF YOU HAS CHARACTERIZED AS A

SUPERMAJORITY, AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT. THEY RULED, THEY'RE THE

HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THEY'RE WRONG. BUT IF

THEY'RE RIGHT THEN THEY'RE RIGHT ON OUR ABILITY AS INDICATED IN THE RULING

THAT -- THAT SENSITIVE LOCATIONS CAN BE EXEMPTED FROM PEOPLE WITH

CONCEALED CARRYING PERMITS TO HAVE TO BRING THEIR WEAPONS. I'M SORRY,

THAT INCLUDES ANY GUNS BUT CERTAINLY INCLUDES THE CONCEALED. IT SAYS SO

IN THE DECISION. READ IT.

MR. ASHBY: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STAND YOUR

GROUND LAW? THAT -- THAT LINE OF THINKING?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT IN

NEW YORK.

MR. ASHBY: WE DO NOT. WE HAVE A -- IT'S A DUTY TO

RETREAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: IS THAT THE LAW THAT RESULTED IN THE

DEATH OF TRAYVON MARTIN IN FLORIDA? IS THAT THE SAME LAW WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT?

MR. ASHBY: I'M NOT FAMILIAR -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR OF

THAT APPLICATION WITH IT.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I AM.

MR. ASHBY: AND THIS -- AND THIS -- IN THIS INSTANCE

IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WE ARE ACCELERATING THIS MINDSET OF A DUTY TO RETREAT.

YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE HAS A PROTEST THAT'S BEING HELD

OUTSIDE THEIR RESIDENCE - AND THIS HAS OCCURRED WITH NUMEROUS ELECTED

120

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OFFICIALS - WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO EXIT THEIR PROPERTY WITH A FIREARM

IF THEY'RE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT SURE THEY SHOULD BE ON

THEIR PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH A CONCEALED -- IF IT'S A GOVERNMENT

OFFICE.

MR. ASHBY: THEIR RESIDENCE, AND A PROTEST IS

OCCURRING.

MR. DINOWITZ: ON THEIR PROPERTY?

MR. ASHBY: CORRECT.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR

SAFETY I WOULD THINK THE FIRST THING THEY WOULD WANT TO DO IS CALL THE

POLICE AND SAY THAT THEY'RE BEING TRESPASSED ON.

MR. ASHBY: AND THEN RETREAT,ESSENTIALLY, CORRECT?

ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL YOU CAN RETREAT -- YOU CAN

STAY IN YOUR HOUSE. THAT'S NOT A RETREAT. HOW IS THAT A RETREAT? I MEAN,

I WOULD HOPE THAT RATHER THAN COMING OUT WITH GUNS BLAZING THAT MOST

PEOPLE WOULD MAKE THE RATIONAL DECISION TO TRY TO AVOID ANY KIND OF

CONFRONTATION THAT MIGHT INVOLVE SOMEBODY SHOOTING SOMEBODY.

MR. ASHBY: WHAT IF, IN FACT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO

THAT BY EXITING AND LEAVING?

MR. DINOWITZ: CALLING THE POLICE I WOULD THINK

WOULD BE THE SENSIBLE MOVE IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT.

MR. ASHBY: WHAT IF THEY WERE TRYING TO LEAVE?

MR. DINOWITZ: CALL THE POLICE.

121

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. ASHBY: AND WAIT?

MR. DINOWITZ: HOW LONG DO YOU THINK -- HOW

LONG DOES IT --

MR. ASHBY: IT CAN TAKE A WHILE. SOMETIMES IT

TAKES A LITTLE TIME.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL (INAUDIBLE) --

MR. ASHBY: IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO EGRESS ON

YOUR OWN --

MR. DINOWITZ: IF I DIALED 911 IN A CIRCUMSTANCE

LIKE THAT IN THE CITY - I KNOW DISTANCES ARE CLOSER AND SHORTER - I WOULD

THINK THE POLICE WOULD COME PRETTY QUICKLY.

MR. ASHBY: EARLIER A COLLEAGUE OF MINE HAD -- HAD

TALKED ABOUT THE SUBSTITUTION OF MILITARY QUALIFICATION ON THE RANGE TO

BE ABLE TO SUBSTITUTE THAT FOR THE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT, AND AS I RECALL

THAT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT MILITARY TRAINING IS NO LONGER

ACCEPTABLE?

MR. ASHBY: THEIR RANGE SCORE OF WHAT THEY USE ON

THE RANGE AT A MILITARY INSTALLATION FOR A 9 MILLIMETER, RIGHT, THEY CAN

USE -- RIGHT NOW THEY CAN USE THAT SCORE TO APPLY FOR THEIR CONCEALED

CARRY PERMIT AND USE THAT AS COMPETENCY, TO DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCY.

UNDER THIS LAW IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WHY?

MR. DINOWITZ: MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT --

MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT THERE'S AN EXEMPTION.

MR. ASHBY: FOR THEIR PRIVATELY-OWNED FIREARMS.

122

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: UNDER LEOSA, AS WAS MENTIONED

EARLIER.

MR. ASHBY: THE TERMINAL END OF THE CONVERSATION

RESULTED IN THEIR PERSONAL WEAPONS, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO -- THEY

WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: OKAY.

MR. ASHBY: THAT -- THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE AND

I'M ASKING WHY. WHY THEY -- WHY THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE

RECORD THAT THEY CAN USE FOR THE ARMY, NAVY, WHATEVER THEIR SERVICE IS,

WHY THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR NEW YORK STATE.

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES

THAT MOST OF US ARE.

MR. ASHBY: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. SPEAKER, THE BILL.

MR. SPEAKER, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH --

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: ON -- ON THE BILL. ON

THE RECORD, ON THE BILL.

MR. ASHBY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AGAIN, IT

SEEMS AS THOUGH THIS MINDSET OF DUTY TO RETREAT, THIS OVERREACH, THIS

NEGLECT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST FURTHER EXTENDING AND THIS BILL IS

EVIDENCE OF THAT. I ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: THANK YOU.

MR. MANKTELOW.

ON ZOOM, MR. MANKTELOW.

123

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

(PAUSE)

MR. MANKTELOW NEEDS TO BE UNMUTED.

(PAUSE)

WE'RE GOING TO WAIT BRIEFLY WHILE MR. MANKTELOW GETS

HIMSELF CONNECTED OR DOES NOT GET HIMSELF CONNECTED.

MR. MANKTELOW: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: MR. MANKTELOW.

(PAUSE)

MR. MANKTELOW: YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: THANK YOU, MR.

MANKTELOW. PLEASE PROCEED.

MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I WILL

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS UNMUTING AND UNMUTING, AND IT JUST WOULDN'T -- IT WOULDN'T

UNMUTE. HEY, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE QUESTION I HAVE, SO

JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS. A VIETNAM VETERAN WHO SERVED IN

VIETNAM, IN THE JUNGLES OF VIETNAM DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY, THAT

INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT HAVE AN EXEMPTION WITH THIS NEW LAW BEING

PROPOSED?

MR. DINOWITZ: ARE YOU ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT

124

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

A VIETNAM VETERAN OR ANY VETERAN?

MR. MANKTELOW: WELL, MOST VETERANS. I HAD -- I

HAD A VIETNAM VETERAN ASKING ME THE QUESTION ALREADY AND WONDERING

WHERE HE WOULD FALL IN THAT SITUATION. SO I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR HIM.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. MANKTELOW: NO. SO HE WOULD HAVE TO

FOLLOW ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS LIKE A NORMAL PERSON WOULD?

MR. DINOWITZ: CORRECT.

MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SECOND

QUESTION, MR. SPONSOR. BACK TO THE SITUATION WITH THE CHURCHES. SO IF

I WAS CARRYING -- CARRYING A CONCEALED, WHICH I CAN, AND I WAS IN A

CHURCH SERVICE AND WE HAD AN ACTIVE SHOOTER COME IN AND THIS LAW WAS

ALREADY PASSED AND I TOOK OUT THAT ACTIVE SHOOTER, WOULD I THEN BE

SUBJECT TO BEING ARRESTED MYSELF?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE

LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

MR. MANKTELOW: SO IT'S GOING TO BE PUT ON ONE

PERSON, ON THE JUDGE, THEN, AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I MEAN, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON

WHETHER YOU HAD AN EXEMPTION. THERE'S A LONG LIST OF POSSIBLE

EXEMPTIONS.

MR. MANKTELOW: AND -- AND AGAIN, JUST HELP ME

UNDERSTAND, MR. -- MR. SPONSOR. WHO -- WHO MADE THOSE EXEMPTIONS?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, LET ME GO THROUGH THE

EXEMPTION LIST.

125

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. MANKTELOW: NO, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO

MADE THE -- MADE THE EXEMPTIONS. WHO CAME UP WITH THE LIST?

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS -- IT'S WHAT'S IN THE

LEGISLATION.

MR. MANKTELOW: YES, BUT WHO -- WHO PUT THAT

IN THE LEGISLATION? WHO CREATED THE LIST TO BE PUT IN THE --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WE, THE LEGISLATURE, ARE

PUTTING IT IN THE LEGISLATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, POLICE OFFICERS, PEACE

OFFICERS, RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, REGISTERED SECURITY GUARDS

WHO HAVE BEEN GRANTED A SPECIAL ARMS REGISTRATION CARD AND ARE ON

DUTY, ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL, PERSONS POSSESSING A LICENSE TO

CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON IN RELATION TO EMPLOYMENT WHILE ON DUTY. A

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNDER THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SUCH

EMPLOYEE'S SUPERVISING GOVERNMENT ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF NATURAL

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT, PERSONS LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN

HUNTING ACTIVITY INCLUDING HUNTER EDUCATION TRAINING AND PERSONS

OPERATING A PROGRAM IN A SENSITIVE LOCATION OUT OF THEIR RESIDENCE AS

DEFINED BY THE SECTION WHICH IS LICENSED, CERTIFIED, AUTHORIZED OR

FUNDED BY THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITY AS LONG AS SUCH POSSESSION IS IN

COMPLIANCE WITH ANY RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE OPERATION OF

SUCH PROGRAM AND USE OR STORAGE OF FIREARMS. SO THAT'S A PRETTY

EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS.

MR. MANKTELOW: EXCEPT FOR -- EXCEPT FOR

VETERANS. THEY'RE NOT ON THAT LIST.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY A NUMBER

126

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OF CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST, BUT THERE ARE MANY THAT

ARE ON THE LIST.

MR. MANKTELOW: I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY

WITH ALL THE EXTENSIVE TRAINING THAT OUR MEN AND WOMEN HAVE IN

SERVICE AND WHY THEY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THAT LIST. IT JUST

DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE A LOT OF SENSE. I WOULD JUST -- I DON'T -- THEY

PROBABLY HAVE MORE TRAINING AND UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO USE A

WEAPON, HOW TO BE DOING THE RIGHT THING AND THE WRONG THING,

IDENTIFYING WHAT THEY'RE SHOOTING AT MORE SO THAN MOST ANYBODY IN THIS

COUNTRY, BUT YET WE TENDED TO LEAVE THEM OUT IN NEW YORK STATE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THEY -- THEY ARE OFF, THAT'S

CORRECT.

MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'VE GOT

ANOTHER QUESTION. BACK TO OUR DOS, OUR DISTRICT OFFICES. SO, ACCORDING

TO THIS WHEN THIS PASSES AND WILL BE SIGNED INTO LAW, AND ANYBODY THAT

WORKS IN OUR DOS WILL THEN NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY -- CARRY A CONCEALED

INCLUDING MYSELF, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. MANKTELOW: IN -- IN OUR SITUATIONS IN OUR

RURAL AREAS -- I'VE HAD THIS DEBATE A FEW YEARS AGO, OUR 911 OPERATORS

DO A FABULOUS JOB. OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT INDIVIDUALS DO A FABULOUS JOB.

BUT THERE'S ONLY SO MANY OF THEM TO GO AROUND. IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT,

WHY WOULD SOMEBODY IN OUR DO NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES

BECAUSE A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS SAID THEY'RE NOT ON THE LIST?

MR. DINOWITZ: BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ON THE LIST

127

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY

THE GUN IN WITH THEM. I'M NOT SURE HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN THAT.

MR. MANKTELOW: I MEAN, I THINK THIS GOES BACK

TO WHEN THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WAS CREATED, AGAIN, LIKE WE DO QUITE

OFTEN HERE IN ALBANY, WE DO NOT BRING ALL THE PLAYERS TO THE TABLE TO

MAKE SURE ALL THE VOICES ARE HEARD PRIOR TO PUTTING A PIECE OF -- PIECE

OF LEGISLATION TO A -- TO A VOTE. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOR

OVER 24 HOURS. NOW WE'RE SEEING IT. UNFORTUNATELY I HAVEN'T HAD A

CHANCE TO READ THE WHOLE THING. BUT IT JUST SEEMS, AGAIN, LIKE WE'VE

PUT THE -- THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE AND NOW WE'RE TAKING OUR

LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS THAT WORK IN OUR DOS AND PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S

WAY BECAUSE IN A -- IN A RURAL COUNTY IT COULD TAKE A POLICE OFFICER OR A

FIRST RESPONDER TEN MINUTES, 15 MINUTES, A HALF-HOUR, 50 MINUTES. IN

THAT SITUATION WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER FOR THEM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

PROTECT THEMSELVES OTHER THAN JUST SIT THERE AND TAKE WHATEVER THEY'VE

GOT TO DISH OUT? AND IT JUST -- IT JUST SEEMS AGAIN LIKE WE'RE -- WE'RE

HURTING THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, AND THAT SHOULD BE A DECISION ON THE

INDIVIDUAL THAT WORKS IN OUR DO WITH US AS ASSEMBLYMEMBERS.

AGAIN, IT JUST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I JUST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS

IS GOOD LEGISLATION.

AND JUST MY LAST QUESTION --

MR. DINOWITZ: IF MY --

MR. MANKTELOW: GO AHEAD.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF MY CONSTITUENTS KNEW THAT I OR

THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN MY DISTRICT OFFICE WERE CARRYING A GUN, I'M

128

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SURE THEY WOULD BE APPALLED. I'M SURE THEY WOULDN'T COME TO MY

OFFICE. BUT THESE TYPE OF LOCATIONS, WHETHER IT'S OUR OFFICE OR ANY ONE

OF THE OTHER ONES MENTIONED IN HERE, THESE ARE PLACES THAT ARE

HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED ONES THAT SHOULD NOT BE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE

GUNS. THE SUPREME COURT ASKED -- INVITED US TO PUT OUT LEGISLATION, IN

ESSENCE, WHICH LISTS SENSITIVE LOCATIONS. WE'VE DONE EXACTLY WHAT THEY

WANTED US TO DO UNDER THE COURT RULING. SO WE ARE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT

IT, BUT THIS IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT RULING SAID.

MR. MANKTELOW: SO HOW MANY MEMBERS ON

EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT LIVE IN RURAL AREAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR

INPUT ON WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THE

MEMBERS ASKED THEIR COMMUNITY FOR INPUT. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT

MANY OF OUR MEMBERS DO REPRESENT RURAL AREAS AND WE ARE ELECTED TO

REPRESENT THEM. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE DON'T TAKE A POLL ON EVERY

ISSUE, WE -- WE TAKE POSITIONS ON ISSUES AND IF THE CONSTITUENTS HAVE A

PROBLEM WITH THAT OR DISAGREE THEN THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE RECOURSE.

MR. MANKTELOW: WELL, THE RECOURSE IS EXACTLY

WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. WE LEGISLATORS THAT LIVE IN A RURAL AREA ARE

SAYING THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK. WE'RE HEARING FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS

THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. THEY DON'T APPRECIATE THEIR RIGHTS BEING

TAKEN AWAY. THEY DON'T -- THEY APPRECIATE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO

DEFEND THEMSELVES IN OUR RURAL AREAS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE DO. THIS IS

HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS.

MR. DINOWITZ: NOBODY'S RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN

129

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AWAY. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS

DISCUSSION, A FEW TIMES SOME OF -- SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE

REFERRED TO THE ABILITY OF POOR PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE ALL THE CRIME IS IN SOME COMMUNITIES AND NOT

OTHERS, BUT THE WAY YOU'RE TALKING NOW IT'S AS IF YOU'RE BEING OVERRUN

WITH PEOPLE WITH GUNS AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

MR. MANKTELOW: NO, IT'S -- YOU ARE -- YOU ARE

EXACTLY RIGHT, IT'S NOT THE CASE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE ABLE TO

DEFEND OURSELVES WITH THE WAY THE LAW IS WITH THE CARRY CONCEALED. I

HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF IN SOME OF THESE PLACES THAT YOU'RE GOING

TO TAKE OFF -- OFF THE LIST -- OR YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ON THAT LIST. SO NOW

I'M NOT ABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES OR A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL NOT BE

ABLE TO DO SO. JUST LIKE WHEN MY ONE COLLEAGUE SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW,

WALKING THROUGH THE ADIRONDACK PARK AS A FEMALE, BY HERSELF. WHY

WOULD SHE NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU AND I BOTH KNOW

THAT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO CREATE OR DO BAD THINGS KNOW THAT NO ONE'S

CARRYING A WEAPON OR A CARRY CONCEALED, THAT JUST OPENS THE DOOR FOR

THEM TO COME IN. AND THAT JUST KIND OF LEADS INTO MY LAST QUESTION.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT -- I'VE HEARD A LOT FROM EVERYONE TODAY, A LOT OF

GOOD POINTS OF WHY WE FEEL WE'RE LOSING OUR RIGHTS AGAIN AND NOT BEING

ABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES. BUT WHAT -- WHAT I'M SAYING AND WHAT I'M

HEARING IS WHAT ARE WE DOING TO STOP THE BAD PEOPLE, THE INDIVIDUALS

THAT ARE CREATING THE CRIMES, DOING THE SHOOTINGS? THIS LAW DOES

NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GO AND GET THE WEAPONS

SOMEPLACE. THEY'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE BORDER, THEY'RE GOING TO GET

130

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THEIR AMMO. THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. SO WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE

STOP OUR PEOPLE, OUR LEGAL -- OUR PEOPLE THAT OBEY THE LAW AND DO THE

RIGHT THING FROM BEING -- HAVING THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES?

SO THAT IS WHERE I SEE THIS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

MR. DINOWITZ: CONCERNING ABOUT PEOPLE LOSING

RIGHTS IS PRETTY SELECTIVE. CONSIDERING WHAT ELSE THE SUPREME COURT

RULED ON LAST WEEK AND HOW THEY TOOK AWAY RIGHTS FROM TENS OF

MILLIONS OF WOMEN, I -- I REALLY --

MR. MANKTELOW: THIS IS NOT --

MR. DINOWITZ: (INAUDIBLE) THAT THIS IS THE THING

YOU'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

MR. MANKTELOW: NO, MR. -- MR. SPONSOR, THIS IS

-- THIS IS -- THAT PART'S NOT ON THIS BILL. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL.

AND WHAT I'M HEARING -- EXCUSE ME, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER LAVINE: ON THE BILL.

MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

AGAIN, AS I'VE JUST DISCUSSED AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, AND I KNOW

SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK UP ABOUT THIS. WE'RE HURTING THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. WE'RE NOT

ALLOWING THEM TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, NOT ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE THEIR

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. AND BETWEEN THE AMMO SITUATION AND

MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT MY COLLEAGUES BROUGHT UP, THIS IS NOT A

GOOD BILL. THIS IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO STOP BAD PEOPLE FROM

DOING BAD THINGS. AND AS THE SPONSOR SAID, IN HIS AREA HE'S LIABLE TO GET

131

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

A POLICE OFFICER MUCH QUICKER IN THE CITY BECAUSE THERE'S MORE

INDIVIDUALS THERE, MORE POLICE OFFICERS. AGAIN, ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL

FOR NEW YORK STATE. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BUILD THE STATE,

BECOME NEW YORKERS AND BECOME THE EMPIRE STATE AGAIN LIKE IT USED

TO BE, A GREAT STATE, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE IT WORK IN

OUR AREAS THAT MAY NOT WORK IN THE OTHER ONES. AND IF WE DON'T TRY TO

DO THAT AND LISTEN TO ALL OF US ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, WE'RE NEVER

GOING TO GET THERE. OUR STATE WILL GO DOWN THE TUBES, AND THAT'S WHAT

WE'RE SEEING.

SO I'M GOING TO URGE MY -- URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE

NO ON THIS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT EVERYONE IN OUR STATE. THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. KEITH BROWN.

MR. BROWN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. CAN YOU

HEAR ME OKAY?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WE HEAR YOU.

MR. K. BROWN: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME

QUESTIONS?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. YOUR VOICE IS A LITTLE

MUFFLED, THOUGH.

MR. K. BROWN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

I'M SORRY I CAN'T BE THERE IN PERSON, SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU

ACCOMMODATING ME BY TAKING MY QUESTIONS BY ZOOM. I'M GOING TO

START OFF BY ASKING IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS LAW, HAS THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE, HAS HE BEEN APPRISED OF THIS LAW

132

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AND ASKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE POLICE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO

ADMINISTER THIS LAW IN TERMS OF THE BACKGROUND CHECKS?

MR. DINOWITZ: AGENCIES HAVE BEEN APPRISED AND

IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE AGENCIES.

MR. K. BROWN: AND CURRENTLY THERE'S NO FUNDING

FOR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT THE STATE POLICE ARE GOING TO

HAVE TO DO; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M -- I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S THE CASE

THAT NO FUNDING IS AVAILABLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

KEEPING IN MIND ALSO THAT THE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS WOULD

GENERATE ADDITIONAL FEES TO THE STATE.

MR. K. BROWN: SO IT'S GOING TO BE -- IN TERMS OF

ADMINISTERING THIS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME FROM THE CURRENT BUDGET

THAT THE STATE POLICE HAS, RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK THAT THE STATE HAS A

CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LEEWAY IN HOW CERTAIN MONEY IS SPENT. I IMAGINE

THAT THE GOVERNOR IS VERY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS

SUCCESSFUL. AND WE CAN USE EXISTING RESOURCES FROM THE EXECUTIVE,

BUT ALSO FROM FUTURE BUDGETS.

MR. K. BROWN: AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS

GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL WORK THAT THE STATE

POLICE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO AS IT RELATES TO -- TO ADMINISTERING THIS

NEW LAW?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME

ADDITIONAL WORK. WHETHER I WOULD SAY TREMENDOUS, YOU KNOW,

133

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL WORK I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE CASE.

MR. K. BROWN: WELL, IT'S JUST ONE OF MY FIRST

CONCERNS IS THAT I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW --- ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES

BROUGHT IT UP EARLIER, HOW THE STATE POLICE, GIVEN WHAT THEY ARE

CURRENTLY TRYING TO DO WITH THEIR CURRENT BUDGET AND HOW THEY'RE GOING

TO BE ABLE TO ADMINISTER THIS NEW LAW.

I'M GOING TO SWITCH GEARS BECAUSE MY NEXT BIGGEST

AREA OF CONCERN IS THE RESTRICTED LOCATION PORTIONS OF THE BILL. SO

CURRENTLY, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM IS CLASSIFIED BY WHAT TYPE OF

CRIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

IS A CLASS -- YEAH, I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON THE DEGREE BUT IT'S A FELONY.

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT. MOST LIKELY A CLASS E

FELONY, RIGHT? THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FELONY?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FELONY IS A

CLASS E FELONY.

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT. AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF

A FIREARMS IS LIKELY IN THAT CATEGORY, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT SURE YOU'VE BEEN CLEAR.

ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE -- THE NEW CRIMES WE JUST CREATED IN THIS BILL

OR -- OR CURRENTLY EXISTS?

MR. K. BROWN: THE CURRENT LAW.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT DEPENDS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT

DEGREES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION.

MR. K. BROWN: WELL, LET ME ASK MY QUESTION THIS

134

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WAY. STATISTICALLY, HAS GUN VIOLENCE INCREASED IN THE STATE OF NEW

YORK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND MONTHS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD SAY THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE

OF MONTHS FROM EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN THERE'S BEEN A DECREASE. I WOULD

SAY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE PANDEMIC THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE. I

WOULD SAY IT DEPENDS ON HOW FAR BACK YOU WANT TO LOOK. IF YOU WANT

TO GO BACK TO THE YEAR 2000 THERE'S BEEN A MARKED DECREASE. IF YOU GO

BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF -- IF YOU GO BACK TO MARCH OF 2020 THERE'S

BEEN AN INCREASE. BUT THIS YEAR, AT LEAST INSOFAR AS THE CITY IS

CONCERNED, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SHOOTINGS ARE DOWN THIS YEAR AS

COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. SO I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE

RECENT SPIKE PROBABLY WAS LAST YEAR, BUT BECAUSE CRIME WAS SO LOW IN

THE CITY AND IN THE STATE IN RECENT YEARS THE CRIME IS STILL WAY, WAY

DOWN FROM ITS PEAK BACK -- YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY. BUT YES, IN THE

PAST FEW YEARS IT'S BEEN HIGHER BUT IT'S TRENDING DOWN AS FAR AS I KNOW.

MR. K. BROWN: WELL, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT

THE CLASS E FELONY FOR A CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM HAS DONE

NOTHING TO DISSUADE GUN VIOLENCE ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES. WOULD

YOU AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

MR. K. BROWN: LET ME GET TO MY POINT. THE POINT

IS THAT THE NEW RESTRICTED AREA FOR A PERSON TO BRING A WEAPON INTO A

RESTRICTED AREA IS GOING TO BE PUNISHABLE BY A CLASS E FELONY; IS THAT

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: SAY THE LAST SENTENCE AGAIN. I'M

135

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

SORRY.

MR. K. BROWN: THE NEW LAW -- THE NEW LAW, IF

YOU CARRY A FIREARM INTO A RESTRICTED LOCATION, THAT'S GOING TO BE

GOVERNED BY A CLASS E FELONY -- PUNISHABLE BY A CLASS E FELONY, RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: CLASS E FELONY PUNISHABLE BY ONE

TO FOUR YEARS IN PRISON.

MR. K. BROWN: OKAY. AND WE HEARD MY

COLLEAGUE SAY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECENT STATISTICS THAT THE AVERAGE

SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM IS ABOUT FIVE MONTHS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, HE SAID THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF

IT'S TRUE BUT I WON'T ARGUE IT SINCE I HAVE NOTHING TO DISPUTE THAT WITH.

MR. K. BROWN: OKAY. WELL, THERE'S SOME --

THERE'S SOME REALLY GOOD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATISTICS OUT THERE. I'LL

GIVE YOU ONE. AMONG PRISONERS WHO POSSESSED A GUN DURING THEIR

OFFENSE, 90 PERCENT DID NOT OBTAIN IT FROM A RETAIL SOURCE. THAT WOULD

TELL ME THAT MOST PRISONERS GET -- ARE USING ILLEGAL GUNS FOR CRIMINAL

ACTIVITY. WOULD YOU AGREE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF --

OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED ARE USING ILLEGAL GUNS. YES, I DO

AGREE.

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT. AND ALSO THIS COMES FROM

THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE: NEARLY NINE OUT OF TEN CRIME

HANDGUNS RECOVERED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT CAME FROM OUT-OF-STATE.

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. I THINK A VERY SIGNIFICANT

136

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PERCENTAGE OF THE GUNS IN NEW YORK COME FROM OUT-OF-STATE, WHICH IS

WHY IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE CONGRESS IS REFUSING TO ACT ON MOST OF THE

LEGISLATION THAT IS NECESSARY. THEY PASSED SOME LEGISLATION BUT IT ONLY

DEALS IN A VERY LIMITED WAY. SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE LACK OF --

OF MOVEMENT ON THE PART OF THE CONGRESS DUE TO THE OPPOSITION OF THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY IS CAUSING PEOPLE IN NEW YORK TO DIE.

MR. K. BROWN: IF WE WERE ON TRIAL I'D MOVE TO

STRIKE THAT PORTION OF YOUR RESPONSE, MR. DINOWITZ, BUT WE'RE NOT. SO

LET ME -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS: SO WHAT PORTION OF THIS BILL DEALS WITH

CRIMINAL -- CRIMINALS POSSESSING FIREARMS AND USING THEM IN -- IN THE

ACTION OF A CRIME?

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS LEGISLATION, WE'RE NOT TALKING

ABOUT NEW STUFF HERE. WE HAD A LAW ON THE BOOKS FOR OVER 100 YEARS.

IT WASN'T ENACTED BY THE, YOU KNOW, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS IN THE

ASSEMBLY, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS AGO. THIS WAS ON THE BOOKS OVER A

CENTURY AGO. IT WAS CHALLENGED, THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED IT, THEY

OVERTURNED IT AND WE HAD TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THAT.

THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CERTAIN

LIMITATIONS. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WE CAN DESIGNATE CERTAIN

AREAS AS SENSITIVE LOCATIONS AND WE'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPREME

COURT INDICATED WE CAN DO. THIS IS NOT NEW STUFF. WE'RE DOING

EVERYTHING IN REACTION TO THEIR OVERTURNING THIS CENTURY-OLD LAW THAT

WAS GREAT UNTIL THEY -- UNTIL THE COURT COMPOSITION CHANGED.

MR. K BROWN: I'M -- I'M VERY GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP

THE BRUEN HOLDING, WHICH I'LL READ FOR YOU RIGHT FROM THE CASE, BECAUSE

137

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

I'VE READ THE CASE. IT SAYS, "NEW YORK'S PROPER CAUSE REQUIREMENT

VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT BY PREVENTING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH

ORDINARY SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS FROM EXERCISING THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN PUBLIC FOR SELF DEFENSE." THAT'S STRAIGHT

FROM THE CASE, I'M READING IT RIGHT HERE.

MR. DINOWITZ: RIGHT. I READ THAT EARLIER TODAY,

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

MR. K. BROWN: SO -- SO LET ME ASK YOU, SO WE'RE

CREATING THIS OPT-OUT PROVISION, RIGHT, WHICH IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF,

IF YOU ARE A -- A BUSINESS THAT'S NOT PART OF THE -- THE SENSITIVE AREA LIST,

RIGHT, YOU HAVE TO PUT A PLACARD UP IF YOU WANT TO BE GUN FRIENDLY,

CORRECT, AND NO PLACARD IF YOU DON'T; IS THAT CORRECT? DO I UNDERSTAND

THAT RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW GUNS INTO

YOUR -- CONCEALED GUNS INTO YOUR ESTABLISHMENT, YOU HAVE TO PUT UP A

SIGN SAYING, YOU KNOW, GUNS WELCOME.

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT. BUT MEANWHILE, THE

SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BRUEN SAID THAT A CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO BEAR

ARMS IN PUBLIC FOR SELF DEFENSE. AND I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE FACT

THAT I AM NOT A GUN OWNER, I GREW UP WITH GUNS IN MY HOUSEHOLD. MY

FATHER HAD RIFLES, MY FATHER WAS A WORLD WAR II VET, MY FATHER HAD A

PISTOL PERMIT, MY FATHER WAS A JUDGE AND HE BROUGHT HIS PISTOL TO -- TO

COURT WITH HIM FOR ADDITIONAL PROTECTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE DID NIGHT

COURT WHEN HE WAS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE. BUT I MYSELF DON'T OWN

GUNS AND THERE ARE NONE IN MY HOUSEHOLD; HOWEVER, I RESPECT, I RESPECT

138

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF EVERY NEW YORKER THAT IF THEY WANT TO BEAR

AN ARM TO PROTECT THEMSELVES THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND

AMENDMENT. AND IN JUST HEARING THE DEBATE TODAY, YOUR POSITION IF I

UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN

DOES NOT AND THAT WE -- THEY SHOULD RELY ON THE POLICE TO COME, THE

SO-CALLED "RETREAT" THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE, BECAUSE WE SHOULD

RELY ON THE POLICE FOR SELF PROTECTION DESPITE HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE

THEM TO REACT TO A CRIME. DO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION CORRECTLY? I

DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS INTO YOUR MOUTH, MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, WHEN -- WHEN THE ISSUE WAS

BROUGHT UP WITH RESPECT TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE SOMEBODY'S HOME, THERE

WASN'T EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THEY WERE BEING MENACED,

THREATENED WITH A GUN SO YES, I DO NOT THINK THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD GO

OUT THERE WITH A GUN THREATENING TO SHOOT AND KILL SOMEBODY JUST

BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS OUTSIDE BEFORE THEY COULD AT LEAST MAKE THE

ATTEMPT TO CALL THE POLICE. BUT LET -- LET ME JUST SAY IN RESPONSE TO --

MR. K. BROWN: NOW, THE COURT.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- WHAT YOU SAID. LET -- LET ME

FINISH MY SENTENCE, LET ME FINISH --

MR. K. BROWN: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- BECAUSE IT'S A LONG SENTENCE,

THAT THE -- YOUR -- YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NOT UNLIMITED

AND IN THE COURT RULING IT SAID, LIKE MOST RIGHTS, THE RIGHT SECURED BY THE

SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UNLIMITED. THE RIGHT IS NOT A RIGHT TO KEEP

AND CARRY ANY WEAPON WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER AND FOR

139

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WHEREVER PURPOSE -- WHATEVER PURPOSE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS FAIRLY

SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL TRADITION OF PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF

DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS

THE POSSESSION AND USE OF WEAPONS THAT ARE IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

THE POINT BEING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT ISN'T AN UNLIMITED RIGHT TO

CARRY GUNS WHEREVER YOU WANT NO MATTER WHAT. THERE ARE LIMITS AND

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE LIMITS, AND THE COURT RULING IN BRUEN SAID

SO.

MR. K. BROWN: I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE,

AND THAT'S WHY THEY ALSO SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DEMONSTRATE

THAT -- THAT THE REGULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL

TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION. AND WE HEARD AT THE OUTSET THE FLOOR

LEADER TALK ABOUT HOW THIS LAW IS SUCH A DIVERGENCE FROM THE HISTORY

OF GUN REGULATION IN THIS COUNTRY. SO I ASK YOU, UNDER THIS NEW RULE

WITH THE OPT-OUT, DOES A BUSINESS OWNER HAVE A RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON

TO PROTECT THEMSELVES? LET'S SAY, WE'LL USE THE CASE OF A CONVENIENCE

STORE OWNER, RIGHT? HE'S GOT A -- I'M SORRY, HE DOES NOT HAVE A PLACARD,

RIGHT, AND IS HE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A WEAPON TO PROTECT HIMSELF WHEN

AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY CAN OCCUR, SOMEONE WITH A WEAPON CAN COME INTO

HIS STORE AND TRY TO ROB HIM AND HE HAS NO ABILITY TO PROTECT HIMSELF

EXCEPT FOR CALLING 911.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THE BUSINESS OWNER IS A NOT ON

THE LIST OF PLACES -- OF -- OF LOCATIONS THAT WE DESCRIBE, SUCH AS A

RESTAURANT, A PIZZA PLACE, A PIZZERIA THAT DOESN'T SERVE ALCOHOL. I DON'T

KNOW HOW IT IS ELSEWHERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT PLACES THAT SELL PIZZA

140

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WHERE I AM SERVE ALCOHOL, THEN THEY'RE NOT ON THE -- ON THE SENSITIVE

LOCATION LIST AND --

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST A

SIGN SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, GUNS WELCOME.

MR. K. BROWN: RIGHT. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION

FOR ME. THAT PERSON IS LEFT DEFENSELESS.

ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE WELCOME.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. K. BROWN: MR. SPEAKER, I -- I AM VERY

CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL. I AM NOT A GUN OWNER BUT I APPRECIATE THE

RIGHT OF FELLOW NEW YORKERS TO -- TO OWN AND POSSESS A WEAPON FOR

THEIR OWN SELF-DEFENSE. WHAT THIS -- THIS BILL DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

TO SOLVE THE PROLIFERATION OF GUN VIOLENCE ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES

HERE IN NEW YORK. IT PRESUMES THAT CRIMINALS DO NOT CARRY FIREARMS

INTO THESE, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, "SENSITIVE AREAS." SO IT LEAVES BUSINESS

OWNERS COMPLETELY HELPLESS.

NOW, I LISTENED TO THE DEBATE ALL DAY TODAY, I HEARD

THE ARGUMENTS BACK AND FORTH AND IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT AT ONE POINT

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE ADVOCATING DEFUNDING THE POLICE

AT THE SAME TIME PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON THE POLICE TO COME WHEN A

PROBLEM OCCURS AND WHEN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OCCURS. I BELIEVE THIS BILL

MISSES THE MARK COMPLETELY AND IT TARGETS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, NOT

VIOLENT CRIMINALS. IT CONTINUES THIS MANIFESTATION OF TAKING AWAY OF

141

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW. AND I'M -- I'M REALLY CONCERNED

ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS SLAPPED TOGETHER IN A WEEK, RIGHT, AND THAT WE

STOOD AROUND YESTERDAY WAITING FOR THE BILL TO DROP. I -- I THINK IT'S

MISGUIDED, I DON'T THINK IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGED IN THE COURT JUST LIKE THE

BRUEN CASE WAS, PARTICULARLY THIS OPT-OUT PROVISION WHICH MAKES NO

SENSE. IT'S ABSOLUTELY BASS-AKWARDS. IT SHOULD BE THE FACT THAT A PERSON

SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT ESTABLISHMENT AND BE ABLE TO PROTECT

THEMSELVES, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE A BUSINESS OWNER AND THERE'S -- THERE'S

RECENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BILL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. BURKE ON

ZOOM.

MR. BURKE ON ZOOM.

MR. BURKE: OH. HI, SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU HAD

CALLED SOMEONE ELSE. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: DOES THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I DO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR WILL

YIELD.

MR. BURKE: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. DO YOU

KNOW HOW MANY GUNS EXIST IN AMERICA PER 100 RESIDENTS?

MR. DINOWITZ: HOW MANY GUNS IN AMERICA PER

142

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

100 RESIDENTS? MORE THAN 100.

MR. BURKE: CORRECT, YEAH. RIGHT NOW IT'S 120.5

GUNS PER 100 PEOPLE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY GUNS EXISTED IN

AMERICA PER 100 RESIDENTS IN 2011?

MR. DINOWITZ: PROBABLY A SMALLER NUMBER I

WOULD BET.

MR. BURKE: SO IT WAS 88 GUNS PER 100 RESIDENTS,

SO THAT'S, I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT A 30 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF

GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A PROLIFERATION OF

FIREARMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT IS DEFINITELY A PROLIFERATION.

AND WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE

WORLD, THE DEMOCRACIES, AUTOCRACIES, WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE IN

THAT A KIND OF SITUATION. IT'S REALLY UN -- UNBELIEVABLE.

MR. BURKE: DO YOU -- DO YOU KNOW THE NEXT

HIGHEST COUNTRY IN RATE OF GUNS PER RESIDENT BY ANY CHANCE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T, BUT I'LL -- I WOULD GUESS IT'S

SOME COUNTRY THAT WE -- IRAN OR SOME COUNTRY LIKE THAT.

MR. BURKE: IT'S -- IT'S YEMEN.

MR. DINOWITZ: OKAY.

MR. BURKE: AND I PRESUME YOU ALSO WOULDN'T

KNOW HOW MANY GUNS PER RESIDENT THEY HAVE IN YEMEN PER 100

PEOPLE, DO YOU?

MR. DINOWITZ: AND I BELIEVE YEMEN IS IN THE

MIDDLE OF A CIVIL WAR.

143

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. BURKE: SURE. HOW MANY -- HOW MANY -- HOW

MANY GUNS PER 100 RESIDENTS IN YEMEN, DO YOU THINK?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'LL BET IT'S A

SMALL FRACTION OF US.

MR. BURKE: IT'S 62.8 GUNS PER 100 PEOPLE IN

YEMEN. AND THAT IS THE NEXT HIGHEST, AND THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER

THAN MOST OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES AND WE ARE BASICALLY DOUBLE THE

AMOUNT OF FIREARMS. AND I HAVE TO IMAGINE, MOST REASONABLE PEOPLE

WOULD THINK THAT MORE FIREARMS WOULD MEAN MORE PEOPLE ARE HARMED

BY FIREARMS, WOULDN'T YOU -- WOULDN'T YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I DO.

MR. BURKE: BUT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES. SO

HARVARD UNIVERSITY WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH US AND THEY WOULD -- THEY

WOULD SAY THE PROLIFERATION OF FIREARMS EVEN WHEN YOU MAKE UP FOR

ECONOMIC STATUS, POVERTY, A BUNCH OF OTHER FACTORS, WHEN YOU -- WHEN

YOU EVEN THOSE THINGS OUT, MORE FIREARMS MEANS MORE DEATHS BY

FIREARM.

SO THERE'S SOME -- SOME OTHER INTERESTING THINGS THAT I

WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU. I PRESUME -- I PRESUME YOU WOULDN'T KNOW

IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT THERE ARE FOUR SORT OF TIERS OF

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS THAT I'VE SEEN, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE THE

SORT OF GROWTH AND ACCESS TO CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS. SO ARE YOU

FAMILIAR WITH A NO ISSUE STATUS AS A STATE? SO NO ISSUE WOULD BE THE

STATE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CONCEALED CARRY OF ANY KIND. THEY DON'T ISSUE

PERMITS, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A CONCEAL CARRY; ARE YOU FAMILIAR --

144

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU PROBABLY COULD ENLIGHTEN ME

A LITTLE BIT.

MR. BURKE: SURE. WELL, THERE MIGHT BE A REASON

YOU WOULDN'T BE FAMILIAR WITH IT BECAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES NOW

THERE ARE ZERO NO ISSUE STATES. SO IN 2021, THERE'S -- THERE AREN'T ANY

STATES THAT -- WHERE YOU CAN'T GET A -- A CONCEALED CARRY. BUT IN 1980,

THERE WERE 21 STATES, OKAY? SO -- AND WHAT ABOUT -- SO THERE -- THERE'S

FOUR CATEGORIES, SO THERE'S NO ISSUE, THERE'S MAY ISSUE, THERE'S SHALL

ISSUE AND THEN THERE IS PERMITLESS, MEANING YOU JUST -- YOU CAN JUST DO

WHAT YOU WANT. SO IN -- IN 1980, THERE WERE -- THERE WERE 21 NO ISSUE,

YOU COULDN'T GET A CONCEALED CARRY, AND IN 2021 THERE'S ZERO. DO YOU

THINK THAT WOULD ALSO GO ALONG WITH THIS IDEA OF PROLIFERATION OF

FIREARMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THE PROLIFERATION IN THIS

COUNTRY OVER -- IN RECENT DECADES HAS BEEN -- HAS BEEN SHOCKING. ANY

TIME THERE'S -- PEOPLE SEEM TO, MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO REACT IN WHAT I

WOULD CONSIDER THE OPPOSITE WAY THAT'S IN OUR COLLECTIVE INTERESTS

WHEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE HORRIBLE INCIDENTS TAKE PLACE. YOU

KNOW, THE FACT IS IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBERS, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN A TWO-YEAR PERIOD FROM GUNS

WHETHER IT'S BY -- BY SUICIDE, BY MURDER, THE NUMBER IN TWO YEARS IS

GREATER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AMERICANS KILLED IN THE VIETNAM WAR.

I MEAN, THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE ARE AT WAR, BUT WITH

OURSELVES AND WE ARE LOSING BECAUSE THE CASUALTIES JUST KEEP ON

145

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MOUNTING. AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY GUNS WE

WOULDN'T HAVE SO MANY DEAD PEOPLE.

MR. BURKE: IT'S CERTAINLY INCREDIBLE TO THINK OF THE

-- THE SOLUTION TO AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE

AMOUNT OF GUNS, THE SOLUTION TO THAT IS MORE PEOPLE WITH MORE GUNS.

THAT -- THAT'S AN INCREDIBLE IDEA. SO -- BUT I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE

AMOUNT OF -- THE SORT OF SWITCH. SO IN 1980, THERE WERE 21 NO ISSUE

STATES, NOW THERE ARE ZERO NO ISSUE STATES. IN 1980, THERE WERE 24 MAY

ISSUES, SO NEW YORK STATE WAS ONE OF THOSE MAY ISSUE A CONCEALED

CARRY. THERE WERE 24 STATES AND NOW THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT STATES WHERE

IT'S MAY ISSUE. IN 1980, THERE WERE FOUR SHALL ISSUE A CONCEALED CARRY.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE NOW?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DO NOT.

MR. BURKE: TWENTY-ONE. SO YOU HAVE TO ISSUE THE

PERMIT. IN 1980 THERE WAS ONE PERMITLESS, AND NOW I'M GUESSING YOU

DON'T KNOW HOW MANY -- WHERE YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A PERMIT OF ANY

KIND. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE NOW?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. HOW MANY?

MR. BURKE: TWENTY-ONE. IT'S EXTRAORDINARY. SO --

SO DO YOU THINK THIS HAPPENS IN A BUBBLE OR DO YOU THINK THERE IS -- DO

YOU THINK THERE IS ENERGY BEHIND THIS? DO YOU THINK THIS IS AN

ORGANIZED EFFORT OR DO YOU THINK THIS IS ORGANICALLY HAPPENING BY

POPULAR CHOICE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE,

INCLUDING PEOPLE IN SOME OF THE MORE CONSERVATIVE STATES, WANT THE

146

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

PROLIFERATION OF GUNS TO CONTINUE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD PREFER THE

EXACT OPPOSITE. YOU KNOW, I WAS LOOKING RECENTLY AT STATISTICS, OTHER

STATISTICS, AND I THINK I CITED IT ON THE FLOOR HERE AT SOME POINT THAT

WHEN -- WHEN SOME PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MURDER RATE IN NEW

YORK CITY, I POINTED OUT TWO CITIES; ONE WAS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND ONE

WAS -- I ACTUALLY FORGET WHICH CITY IN FLORIDA, IT MAY HAVE BEEN

TALLAHASSEE, BUT IT WAS A MAJOR CITY IN FLORIDA HAD MUCH HIGHER

MURDER RATES THAN NEW YORK CITY. TWO STATES THAT ARE RUN BY

ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES AND, YET, THEY HAVE

HIGHER MURDER RATES. AND I WON'T GET INTO THE REASON WHY I WAS

DISCUSSING IT LAST TIME, BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH ANOTHER DISCUSSION. BUT

THE POINT BEING THAT MAKING GUNS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE DOES NOT

LOWER THE MURDER RATE, I BELIEVE IT DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE SAFER; IN FACT,

IT HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT. THE MORE GUNS YOU HAVE, THE -- THE LESS SAFE

PEOPLE ARE IN GENERAL. THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE AND I THINK THE FACTS BEAR

IT OUT.

MR. BURKE: SO WITH PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, YOU WERE

-- YOU WERE ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE HERE AND I THINK YOU -- YOU

PRETTY MUCH SAID THAT IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT'S

DECISION, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. BURKE: AND I BELIEVE SEVERAL MEMBERS HAD

HAD SAID, WELL, THIS WAS AN OVERWHELMING DECISION, THIS WAS A 6-3

DECISION AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THE COURTS, WHICH I THINK -- I THINK THIS

BILL DOES RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT. BUT I THINK

147

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THERE IS THIS INSINUATION THAT WE SHOULD BE DEFERENTIAL BECAUSE IT WAS A

SUPERMAJORITY DECISION, BUT IT SEEMS TO LEAVE OUT, OR MANY OF THE --

MUCH OF THE COMMENTARY IS LEAVING OUT HOW WE GOT TO THAT POINT, RIGHT,

SO IT -- IT WASN'T AS IF THE -- THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, WE DIDN'T ELECT

THESE SUPREME COURT JUDGES AND THEY DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN TO GO THERE,

THERE WAS A BUNCH OF POLITICS THAT LED US TO THIS POINT IN THIS COUNTRY

WHERE THE SUPREME COURT IS -- IS REALLY BECOMING AN ACTIVIST IN -- IN

FAR-RIGHT LEANING SUPREME COURT. WOULD YOU -- WOULD YOU AGREE WITH

THAT, AS WELL?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. I -- I WOULD SAY THAT -- FIRST, I

HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR THE INSTITUTION, THE SUPREME COURT.

HONESTLY, I DON'T HAVE RESPECT FOR THE SOME OF THE JUSTICES ON THE

SUPREME COURT BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT AN ACTIVIST COURT, IF WE RESPECT

TRADITION, IF WE RESPECT PRECEDENT, THEN WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK IN

ANOTHER MATTER WHICH WE'LL BE DEALING WITH AFTER THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER

HAPPENED. THEY DON'T HAVE RESPECT FOR -- FOR THE PRECEDENT AND, IN

FACT, ONE OF THE -- THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE DECISION IN THIS CASE

INDICATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO REVERSE OTHER RIGHTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE

AND IN THIS COUNTRY, WE'VE NEVER TAKEN AWAY PEOPLE'S RIGHTS UNTIL NOW,

UNTIL THIS COURT THAT WAS PACKED WITH -- WITH PEOPLE BY -- BY A

DISGRACED PRESIDENT.

MR. BURKE: AND -- AND JUST -- SO THE BILL -- THE BILL

THAT WAS OVERTURNED, HOW LONG HAD THAT STATUTE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR?

MR. DINOWITZ: OVER A CENTURY.

MR. BURKE: OVER A CENTURY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

148

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. DINOWITZ: THANK YOU.

MR. BURKE: ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. BURKE: LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I THINK IT'S -- IT

REALLY IS INCREDIBLE THAT WE KIND OF KEEP DOING THE SAME THING, AND IT'S

THE SAME TALKING POINTS. INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING GUNS IN A VERY SERIOUS

WAY, IT GOES TO THE -- THE NRA'S PRODUCED TALKING POINTS AND WE TALK

ABOUT IT'S A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, IT IS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED MORE GOOD

GUYS WITH GUNS. EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IN -- IN BUFFALO THERE WAS A

GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IN THAT SUPERMARKET AND SADLY, A REALLY BAD GUY

WHO HAD LEGALLY ACQUIRED A FIREARM KILLED HIM AND A BUNCH OF OTHER

INNOCENT PEOPLE, AND WE'RE SEEING IT ALL TOO OFTEN IN THIS COUNTRY. AND

I SAID IT BEFORE ON THE FLOOR, WHEN YOU ARM THE POPULATION OF PEOPLE, A

CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT POPULATION IS GOING TO BE VIOLENT AND

DANGEROUS NO MATTER WHAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE IN A HIGHLY

POLITICALLY CHARGED ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN. AND THE ANSWER TO THAT

PROBLEM ISN'T MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE GUNS.

I THINK WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS SINCERELY. I BELIEVE

THIS BILL, WHILE I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT, IT ISN'T PERFECT, IS TRYING

TO RESPOND IN AN APPROPRIATE AND RESPONSIBLE WAY TO ADDRESS WHAT THE

SUPREME COURT HAS DONE IN A VERY ACTIVIST AND I THINK POLITICALLY

MINDED MATTER. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. LAWLER ON

ZOOM.

149

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. LAWLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE SPONSOR

YIELDS.

MR. LAWLER: THANK YOU -- THANK YOU, MR.

DINOWITZ. SO AT THE END OF THE COURT ORDER, THE OPINION OF THE -- THE

COURT IT SAYS, "NEW YORK'S PROPER CAUSE REQUIREMENT VIOLATES THE 14TH

AMENDMENT IN THAT IT PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH ORDINARY

SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND

REMAND THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION."

WHY ARE WE NOT WAITING FOR THOSE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PLACE

BEFORE ACTING?

MR. DINOWITZ: BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T WAIT AROUND

IN THIS LEGISLATURE, WE LIKE TO BE PROACTIVE.

MR. LAWLER: SO YOU THINK THIS IS AN IMMEDIATE

NEED TO ACT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT

ISSUE.

MR. LAWLER: WELL, IT -- IT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE

ATTENTION --

MR. DINOWITZ: SURE --

150

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. LAWLER: -- THIS DECISION?

MR. DINOWITZ: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. LAWLER: SO WHY IS THE BILL TAKING EFFECT

SEPTEMBER 1ST AND NOT JULY 1ST?

MR. DINOWITZ: BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT THE VARIOUS AGENCIES INVOLVED HAVE A LITTLE STARTUP TIME TO DEAL

WITH WHAT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO WE'RE GIVING THEM TWO MONTHS.

MR. LAWLER: SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE GIVING

THEM TWO MONTHS, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN MADE MORE SENSE TO MAYBE

CRAFT A BILL BEFORE CALLING THE SPECIAL SESSION AND DRAGGING EVERYBODY

HERE FOR THE LAST 36 HOURS WAITING AROUND?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I DON'T FEEL LIKE I WAS

DRAGGED HERE. I CAME HERE VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY TO DEAL WITH TWO VERY

IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SO

DRAGGED, NO, I'M VERY -- I'M VERY EAGER AND EXCITED TO BE DEALING WITH

THIS BILL AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT -- THE RESOLUTION WE'RE GOING TO DEAL

WITH AFTER THIS.

MR. LAWLER: I -- I'M SURE YOU ARE. SO WHEN THIS

BILL TAKES EFFECT, WHERE EXACTLY CAN SOMEONE WHO DOES GET A CONCEALED

CARRY IN THE PUBLIC UTILIZE THAT CONCEALED CARRY? LIKE, WE HAVE ALL

THESE NEW CATEGORIES THAT WE'RE ADDING. SO WHERE EXACTLY ARE THEY

ABLE TO USE THAT CONCEAL CARRY?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY CAN USE THAT CONCEALED CARRY

ANYWHERE IF THEY ARE -- ONE OF THE -- IN ONE OF THE EXEMPT CATEGORIES OF

PEOPLE SUCH AS POLICE OFFICERS, AND THEY CAN USE IT AT ANY PLACE OTHER

151

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THAN THE 20 -- THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE ON THAT LIST OF 20.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. THOSE -- LET'S PUT ASIDE THE

EXEMPTED CATEGORIES BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT FALL INTO THE

EXEMPTED CATEGORIES AND, IN FACT, PART OF THE REASON THE SUPREME COURT

THREW OUT THE LAW WAS BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WERE ARBITRARILY

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WITH RESPECT TO GETTING A CONCEALED CARRY. SO

NOW IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY; HOWEVER, YOU'RE

NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CARRY IT ANYWHERE. SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS

GIVEN THE EXTENSIVE LIST OF 20 CATEGORIES THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED AS PART OF

THIS BILL, CAN YOU ENUMERATE FOR THE PUBLIC AND US AS LEGISLATORS AREAS

WHERE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO CARRY THEIR FIREARM UNDER

A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT? LIKE, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE

THERE'S NOT A QUESTION, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED TO CARRY. ARE YOU

ALLOWED TO CARRY ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF IT'S NOT ON THIS LIST OF SENSITIVE

LOCATIONS THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES.

MR. LAWLER: SO CAN YOU JUST ENUMERATE FOR US

LIKE A REALLY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF A LOCATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. SO LIKE ON MY DRIVEWAY IN

FRONT OF MY HOUSE, OR ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, OR ON THE

PUBLIC STREET IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY BOTH.

MR. LAWLER: CAN WE ELABORATE?

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD SAY ALL OF THOSE.

152

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. AND IF I -- AND IF I WALK UP

THE BLOCK TO MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, IS THAT OKAY?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF YOUR NEIGHBOR ALLOWS IT, IT

WOULD BE OKAY.

MR. LAWLER: EVEN IF I'M ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IF YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC

SIDEWALK THEN IT'S NOT IN YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT

YOU CAN DO.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. SO -- SO WE'RE ESTABLISH -- I'M

TRYING TO ESTABLISH, BECAUSE THIS LIST OF 20 IS PRETTY --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, IT'S REALLY VERY SIMPLE. LOOK

AT THE LIST OF PLACES YOU CAN'T DO IT AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE

LIST IS WHERE YOU CAN.

MR. LAWLER: RIGHT, BUT SO FAR THE ONLY PLACE THAT

YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO ENUMERATE IS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. SO I'M JUST

ASKING IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC LOCATION?

MR. DINOWITZ: I REALLY CAN'T THINK OF ONE OTHER

PLACE IN THE ENTIRE STATE BESIDES IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE.

MR. LAWLER: SO REALLY NOBODY IS GOING TO BE ABLE

TO ACTUALLY EXERCISE THE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE SMART

ENOUGH, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE TRAINING WHERE -- WHERE

THEY WILL BE TRAINED IN THIS AREA, AMONG OTHERS, THEY WILL KNOW WHERE

THEY CAN'T CARRY AND, THEREFORE, BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION THEY WILL

KNOW WHERE THEY COULD CARRY.

153

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. LAWLER: RIGHT. BUT THE WHOLE -- THE WHOLE

POINT WAS THAT UNDER THE PREVIOUS LAW THAT WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL,

RIGHT, YOU COULD GET A PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

IN YOUR HOME. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE,

RIGHT? SO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IS THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

BECAUSE IT WAS ARBITRARY AND PEOPLE WERE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST,

YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN WAS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN TERMS OF TRYING

TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY. THE CONCEALED CARRY IS SO THAT YOU CAN GO

BEYOND YOUR HOME AND PROTECT YOURSELF, RIGHT? SO WHAT I'M ASKING

YOU AND WHAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER IS BASED ON THIS

ENUMERATED LIST OF 20, WHAT LOCATIONS IN THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE OF THE HOME

ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'VE ANSWERED

YOUR QUESTIONS, DON'T SAY I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER IT. I'VE SAID

VERY CLEARLY THAT ANY PLACE THAT'S NOT ON THIS LIST IS WHERE YOU CAN CARRY.

THAT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IN ADDITION, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS

CREATING A SITUATION WHERE MORE PEOPLE PRESUMABLY WOULD BE ABLE TO

GET THIS CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT AND WE'RE SETTING UP A SYSTEM THAT --

THAT WE WOULD EXPECT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT OVERRULE BECAUSE

IT'S MORE OBJECTIVE, IT'S LESS SUBJECTIVE. IT'S LESS THE SITUATION WHERE ONE

PERSON WOULD COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN ANOTHER AND WE SET

OUT SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO

GET A LICENSE. AND IF YOU ARE NOT GRANTED THE LICENSE, THERE'S AN APPEALS

PROCEDURE SO THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO BE TREATED UNFAIRLY. IT'S A VERY

CLEAR AND DELIBERATE PROCESS TO MAKE IT AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE, TO MAKE IT AS

154

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE, AND I WOULD SAY THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY

GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THESE PERMITS. BUT IF THEY GET THE PERMIT,

THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THEM.

MR. LAWLER: SO -- OKAY. UNDER THE OLD LAW, LESS

PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.

MR. DINOWITZ: FEWER PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO GET IT,

THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. LAWLER: RIGHT. BUT THEY HAD MORE ABILITY TO

CARRY A FIREARM IN THE PUBLIC AS A CONCEALED FIREARM; HOWEVER, NOW

WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS MORE PEOPLE MAY BE ABLE TO CARRY -- GET THE

CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT, HOWEVER, THERE'S LESS LOCATIONS AND ABILITY TO

ACTUALLY USE IT; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?

MR. DINOWITZ: I SAID THAT IT'S POSSIBLE MORE

PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT, BUT THAT THERE WILL BE LIMITATIONS ON

THEM IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY CAN USE IT.

MR. LAWLER: SO MORE -- MORE PEOPLE CAN GET IT,

BUT MORE LIMITATIONS ON THE ABILITY TO USE IT. GOT IT. CAN A

MUNICIPALITY --

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THAT'S BASED ON THE COURT

DECISION.

MR. LAWLER: WELL, THE COURT DECISION TALKED

ABOUT HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, PRECEDENCE THAT HAD BEEN SET. THIS GOES

WELL BEYOND THAT. CAN A MUNICIPALITY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS

THAT ARE GOING TO BE LABELED AS A SENSITIVE PLACE? SO IN OTHER WORDS, IS

NEW YORK CITY GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE LIST OF SENSITIVE

155

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

LOCATIONS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. THE LIST IS HERE IN THE

LEGISLATION. THERE'S A LIST, LETTERS A THROUGH T, THAT'S 20 I BELIEVE, AND

THAT'S THE LIST. NEW YORK CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO

ADD TO THAT LIST.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. SO NOW IF I GET A CONCEALED

CARRY PERMIT FROM ROCKLAND COUNTY UNDER -- UNDER THESE NEW

GUIDELINES, AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO NOW CARRY INTO NEW YORK CITY AS

LONG AS IT'S NOT INTO ANY OF THESE 20 LOCATIONS? OR ARE THERE STILL LAWS

IN EFFECT THAT WOULD PRECLUDE SOMEONE WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY COME -- COME INTO THE CITY WITH IT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION WILL, IF YOU

GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT AND ARE -- AND ARE NOT AMONG THOSE

INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EXEMPTED, WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO CARRY IN THE -- IN

THE SENSITIVE LOCATION ZONES. VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

MR. LAWLER: WITHIN -- RIGHT, WITHIN AN AREA, BUT IT

WOULDN'T PRECLUDE ME FROM COMING INTO NEW YORK CITY WITH A

CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE AS LONG AS I ADHERE TO NOT GOING INTO ANY OF THE

SENSITIVE LOCATIONS? IS THAT ACCURATE, OR NO?

MR. DINOWITZ: THERE MAY BE REASONS YOU

SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE ONE OF

THEM.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. THAT -- THAT WAS

UNRESPONSIVE, BUT OKAY. MY COLLEAGUE FROM STATEN --

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT WAS TOTALLY RESPONSIVE.

156

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. LAWLER: -- FROM STATEN ISLAND TALKED TO YOU

ABOUT STATISTICS. THE GOVERNOR WAS ASKED ABOUT STATISTICS THE OTHER

DAY, I -- I DON'T THINK SHE COULD ANSWER THEM SO SHE DIDN'T REALLY CARE

ABOUT THE QUESTION BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ACTUALLY

ANSWER IT. BUT MY COLLEAGUE PROVIDED YOU WITH STATISTICS AND THERE

HAVE BEEN ZERO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR GUN VIOLENCE IN

NEW YORK CITY WHO HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. YOU SAID EARLIER

YOU AGREED THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT ARE

NOT A THREAT, YOU SAID SOME ARE. SO THOSE THAT ARE A THREAT, DO YOU

THINK THEY WILL ADHERE TO THE SENSITIVE, YOU KNOW, LOCATIONS LIST THAT

HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THIS BILL? DO YOU -- DO YOU THINK THEY REALLY

CARE WHAT LOCATIONS ARE ON THAT LIST IF THEY ARE GOING TO COMMIT A

VIOLENT ACT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THERE'S CERTAINLY NO WAY FOR ME TO

KNOW WHETHER SOMEBODY IS GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I THINK MOST

PEOPLE DO THE RIGHT THING. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONCEALED

CARRY PERMIT WOULD PRESUMABLY DO THE RIGHT THING. I'M NOT TRYING TO

VILIFY ANYBODY, THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T.

MR. LAWLER: RIGHT, BUT -- BUT BASED ON THE

STATISTICS THAT MY COLLEAGUE PROVIDED YOU WITH, ZERO PEOPLE HAVE BEEN

ARRESTED WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. SO THE QUESTION IS IF -- WHAT

ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? WHAT ARE WE REALLY TRYING TO -- TO

GO AFTER HERE? IF WE'RE -- IF WE'RE MAKING IT HARDER FOR A LAW-ABIDING

CITIZEN TO EXERCISE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WHAT EXACTLY ARE

WE ACCOMPLISHING WITH RESPECT TO GUN VIOLENCE?

157

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, FIRST LET ME SAY THAT WHILE

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ANYBODY CITED FALSE STATISTICS, I WOULD PREFER TO

GET MY DATA FROM THE NYPD OR OTHER -- ANOTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCY THAN FROM ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT

INFORMATION IS CORRECT OR NOT. I LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION

THAT I HAVE, THAT THE DATA I HAVE IS CORRECT WHICH IS WHY WHEN -- WHEN I

WAS QUESTIONED DURING THE COURSE OF THESE LAST FEW HOURS, I WAS CAREFUL

NOT TO CITE ABSOLUTE STATISTICS. I SAID SOMETIMES WHAT I THINK WAS

HAPPENING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT YOU SAID IS TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MAYBE IT IS. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT, I'M NOT SAYING IT IS.

MR. LAWLER: OKAY. YOU ALSO, WITH MY PREVIOUS

COLLEAGUE, YOU GUYS ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT MORE GUNS EQUALS

LESS SAFE. I WOULD POINT OUT, YOU KNOW, MORE ILLEGAL GUNS CERTAINLY

MAKES COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE WHICH IS WHY IT WAS SO BAFFLING THAT NEW

YORK CITY ELIMINATED THE ANTI-CRIME UNIT WHOSE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY

IS TO GO AFTER ILLEGAL GUNS AND GET THEM OFF THE STREETS.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL I -- I BELIEVE THAT MAYOR

ADAMS HAS -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY RESTORED THAT UNIT, BUT HAS CREATED A

UNIT TO SERVE IN A SIMILAR FUNCTION TO GET RID OF -- OF GUNS.

MR. LAWLER: YES, RIGHT AND --

MR. DINOWITZ: AND HOPEFULLY --

MR. LAWLER: AND I --

MR. DINOWITZ: HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE THE BENEFIT OF

THAT.

MR. LAWLER: YES. AND HOPEFULLY THEY ARE GETTING

158

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THE SUPPORT AND THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THAT. BUT THAT

WAS OBVIOUSLY A REALLY ILLOGICAL POLICY THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE

PREVIOUS MAYOR IF THE INTENTION IS TO GET THE ILLEGAL GUNS OFF THE STREET.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. LAWLER: YOU KNOW, THE -- THE CHALLENGE HERE,

AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE NEED TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT GUN

VIOLENCE IN -- ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT OBVIOUSLY AFTER THE

HORRIFIC SHOOTING AND TRAGEDY IN BUFFALO. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU

KNOW, THE GOVERNOR TOLD US THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY, IT REQUIRED US TO --

TO ACT. AND OUTRAGEOUSLY, THERE WAS NO BILL WHEN WE GOT HERE

YESTERDAY. AND -- AND IT REALLY LEADS YOU TO WONDER WAS IT PURELY

POLITICAL TO CALL US BACK, YOU KNOW, AND ANNOUNCE THAT YOU'RE CALLING

US BACK FOUR DAYS BEFORE A PRIMARY ELECTION RATHER THAN TO ACTUALLY DO

THE WORK OF -- OF SITTING DOWN AND CRAFTING LEGISLATION THAT ACTUALLY

ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING. THIS BILL DOES NOT AND, IN FACT, IT INFRINGES

UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS IN DIRECT

VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. LAWLER, I

HOPE THAT MR. PALMESANO CAN CONTINUE YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT. YOUR

TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR. PALMESANO.

MR. LAWLER: THANK YOU.

MR. PALMESANO: YES, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

SORRY, MR. LAWLER.

159

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ -- WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME

QUESTIONS, PLEASE?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES, I WILL.

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. I

HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I WANTED -- AS I WAS LISTENING TO THE DEBATE I

JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY ADDRESSED. RELATIVE TO THE

TRAINING, I KNOW IT'S THE PERMIT NOW GOES FROM FIVE TO THREE YEARS,

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M SORRY, YOU'RE TALKING FAST.

MR. PALMESANO: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: SAY IT AGAIN.

MR. PALMESANO: RELATIVE TO THE PERMIT, WHETHER

A NEW PERMIT OR RENEWAL PERMIT IS THREE YEARS VERUS FIVE YEARS,

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. AND NOW WHEN

SOMEONE GOES FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT, SO SOMEONE HAS THEIR FIVE

YEAR NOW, THEY GO FOR THE RENEWAL OF THEIR PERMIT. AT THAT POINT IN

TIME EVEN IF THEY'VE HAD THEIR PERMIT FOR 40 YEARS OR SIX OR SEVEN YEARS

OLD, THEY WOULD TO GO THROUGH A 16-HOUR TRAINING COURSE AND TWO HOUR

LIVE FIRE RANGE COURSE? OR HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS IT

AND HAS HAD THAT PERMIT FOR A NUMBER -- I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE WAS

TALKING --

160

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: IT WOULD -- IT WOULD BE THE SAME

FOR EVERYBODY. THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR PERMIT, THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO

HAVE THEIR PERMIT. WHEN THEY HAVE TO RENEW THAT PERMIT, THEY HAVE TO

DO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

MR. PALMESANO: SO EVERY TIME YOU RENEW THE

PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE 16 HOURS OF TRAINING?

MR. DINOWITZ: YEAH.

MR. PALMESANO: SO EVERY THREE YEARS YOU'RE

GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH --

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S -- I

MEAN, I GO THROUGH 12 HOURS OF LEGAL TRAINING --

MR. PALMESANO: NO, I'M JUST ASKING --

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

MR. PALMESANO: I WAS JUST ASKING THE QUESTION,

SO THAT'S EVERY THREE YEARS, SO...

MR. DINOWITZ: AND I SAID YES.

MR. PALMESANO: SO LIKE MY FATHER-IN-LAW WHO'S

HAD -- OWNED A -- HAS A PISTOL PERMIT, 77 YEARS OLDS, HAS DONE IT FOR GUN

SAFETY EVERY THREE YEARS NOW WILL HAVE TO RENEW THAT AND GO THROUGH

THAT COURSE THEN, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE TO GO --

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE

PROCESS. YOU KNOW, RULES CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY, THAT'S FINE. JUST --

161

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. DINOWITZ: CORRECT.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. RELATIVE TO LAND, AREA

THAT, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE PLACES. I KNOW STATE PARKS YOU'RE NOT

ALLOWED TO CARRY A FIREARM, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: CORRECT.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT STATE LANDS,

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE USE STATE LAND TO HUNT. HOW DOES IT WORK

WHEN, WITH LIKE IF YOU HAVE A HUNTING PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE STATE

LAND, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO GO ON THAT STATE LAND TO HUNT, NUMBER ONE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, YOU -- YOU MIGHT HAVE

MISSED IT EARLIER. THERE IS AN EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO HUNTING.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. BUT WHAT ABOUT IF ON

THAT STATE LAND IF IT ABUTS THEIR PROPERTY, WOULD THEY -- IF IT'S -- WOULD

THEY BE ABLE TO GO OFF THEIR, AT ANY TIME, WITH A -- A REVOLVER OR A PISTOL

TO WALK ON THAT LAND AND THE STATE LAND IF THERE'S A TRAIL ON THAT

PROPERTY, WOULD THAT INDIVIDUAL BE ABLE TO WALK ALONG THAT PROPERTY ON

THE STATE LAND WITH A FIREARM?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. PALMESANO: NO.

MR. DINOWITZ: THE EXEMPTION -- THE EXCEPTION IS

WITH RESPECT TO HUNTING.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT WALKING.

MR. PALMESANO: THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS

BECAUSE I KNOW ON SOME STATE LANDS, I MEAN, THERE'S BEARS AND I KNOW

162

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD CARRY HIS REVOLVER WITH HIM BECAUSE HE'S

WALKING FOR A HIKE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WE HAD A BEAR DISCUSSION EARLIER

ON.

MR. PALMESANO: YEAH I KNOW THAT, TOO.

MR. DINOWITZ: LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS AND --

MR. PALMESANO: YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO.

RELATIVE TO THE OTHER PART, IT CAME UP IN A QUESTION ABOUT SHOOTING

SPORTS THAT KIND OF CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. I KNOW -- I THINK THE ONE

PAGE, ON PAGE 9 WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT SPORTING EVENTS. AND WE WERE

TALKING ABOUT -- AND I KNOW THIS CAME UP AND I WANTED CLARIFICATION ON

THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE -- THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAMS ALLOWED TO

ROAM WHERE KIDS PARTICIPATE IN THESE SHOOTING SPORTS AND SKEET. THEY

GO TO THESE SPORTING CLUBS. BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL, WOULD

THEY BE ABLE TO GO UP AND USE THEIR FIREARM AT A SPORTING CLUB, BECAUSE

IT SAYS THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE IT AT A SPORTING EVENT.

MR. DINOWITZ: BEFORE I EVEN ANSWER THAT, THIS BILL

DEALS WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS, BUT -- AND WHEN YOU.

MR. PALMESANO: WELL, IT SAYS THEY CAN'T -- THERE

ARE SENSITIVE AREAS YOU CAN CARRY A FIREARM.

MR. DINOWITZ: WHEN WE DEAL WITH CONCEALED

CARRY PERMITS, WE HAVE A LIST OF SENSITIVE LOCATIONS, THERE ARE

EXEMPTIONS OF CERTAIN PEOPLE, THERE'S A HUNTING EXEMPTION AND I THINK

THAT THAT MAY BE SIMILAR TO A QUESTION THAT MS. WALSH --

MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST

163

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TRYING TO -- SO THEY -- THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO THERE AND -- WHERE IT'S A

SPORTING CLUB WHERE THEY DO SHOOTING SPORTS AND USE TRAP AND SKEET,

THESE INDIVIDUALS, THESE KIDS WILL BE ABLE TO GO OUT THERE AND USE THE

FIREARMS AT THAT SPORTING EVENT, THAT SPORTS CLUB, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M -- I'M TOLD THEY CAN DO IT AT A

SHOOTING RANGE.

MR. PALMESANO: IT'S NOT A SHOOTING RANGE, IT'S A

-- THEY TRAP AND SKEET, IT'S AN ACTUAL SPORT AND THIS SAYS SPORTING EVENTS.

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT -- THEY -- I

DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

MR. PALMESANO: SO YOU'RE SAYING AN ACTUAL SPORT

WHERE THEY SHOOT, THESE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM

ACROSS THE STATE, THESE KIDS GO, THEY SHOOT, THEY GO TO THESE SHOOTING

CLUBS AND THEY -- THEY PARTICIPATE IN SHOOTING SPORTS. NOW BASED ON

THIS LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS SHOOTING, SPORTS AREAS, THEY WOULD NOT BE

ABLE TO GO UP THERE AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS SHOOTING SPORT ANYMORE? SO

BASE -- BASICALLY AS HOW I UNDERSTAND IT FROM YOU, YOU WOULD SHUT

DOWN HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING SPORTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITH THIS

LEGISLATION, THE WAY THIS LANGUAGE READS; IS THAT CORRECT?

(PAUSE)

MR. DINOWITZ: YEAH, THE -- THE FOCUS WHEN WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT THESE KIND OF EVENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT

EVENTS, EVENTS THAT ATTRACT TOURISTS, FOR EXAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WHAT

YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS SUCH AN EVENT.

MR. PALMESANO: I THINK I WAS JUST -- OR I'M

164

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

READING THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT SPORTS -- SPORT, LIKE SPORTS.

SO YOU'RE NOT SURE IF THAT CLARIFIES IT, WHERE IT SAYS SPORTING EVENTS,

THAT'S, I THINK IN THAT LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS SPORTING EVENTS, AND TRAP

SHOOTING IS A SPORTING EVENT, WHERE IN TRAP SHOOTING THEY USE A FIREARM

TO SHOOT GUNS, BUT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL SAYS THAT'S A SENSITIVE SPOT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION FOR THIS. I'D LIKE MORE OF A DEFINITIVE

ANSWER BECAUSE BASED ON THIS LANGUAGE, AT LEAST I READ IT OR COULD BE

INTERPRETED BY SOME, THAT NOW THESE HIGH SCHOOL TRAP TEAMS AND OTHERS

WHO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SPORT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE SHOOTING CLUBS THAT

HAVE TRAP AND SKEET, I MEANS SPORTS SHOOTING IS AN OLYMPIC SPORT.

BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT NOT

BE QUALIFIED AND YOU --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL LET'S SEE. I'M -- I'M JUST

GOING TO READ THIS ALOUD: "ANY PLACE USED IN THE PERFORMANCE, ART,

ENTERTAINMENT, GAMING OR SPORTING EVENTS SUCH AS THEATERS, STADIUMS,

RACETRACKS, MUSEUMS, AMUSEMENT PARKS, PERFORMANCE VENUES,

CONCERTS, EXHIBITS, CONFERENCE CENTERS, BANQUET HALLS, AND GAMING

FACILITIES AND VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINAL FACILITIES AS LICENSED BY THE

GAMING COMMISSION." SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HIGH SCHOOL --

MR. PALMESANO: TRAP SHOOTING. THEY HAVE TRAP

TOURNAMENTS, THEY HAVE A STATE TRAP TOURNAMENT FOR KIDS, HIGH SCHOOL

KIDS. AND THIS SAYS SPORTING EVENTS. WOULD THAT BE STOPPED BY THE

LANGUAGE OF THIS LAW BECAUSE IT IS A SPORT. I MEAN, JUST LAST WEEKEND

WE HAD HUNDREDS OF HIGH SCHOOL KIDS AND TEAMS.

MR. DINOWITZ: I WOULD HAVE TO GET SOME

165

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

CLARIFICATION ON THAT TO BE CERTAIN.

MR. PALMESANO: THAT WOULD BE GOOD --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU

MISINFORMATION, BUT...

MR. PALMESANO: -- BECAUSE THIS COULD BE VERY

DETRIMENTAL AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU RUSH

LEGISLATION LIKE THIS AND YOU DON'T GET IT VETTED AND ASK PEOPLE. I DO

WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION RELATIVE TO THESE SENSITIVE SPOTS, SENSITIVE

AREAS. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT, I KNOW IT CAME UP EARLIER ABOUT

SHOOTING CLUBS. A LOT OF THEM MIGHT HAVE AT LEAST NOW MIGHT HAVE A --

A BAR WHERE THEY WOULD SERVE. SO NOW UNDER THIS LAW, THEY WOULD NOT

BE ABLE TO SERVE ALCOHOL OR WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A

LIQUOR -- LIQUOR LICENSE AT THAT FACILITY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY'LL

GATHER THERE FOR SOCIAL EVENTS BUT THEN THEY DO THE SHOOTING ACTIVITIES AT

DIFFERENT TIMES. BASED ON THIS LAW, THESE SHOOTING CLUBS WOULD NOT BE

ABLE TO HAVE -- BE ABLE TO BRING GUNS AND FIREARMS TO THE CLUB TO SHOOT

IF THERE'S -- IF -- IF THEY SERVE ALCOHOL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOUR CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THAT

PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING GUNS COULD ALSO DRINK LIQUOR?

MR. PALMESANO: NO, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT

I'M ASKING.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I CAN HARDLY --

MR. PALMESANO: I'M JUST TRYING TO GET

CLARIFICATION SO THESE -- I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION. SOME OF

THESE SHOOTING CLUBS, IT'S A -- IT'S A PRIVATE CLUB, PEOPLE ARE MEMBERS OF

166

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THESE CLUBS, THEY PAY A FEE AND IT HELPS TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY.

SOME OF THEM HAVE BARS AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVE SOCIAL EVENTS,

SOMETIMES THEY DON'T, BUT THEN THEY DO SHOOTING. SO BASED ON THE

LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE NOW IS A SENSITIVE AREA, THESE SHOOTING

CLUBS WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO HAVE A -- A LIQUOR LICENSE OR A BEER

LICENSE, OR THEY WOULD NOT -- OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE SERVING

ALCOHOL WHILE THEY'RE SHOOTING. I MEAN, THESE -- THESE SHOOTING CLUBS

ARE VERY, VERY RESPONSIBLE AND SAFETY IS THEIR PARAMOUNT ACT -- ACT. I

JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THESE CLUBS THAT MIGHT HAVE A BAR AT THEIR FACILITY,

WOULD THEY NOT BE ABLE TO COME THERE IF THEY HAVE A BAR, WITH THEIR

FIREARMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK THAT MAY BE A PROBLEM,

BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I SAID I WOULD TRY TO CLARIFY.

MR. PALMESANO: YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GOOD ONE

TO GET CLARIFICATION ON, TOO.

MR. DINOWITZ: ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, THEY

CAN'T SHOOT ON SCHOOL PROPERTY CURRENTLY. SO IF THEY'RE OFF SITE, IT'S FINE.

SO IF THE SCHOOL SHOOTING THING IS NOT ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTY, THEN

NOTHING CHANGES.

MR. PALMESANO: SO I GUESS I -- AND SO YOU'RE

TALKING IT'S ONLY A SCHOOL PROPERTY? BECAUSE THIS -- THIS SAYS ANY PLACE

AND IT GOES DOWN AND SAYS -- IT DOESN'T SAY SCHOOL PROPERTY, IT SAYS

SPORTING EVENTS, THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE --

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT -- THAT'S MY RESPONSE.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO

167

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT. AND SO ON -- ON.

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT WAS THE CLARIFICATION.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. YES, THAT WOULD BE NICE

BECAUSE, AGAIN, THERE ARE -- JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF

TRAP TEAMS, HIGH SCHOOL KIDS PARTICIPATE, IT'S A GROWING SPORT. THEY GO

TO THESE ACTIVITIES, THEY GO TO THESE CLUBS AND THEY SHOOT AND THEY

COMPETE. AND THEY HAD A STATEWIDE TOURNAMENT LAST WEEK SO THAT'S --

THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THIS COULD POSSIBLY

DETRIMENT THAT AND I JUST WANT TO ASK -- AN ANSWER ON THAT. AND THEN

YOU ARE SAYING, AGAIN, ON THESE -- YOU'RE GOING TO GET BACK ON THE ISSUE

OF THESE SPORTING CLUBS, THESE TRAP CLUBS THAT ARE PRIVATE MEMBERSHIPS,

THEY MIGHT HAVE ALCOHOL, THEY MIGHT SERVE ALCOHOL AT DIFFERENT TIMES AS

A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP, NOW THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SERVE ALCOHOL AT ALL OR

IS IT JUST WHEN THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHOOTING ACTIVITIES?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE LEGISLATION SAYS THAT IF THESE

THE ESTABLISHMENT SERVES ALCOHOL THEN THEY -- IT WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED.

MR. PALMESANO: SO...

MR. DINOWITZ: EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE

EXEMPTED CATEGORIES.

MR. PALMESANO: SO THEY -- THEY WOULD NOT BE

ABLE TO HAVE A -- AN ALCOHOL LICENSE, OR THEY JUST NOT -- NOT HAVE ALCOHOL

WHILE THEY'RE THERE SHOOTING?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS WHETHER

THEY CAN HAVE AN ALCOHOL LICENSE, THIS ADDRESSES WHETHER A PERSON WITH

A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT CAN GO ON ONE OF THESE EXEMPTED --

168

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- LOCATIONS --

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- WITH THEIR GUN, IN ONE OF THE

SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.

DINOWITZ, FOR YOUR TIME.

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. PALMESANO: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. PALMESANO: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I THINK THIS IS

A PRETTY RIDICULOUS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I THINK IF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WOULD SPEND TIME AND ATTENTION ADDRESSING

CRIMINALS, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A -- AND THOSE THAT ARE COMMITTING

CRIMES ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE SAW EARLIER WHERE THE DEMONSTRATION BY

MY COLLEAGUE SAYING THAT THERE'S OVER 20 -- 2,300 SHOOTING INCIDENCES,

BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS WERE ZERO OF THOSE 2,300 HAD A CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT AND THAT THE CRIMES AND SENTENCINGS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH

ILLEGAL FIREARMS WAS LIKE FIVE MONTHS. WE KNOW THE BAIL -- THE FAILED

BAIL REFORM LAWS IS NOT WORKING WHERE YOU SEE THAT CONSTANT CATCH AND

RELEASE, PEOPLE COMMITTING A CRIME, BEING RELEASED BACK IN THE STREET.

THE SHOOTING INCIDENTS ARE RISING DRAMATICALLY IN NEW YORK STATE FROM

2019 TO '21, SHOOTING INCIDENTS UP OVER -- UP OVER 100 PERCENT IN NEW

YORK CITY. IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK THEY'RE UP OVER 144 PERCENT. THE

RAISE THE AGE, THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THAT AND WITH REPEAT

169

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

OFFENDERS AND DANGEROUS -- INDIVIDUALS WITH HAVING DANGEROUS CRIMES

NOT BEING PROSECUTED AND BEING IGNORED, WHILE IT SEEMS THIS LEGISLATION

IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THIS WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION AND

THAT'S WHY THEY ACTED THE WAY THEY DID. AND THEN THIS LEGISLATION TRIES

TO COME -- COME BACK AROUND AND BASICALLY THEY'RE PUTTING IN PLACE A

LAW THAT'S ACTUALLY MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT WAS IN PLACE, SOME WOULD

ARGUE THAN WHAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE. AREAS THAT YOU COULD CARRY A

FIREARM WITH YOU, A GUN OR PISTOL WITH YOU, NOW YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO

CARRY BECAUSE OF THE -- THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE.

I THINK, AGAIN, IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES ANY SAFER, BUT WHAT IT WILL

DO IS IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO

PROTECT THEMSELVES. SO IF THEY'RE WALKING IN CERTAIN AREAS, WHY AN

INDIVIDUAL WALKING IN THE -- IN THE STATE FOREST, STATE LAND, FORESTS,

HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF ACRES CAN'T HAVE A FIREARM WITH THEM TO

PROTECT THEMSELVES BECAUSE THERE'S WILDLIFE, BEARS AND THINGS OF THAT

NATURE. THAT'S ANOTHER AREA AND JUST THE THINGS THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION IS

SO BROAD, SO FAR-REACHING. IT'S CERTAINLY A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GET CHALLENGED

IMMEDIATELY AND HOPEFULLY IT DOES, IT GETS TOSSED RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IS

I THINK JUST AN ACT OF POLITICAL POSTURING BY THE MAJORITY. THIS IS NOT

GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THE CRIME THAT'S GOING ON IN OUR STATE

LOWER.

AGAIN, IF YOU SEEN IT, THIS MAJORITY COULD HAVE TAKEN

170

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ACTIONS ON THE -- THE -- THE DANGEROUS BOUNDARIES BY ALLOWING JUDGES TO

TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DANGEROUSNESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE

RELEASING THEM, AND WE'VE SEEN THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS CONTINUE, WHO

GET RELEASED, THEY'RE ARRESTED ON A FELONY. SOME 40 PERCENT OF THEM

ARE -- ARE BEING REARRESTED WHILE WAITING, GOING TO COURT ON ONE OF THE

OTHER CASES IN NEW YORK STATE. IN NEW YORK CITY, THAT REPEAT OFFENSE

RATE IS 45 PERCENT. WE HAVE SIMILAR NUMBERS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT

RAISE THE AGE AND DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS, 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS USING

FIREARMS, SOME WHO WERE ARRESTED FOR MURDER, ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE,

AND NOT BEING PROSECUTED AND NOT GETTING TO ADDRESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF

SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

I JUST THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS GOING IN THE WRONG WAY.

YOU KNOW, FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE

DANGEROUS CRIME THAT'S GOING IN OUR STREETS. I THINK THAT THEY, YOU

KNOW, MY -- MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WANT TO USE

THIS AS A DISTRACTION, THINK IT'S GOING TO DISTRACT FROM THE RISING VIOLENCE

WE'VE SEEN GOING ON AROUND THE CITIES. PEOPLE DO NOT FEEL SAFE. EVERY

TIME YOU TURN AROUND AND READ A NEWSPAPER OR SEE ON THE NEWS, PEOPLE

ARE GETTING SHOT WHETHER IT'S THE SUBWAY, ON THE STREETS. THESE ARE

INDIVIDUALS WHO AREN'T GOING TO GET A PISTOL PERMIT, MOST OF THEM.

THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE STEALING, STEALING AMMUNITION, THEY'RE

NOT GOING TO THE GUN STORE, MOST OF THEM ARE NOT -- THEY'RE NOT GOING TO

THE GUN STORE TO PURCHASE THEIR AMMUNITION. THERE MIGHT BE SOME, BUT

WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE STREETS AND I THINK THE MAJORITY IS

RUNNING -- CAN'T RUN FROM THE RECORD. AND SO IN EVERY --

171

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, MR.

PALMESANO --

MR. PALMESANO: I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: -- AND WITH YOUR

COMMENTS, THE WINDOW OF FOUR HOURS ON THIS BILL HAS CLOSED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT SEPTEMBER

1ST.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE ON SENATE BILL 51001. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY

MEMBER WHO WISHES TO VOTE IN THE -- WITH -- AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE

CONFERENCE POSITION IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY

LEADER AT THE NUMBERS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.

MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE IS GENERALLY OPPOSED TO THIS LEGISLATION FOR THE

REASONS MENTIONED BY MY COLLEAGUES. THOSE WHO WISH TO VOTE IN

FAVOR CAN CERTAINLY DO SO HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY OR BY

CONTACTING THE MINORITY LEADER'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY COLLEAGUES ARE GENERALLY GOING TO BE IN FAVOR

OF THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE SOME WHO WOULD

DESIRE TO BE AN EXCEPTION. THEY SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CAST THEIR VOTE HERE

172

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

IN THE CHAMBERS AND/OR CALL THE MAJORITY LEADER'S OFFICE AND WE'LL

MAKE SURE THEIR VOTE IS PROPERLY RECORDED. THANK YOU, SIR.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. HAWLEY ON

ZOOM TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. HAWLEY: YES, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AS

LEGISLATORS, IT'S OUR DUTY TO RESPECT THE LIBERTIES AND THE LIMITS OF

GOVERNMENT OVERREACH ESTABLISHED BY OUR FOUNDERS WITHIN THE

CONSTITUTION. WHILE I ASSUME THE INTENT OF THIS BILL SPONSORS ARE IN THE

RIGHT PLACE PROPOSING THIS LEGISLATION, THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF OUR

CONSTITUTION IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. ALL AMERICANS, INCLUDING NEW

YORKERS, ALL 20 MILLION OF US, 41 PERCENT IN NEW YORK CITY, 59 PERCENT

IN THE REST OF THE STATE, HAVE A RIGHT TO BOTH KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND

THOSE RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

THOUGH THIS BILL WAS DRAFTED WITH A STATED INTENTION OF

MAKING OUR LAWS MORE CONSTITUTIONAL, IT WILL ACTUALLY ONLY WEAKEN THE

PRACTICAL ABILITY OF OUR RESIDENTS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AS THIS SUPREME

COURT CASE ESTABLISHED IS A RIGHT. WE WOULDN'T SAY A SOCIETY HAS FREE

SPEECH IF PEOPLE COULD ONLY SPEAK OPENLY WITHIN CERTAIN DESIGNATED

SPACES. AND IT WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE FOR US TO BAN PEOPLE FROM

PRAYING UNLESS THERE WAS A SIGN SPECIFICALLY DISPLAYED PERMITTING THEM

TO DO SO. TO TREAT RIGHTS CONTAINED WITHIN OUR SECOND AMENDMENT

WITH ANY LESS RESPECT THAN THOSE IN THE OTHER 26 IN OUR CONSTITUTION

WOULD BE A DERELICTION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE WE ALL TOOK TO DEFEND IT.

THIS LEGISLATION IS WRONG, AND IT'S PROBABLY

173

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS CLEARLY ELECTION YEAR GRANDSTANDING. IT IS

BECAUSE OF THAT REASON AND SO MANY MORE AS I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS

LEGISLATION AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER AND ON ZOOM --

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. HAWLEY, HOW

DO YOU VOTE?

MR. HAWLEY: -- TO JOIN ME IN SAYING NO TO SAFE

ACT 2. I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. HAWLEY VOTES

IN THE NEGATIVE.

MR. RA EXPLAIN TO HIS VOTE.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU KNOW, WE

GOT THIS BILL A LITTLE BEFORE 11:00 O'CLOCK TODAY WHICH IS AN HOUR SHORT

OF 24 HOURS AFTER THE PROCLAMATION THAT WAS ISSUED LAST FRIDAY CALLING

THE SPECIAL SESSION. AND I'M ALWAYS REMINDED OF THE SAYING THAT THE

MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME. WE DO THIS TIME

AFTER TIME AFTER TIME.

AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT ABOUT ALMOST TO THE DAY

ACTUALLY 27 MONTHS AGO WE PASSED A RESOLUTION HERE TO CHANGE OUR

PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH THE COVID PANDEMIC THAT HAD COME UPON US.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS THAT

WE HAD TO PROTECT EVERYBODY HERE, WE HAD TO PROTECT THE STAFF SO THEY

WOULDN'T BE ON THE -- ON THE FLOOR FOR TOO LONG AND BE EXPOSED; YET,

HERE WE ARE OVER TWO YEARS LATER, WE'RE BACK TO THE LAST WEEK OF

SESSION GOING LATE INTO THE NIGHT A NUMBER OF NIGHTS IN A ROW THEN --

THEN GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH OVERNIGHT, SENDING PEOPLE OFF ON NO SLEEP

174

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TO DRIVE HOME, WHICH I THINK IS PRETTY DARN DANGEROUS. AGAIN, WHAT WE

DID YESTERDAY, PEOPLE HERE LATE INTO THE NIGHT. WHERE'S THE CARE FOR THE

SAFETY OF THE STAFF NOW THAT -- THAT WE'VE HAVE COME THROUGH THIS TIME?

SO WE NEED TO -- THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES, THEY

DESERVE TO BE DEBATED, BUT OUR CONSTITUENTS DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

READ THESE BILL AND COMMUNICATE WITH US, AND A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT

WE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ABOUT, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE

CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE TYPES OF ENTITIES, WHETHER THEY WERE PEOPLE

THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THESE SPORTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE WERE TALKING AT

THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL, OR -- OR LOCAL CLUBS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS SO

THAT WE HAVE WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE A MORE WORKABLE LAW.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE HERE DOING THE SAME THING

AGAIN, TWO REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RUSHED. I'M GLAD IT'S

IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT CERTAINLY THESE ISSUES AND THESE BILLS HAVE NOT

RECEIVED THE TRANSPARENCY THEY DESERVE. AND I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY TO

EVERYBODY, AT SOME POINT CAN WE STOP SAYING THIS IS THE WAY IT'S DONE

SO WE JUST HAVE TO KEEP DOING IT THIS WAY? LET'S BE BETTER. I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. RA IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MS. SIMON.

MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. LAST WEEK,

THE SUPREME COURT INVALIDATED NEW YORK'S 108 YEAR LAW REQUIRING

THAT THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING TO CARRY A HANDGUN CONCEALED NEEDED TO

SHOW PROPER CAUSE. THAT LAW WAS ENACTED BEFORE WORLD WAR I AND

WAS WORKING JUST FINE. OTHER THAN GROUSING, THERE HAD BEEN NO MAJOR

175

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

COMPLAINTS OF THE LOSS OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, A RIGHT THAT WAS

TO A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA TO BEAR ARMS UNTIL THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SIX

JUDGE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT WOULD COME TO

PASS. AND THIS COURT'S RULING ESSENTIALLY SAID PROPER CAUSE, WE DON'T

KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT IN DOING SO, IT LAID OUT A ROAD MAP FOR HOW

NEW YORK CAN PROTECT ITS PEOPLE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS DECISION.

AFTER ALL, NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST IN

PROTECTING ITS PEOPLE. THAT IS OUR DUTY, THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF NEW

YORK EXPECT FROM THOSE THAT THEY ELECT TO SERVE.

SO TODAY WE PASS A COMPREHENSIVE BILL THAT ADDRESSES

THE COURT'S DECISION BY ENACTING SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WHAT WOULD

CONSTITUTE SUCH CAUSE AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING THOSE

CRITERIA. IT STRENGTHENS OUR BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM AND IMPLEMENTS

AN AMMUNITION DATABASE THAT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE UN --

UNIMPLEMENTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WILL NOW BECOME A PART OF THE

WEB OF PROTECTIONS THAT NEW YORKERS CAN RELY ON. OUR LEGISLATION

FURTHER IDENTIFIES WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A SENSITIVE SPACE, SOMETHING

THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGED WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE TO PROTECT THE

GENERAL WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE. I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT SO MANY OF THOSE

SENSITIVE SPACES WERE LAID OUT IN PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. AND WE FURTHER

MANDATE TRAINING IN THE USE OF FIREARMS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HAVE

CONFIDENCE THAT THESE WHO DO HAVE A PERMIT FOR CARRY CONCEALED WILL

KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR AND USE THEIR HANDGUN SAFELY. THESE --

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. SIMON, HOW

DO YOU VOTE?

176

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MS. SIMON: I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. SIMON IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. TANNOUSIS.

MR. TANNOUSIS: THANK YOU.

MS. SIMON: I DON'T --

MR. TANNOUSIS: OH, I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, IN MY TIME AS

A PROSECUTOR, I PROSECUTED A NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF GUN-RELATED CRIMES,

GUN POSSESSION, SHOOTINGS, HOMICIDES INVOLVING FIREARMS, AND I NEVER,

EVER CAME ACROSS A DEFENDANT THAT WAS EITHER LEGALLY REGISTERED A

FIREARM, APPLIED FOR ONE AND RECEIVED ONE, OR WAS A CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT HOLDER. IT WAS ALWAYS A GUN FROM OUT-OF-STATE, STOLEN FROM

SOME STATE DOWN SOUTH WITH SCRATCHED SERIAL NUMBERS AND SOMEHOW

FOUND AND MADE ITS WAY TO NEW YORK. OKAY. AND, BY THE WAY,

NEITHER DID MY COLLEAGUES.

THE INCREASE IN CRIME HERE IN NEW YORK CAN ONLY BE

ADDRESSED EFFECTIVELY ONE WAY, AND THAT IS BY HOLDING VIOLENT CRIMINALS

ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. THAT IS THE WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE

PUBLIC SAFETY IN OUR STREETS. AND THE SOONER WE DO THAT IN THIS BODY,

THE BETTER. MR. SPEAKER, MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES TODAY MADE SOME

GREAT POINTS AS TO WHY THIS LAW -- THIS LAW IS FLAWED AND IS NOT VALID,

ESPECIALLY ON CONSTITUTIONALITY GROUNDS; HOWEVER, ONE ASPECT THAT

CONCERNS ME IS THE FACT THAT THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WILL NOW COST A FEW

177

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THOUSAND DOLLARS. SO SOMEONE NOW APPLYING FOR A CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT WILL HAVE TO SPEND A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ORDER TO DO SO.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE

WHO HAVE THE RESOURCES AND THE INCOME, AND THAT MAY LIVE IN AFFLUENT

COMMUNITIES WILL NOW BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THIS, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT

DOES NOT HAVE THAT INCOME AND THAT SOURCE, AND PERHAPS MAY LIVE IN A

NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE ADEQUATE SAFETY NOW CANNOT APPLY

FOR THIS PERMIT, CANNOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF HIS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

FOR THAT REASON, FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED BY MY COLLEAGUES TODAY, I

VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. TANNOUSIS IN

THE NEGATIVE.

MR. WALCZYK.

MR. WALCZYK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THERE

WAS A MASS SHOOTING IN BOSTON. PEOPLE WERE PRETTY TICKED OFF ABOUT

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. THERE WAS A MURDER BY A GOVERNMENT

AGENT WHO GOT A ROYAL PARDON MURDERING AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY.

FEDERAL TROOPS OCCUPIED THE CITY OF BOSTON, PEOPLE ASSEMBLED EVEN

THOUGH THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME TO

ASSEMBLE. THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO PETITION OR TO REDRESS YOUR GRIEVANCES,

THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. AND ON MARCH 5TH, 1770, GOVERNMENT

TROOPS FIRED ON PROTESTERS KILLING FIVE AMERICANS, SAMUEL GRAY,

SAMUEL MAVERICK, JAMES CALDWELL, PATRICK CARR, CRISPUS ATTUCKS,

WHO WAS A FREED SLAVE.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE

178

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

GUNS. THE POWER NEEDS TO REST WITH THE PEOPLE. HAPPY INDEPENDENCE

DAY TO YOU, SPEAKER, AND TO ALL THE FREE AMERICANS. PLEASE CAST YOUR

VOTE FOR LIBERTY OVER TYRANNY, UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR OATH TO

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. JOIN ME AND VOTE NO ON THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. WALCZYK IN

THE NEGATIVE.

MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. SO THE

BILL BEFORE US HERE IS IN RESPONSE TO THE BRUEN DECISION WHICH RULED AS

LONG AS A NEW YORKER OR AN AMERICAN CAN PASS THE CONCEALED CARRY

PERMIT PROCESS, PASS THE BACKGROUND CHECKS, THEY HAVE A RIGHT UNDER

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CARRY A FIREARM FOR ORDINARY SELF-DEFENSE.

NOW, NO DATA HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT SHOWS CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

HOLDERS ARE DRIVERS OF GUN VIOLENCE, THE GOVERNOR HAS ADMITTED THAT

SHE HAS NO DATA. THE SPONSOR TODAY HAD NO NUMBERS SHOWING THAT THIS

-- THIS WAS A PROBLEM; YET, HERE WE ARE PLACING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON

CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS THAT WERE NEVER THERE BEFORE.

SO WHY ARE WE DOING IT EXACTLY? IT'S AN OBVIOUS

ATTEMPT TO NULLIFY THE BRUEN DECISION BY MAKING IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE

FOR AN ORDINARY CITIZEN TO COMPLY WITH THESE RESTRICTED ZONES AND SOME

OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. IT'S REALLY JUST A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE

SUPREME COURT AND ON A HISTORY BENT FROM MY COLLEAGUE OVER THERE,

JOHN C. CALHOUN WOULD BLUSH AT THIS ATTEMPT OF NULLIFICATION. SO I

VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU.

179

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. GANDOLFO IN

THE NEGATIVE.

MR. LAWLER ON ZOOM.

MR. LAWLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE

SUPREME COURT RULED THAT NEW YORK'S LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT

REVERTED IT BACK TO THE LOWER COURT FOR ACTION. RATHER THAN ALLOWING

THOSE PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PLACE, THE GOVERNOR AND THE MAJORITY HERE

ARE SEEKING TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT IS PURELY POLITICAL, THAT WILL DO

NOTHING TO ADDRESS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR CITIES OR

ACROSS THE STATE AND, IN FACT, WILL TRAMPLE FURTHER ON PEOPLE'S

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

THE -- THE BILL SPONSOR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, WELL, IF

MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY, WE'RE GOING

TO MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE AS TO WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO. HE

COULDN'T EVEN NAME A SINGLE LOCATION OTHER THAN YOUR HOME WHICH, BY

THE WAY, IF YOU HAD A PERMIT YOU ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO POSSESS A GUN

IN YOUR HOME. BUT HE COULDN'T NAME ANOTHER LOCATION OTHER THAN YOUR

HOME THAT WOULD QUALIFY OUTSIDE OF THE LIST OF 20 LOCATIONS IN WHICH

YOU COULD NOT POSSESS A FIREARM WITH A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE.

THIS LAW IS GOING TO BE THROWN OUT IN COURT AND IT'S

JUST ANOTHER INDICATION OF THE FAILURE OF ONE-PARTY RULE, AND THE FAILURE

OF -- OF THIS MAJORITY, WHICH HAS BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL NUMEROUS

TIMES THIS YEAR, INCLUDING WITH REDISTRICTING BECAUSE THEY JUST TOTAL --

HAVE TOTAL DISDAIN AND DISREGARD FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK. ONE THING IS CLEAR: ALBANY IS A DYSFUNCTIONAL CESSPOOL OF

180

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

CORRUPTION AND THIS TOWN NEEDS AN ENEMA COME NOVEMBER. I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. GOODELL TO

EXPLAIN YOUR VOTE.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I -- I RISE

TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE AND I MIGHT ACTUALLY TOUCH ON SOMETHING THAT HASN'T

BEEN TOUCHED IN THE FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE THAT PRECEDED THIS. UNDER

CURRENT LAW, THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN, BUT UNDER CURRENT LAW YOU COULD GET

A CONCEALED PERMIT, CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT IF YOU COULD DEMONSTRATE

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING IN A SERIOUS RISK TO YOURSELF. SO FOR

EXAMPLE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT PERHAPS YOU'RE IN AN ABUSIVE

RELATIONSHIP, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION. MAYBE YOU WERE THE VICTIM

OF STALKING, MAYBE THERE WERE PERSONAL THREATS MADE AGAINST YOU. AND

FACED WITH THAT DEMONSTRATEABLE PERSONAL THREAT YOU COULD GET A

CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. AND ONCE YOU GOT THAT CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT

BECAUSE OF THOSE DEMONSTRATABLE THREATS, YOU COULD USE -- CARRY YOUR

GUN ON THE SUBWAY, THROUGH A DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD, TO WORK, TO

AND FROM YOUR APARTMENT. AND THIS BILL SAYS THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU

HAVE DEMONSTRATED A PERSONAL SAFETY ISSUE, YOU NO LONGER, UNDER THIS

BILL, COULD CARRY A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF ON THE SUBWAY OR TO WORK OR

IN YOUR OWN APARTMENT IF IT WAS A MULTIDWELLING UNIT.

THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS. AND WHY? BECAUSE WE'RE -- WE'RE

TOLD THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF LICENSED PERMIT HOLDERS,

PEOPLE WITH A PISTOL PERMIT. WELL, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL DATA THEY

ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 54 MURDERS NATIONWIDE, LESS THAN 1 PERCENT. TO PUT

THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE 751 BICYCLE DEATHS EVERY YEAR. YOU'RE 14

181

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE IN A BICYCLE ACCIDENT THAN TO DIE WITH

SOMEBODY WITH A PISTOL PERMIT. BUT NOTHING IN THE LAST TWO DAYS

FOCUSES ON THE OTHER 99 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLING EVERYONE

ON OUR STREETS. NOTHING DEALS WITH BAIL REFORM OR INCARCERATION OR OUR

PRISON SYSTEM OR MENTAL HEALTH. NOTHING. WE'RE FOCUSING ENTIRELY ON

LESS THAN 1 PERCENT WHO DON'T CONSTITUTE THE CRIME AND THAT'S WHY I

CANNOT SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, MR.

GOODELL.

MS. ROSENTHAL TO EXPLAIN YOUR VOTE.

MS. ROSENTHAL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

U.S. LAST WEEK STRIKING DOWN A CENTURY OLD NEW YORK STATE LAW THAT

KEPT NEW YORKERS SAFE FROM SOME SENSELESS GUN VIOLENCE WAS AN

INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS DECISION.

TO RECAP WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS AFFIRMED OVER

THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS: THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF A COUNTRY WITH EASIER

ACCESS TO MORE GUNS; WHERE FORCED PREGNANCIES ARE COMMONPLACE

BECAUSE THEY HAVE RULED A PERSON NO LONGER HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE

DECISIONS OVER THEIR OWN BODY; WHERE PRAYER IS CONDUCTED WHEREVER

ONE WOULD LIKE; WHERE THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE

ACCELERATED, BECAUSE EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE

AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.

UPENDING DECADES OF LEGAL PRECEDENT TO APPEASE A

POLITICAL PARTY IS NOT MAKING ANYONE SAFER, IT'S DOING THE OPPOSITE.

182

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WHEN NEW YORK STATE IMPLEMENTED RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONCEALED

CARRY OF WEAPONS MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, IT WAS IN RECOGNITION

OF THE FACT THAT ALLOWING ANYONE WHO FEELS LIKE IT TO CARRY A GUN IN

PUBLIC WOULD BE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. IF WE WERE NOT BACK HERE TODAY

PASSING NEW LEGISLATION, WE'D SOON SEE PEOPLE WALKING THROUGH TIMES

SQUARE WITH DANGEROUS FIREARMS ON THEM. THEY COULD BE LEGALLY

CARRIED INTO CROWDED BARS AND RESTAURANTS, POLLING PLACES AND

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, HOSPITALS, ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, AND IN THE

PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS WHERE CHILDREN GATHER. NEW YORKERS SHOULD

NOT HAVE TO DUCK AND COVER WHILE SIMPLY SHOPPING FOR TONIGHT'S DINNER,

HAVING A DRINK WITH FRIENDS, OR TRAVELING TO WORK.

IF THIS ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT HAD ITS WAY, THERE'S NO

TELLING THE UPTICK IN GUN VIOLENCE THIS DECISION COULD HAVE BROUGHT, BUT

NEW YORK STATE WILL NOT SETTLE FOR HAVING ITS RESIDENTS BE IN PLACES OF

DANGER AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE PASSING THIS MOST COMMON SENSE

REGULATION, PASSING IT INTO LAW SO THAT WE CAN FEEL SAFE WALKING IN

TIMES SQUARE, WALKING AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, TRAVELING ON OUR

SUBWAYS. AND SO I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES WITH EXCEPTIONS.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RECORD OUR COLLEAGUES MRS. GUNTHER, MR.

CONRAD, MS. HUNTER, AND MS. BUTTENSCHON IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS ONE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: SO NOTED.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

183

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 3, RULES REPORT NO. 2, THE CLERK WILL READ THE

TITLE OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

THE CLERK: COMMITTEE ON RULES, MS. SEAWRIGHT.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY PROPOSING AN

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON A MOTION BY

MS. SEAWRIGHT, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: I HEREBY CERTIFY TO AN IMMEDIATE VOTE,

KATHY HOCHUL, GOVERNOR.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. SEAWRIGHT,

WILL YOU YIELD?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: YES.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS.

SEAWRIGHT. I SEE THAT THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD

PROHIBIT ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANYONE BASED ON, AMONG OTHER

THINGS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION,

PREGNANCY, PREGNANCY OUTCOME, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND

AUTONOMY; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: YES.

184

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MR. GOODELL: AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD

NOW BE COVERED BY THIS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE OBVIOUSLY WAS GENDER

ORIENTATION -- OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. WOULD THIS

LEGISLATION, THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IF PASSED,

PROHIBIT NEW YORK STATE FROM FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF MANY OTHER STATES

BY LIMITING WOMEN'S SPORTS TO ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE BIOLOGICALLY BORN AS

A WOMAN?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THIS FOLLOWS HUMAN RIGHTS

LAW IN NEW YORK STATE AND ITS DEFINITION.

MR. GOODELL: BUT AS -- AS YOU KNOW, MANY STATES

HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE BORN WITH A MALE GENE HAVE

PHYSICAL ADVANTAGES, AND CERTAINLY IN SPORTS IN MANY AREAS, NOT ALWAYS,

BUT IN MANY AREAS, AND HAVE LIMITED WOMEN'S SPORTS TO ONLY THOSE WITH

GENETIC DISPOSITION OF A WOMAN. WOULD THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT MAKE THAT PROTECTION FOR WOMEN ATHLETES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

IN NEW YORK?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: NO.

MR. GOODELL: AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MANY,

MANY LAWS AND RULES DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO HELP WOMEN OR TO PROTECT

THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE THE GIRL SCOUTS, YOU HAVE, AS YOU

MENTIONED, WOMEN'S SPORTS. OFTENTIMES THEY'LL HAVE THE ONE-SEX

HOUSING. WE HAVE IN NEW YORK STATE SOME FINE WOMEN COLLEGES.

SOMETIMES YOU'LL HAVE A SORORITY, WHICH IS JUST LIMITED TO WOMEN.

WOULD THIS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION

BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER EXPRESSION

185

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MEAN THAT THOSE ALL-WOMEN FUNCTIONS WOULD NOW BECOME

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: NO.

MR. GOODELL: AND WHY IS IT THAT WE WOULD ALLOW

A SINGLE-SEX ACTIVITIES, WHETHER IT'S JUST FOR MEN OR JUST FOR WOMEN,

HOW COULD THAT CONCEIVABLY BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS LANGUAGE WHICH

PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER OR

IDENTITY?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: SO IT -- IT FOLLOWS THE NEW YORK

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.

MR. GOODELL: SO ARE YOU SAYING RIGHT NOW THE

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ALREADY COVERS EVERYTHING THAT'S COVERED BY THIS

LANGUAGE?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: YES.

MR. GOODELL: SO THEN WHY DO WE NEED THIS

LANGUAGE?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: BECAUSE DISCRIMINATION

CURRENTLY EXISTS AND WE NEED TO ENSHRINE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, IF IT'S ALREADY PROHIBITED IN

THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ALREADY COVERS ALL

THESE AREAS, AS YOU MENTIONED, CAN'T WE AND SHOULDN'T WE FOCUS ON

ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAW?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: WE SHOULD EMBED IT IN THE

CONSTITUTION BECAUSE NEW YORK STATE LAW CAN ALWAYS CHANGE.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, THIS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE

186

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ALSO TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT PREGNANCY, PREGNANCY OUTCOMES,

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND AUTONOMY, CORRECT?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE CATHOLIC

CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY CLEARLY OPPOSED TO ABORTION. WOULD THIS

CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED PROHIBIT THE CATHOLIC

CHURCH FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOMEBODY BASED ON THEIR DESIRE TO

HAVE AN ABORTION OR SEEK AN ABORTION IN A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL, OR

OTHERWISE PURSUE ABORTION?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: NO.

MR. GOODELL: SO AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DEALT

WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THE INSURANCE LAW, FOR

EXAMPLE, AND SECTION 10-B OF THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW AND OTHER

AREAS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE

ABORTION COVERAGE IN INSURANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR CONTRACEPTIVE

COVERAGE, AND WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION. AND WE DID

THAT TO COMPLY WITH THE U.S. AS WELL AS THE NEW YORK STATE

CONSTITUTION. IS THIS LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE HAVE ANY

RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION THAT WOULD PROTECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, OR PERHAPS

ORTHODOX JEWISH INDIVIDUALS OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS FROM

BEING FORCED TO DO THINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS RELIGION?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF

THOSE LAWS; IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF LITIGATION.

MR. GOODELL: SO YOUR INTENT IS THAT IF WE PASS

THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IT WILL THEN OPEN IT UP FOR MORE

187

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

LITIGATION OVER WHETHER OR NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS IN ANY WAY

DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOMEBODY BASED ON THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

CARE? I MEAN, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PRETTY CLEAR, RIGHT, THEY'RE

OPPOSED TO ABORTION, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. SO ARE WE GOING TO

MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR AN EMPLOYEE --

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: EXCUSE ME, MR.

GOODELL. CAN THE PEOPLE IN THE CORNER PLEASE KEEP THE NOISE DOWN?

WE'RE TRYING TO DEBATE A VERY IMPORTANT BILL HERE. THANK YOU.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. SO

DOESN'T THIS VERY CLEARLY SAY THAT THE -- THAT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION

CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEBODY BASED ON THE REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH CARE DECISIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, FOR EXAMPLE?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THIS AMENDMENT MAKES PLAIN

THAT NEW YORK DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NO ONE BASED ON WHO THEY ARE,

WHAT THEY BELIEVE OR WHO THEY LOVE. RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,

DISABILITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ALL ENJOY FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, I ACTUALLY STRONGLY OPPOSE

DISCRIMINATION, BUT I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WHEN IT --

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: I HAVE ASKED YOU

IN THE CORNER TO KEEP THE NOISE DOWN. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE LESS

INTEREST IN THIS HOUSE AND WE'RE GOING OTHER PLACES, BUT THIS IS NOT THE

TIME TO INTERRUPT THIS VERY EXTREMELY, IMPORTANT DEBATE.

GO ON, MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND TO

THE SPONSOR. I ALSO OPPOSE DISCRIMINATION AND I THINK EVERYONE OUGHT

188

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TO BE TREATED EQUALLY REGARDLESS OF THEIR SEX OR COLOR OR RACE, CREED,

RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. I'M

ACTUALLY ON BOARD. BUT HOW DO YOU THEN EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE

OF A CERTAIN SEX OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, YOU CAN SUBMIT A BID THAT'S TEN

PERCENT HIGHER THAN ANYONE ELSE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX AND YOU'RE

ENTITLED, NOT ENTITLED, MANDATED TO RECEIVE THE BID EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE

SEEKING A HIGHER BID. HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT LEVEL OF DISCRIMINATION

COMPARED TO THIS LANGUAGE? WOULD THAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION ALSO BE

BARRED?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

MR. GOODELL: BUT I THOUGHT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT WOULD BAR ANY DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX, SEXUAL

ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION, RIGHT? I MEAN,

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO BAR THAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION,

CORRECT?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL

INVALIDATE OR PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF ANY LAW, REGULATION, PROGRAM OR

PRACTICE THAT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR DISMANTLE DISCRIMINATION ON THE

BASIS OF A CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS SECTION, NOR SHALL ANY

CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS SECTION BE INTERPRETED TO INTERFERE WITH,

LIMIT OR DENY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON BASED UPON ANY OTHER

CHARACTERISTIC IDENTIFIED IN THIS SECTION."

MR. GOODELL: SO AM I READING THIS LANGUAGE,

WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO ME, ABOUT NOTHING WILL PREVENT THE

189

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

DISMANTLEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS

CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE IS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE DISCRIMINATION IF IT'S

IN RESPONSE TO PRIOR DISCRIMINATION? IN OTHER WORDS, SOME

DISCRIMINATION IS GOOD, SOME DISCRIMINATION IS BAD, AND THAT'S WHAT

WE'RE INCORPORATING INTO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE; IS THAT THE

PURPOSE OF THAT LANGUAGE?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THE LANGUAGE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

MR. GOODELL: AND WHAT IS YOUR INTENT?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION.

MR. GOODELL: OH, I LOVE THAT. SO TALK TO ME AND

TELL ME HOW IS IT THAT THE MWBE PROGRAM, WHICH GIVES A 30 TO 35

PERCENT PREFERENCE TO JUST WOMEN, NOT MEN, OR JUST MINORITIES, NOT

MAJORITIES. TELL ME HOW IT IS THAT THE MWBE PROGRAM IS NOT

DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THE LANGUAGE IS EXACTLY

PROTECTING THAT.

MR. GOODELL: SO THAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION IS

OKAY UNDER THIS LANGUAGE? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THE

QUESTION.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I

APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

ON THE BILL, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: ON THE BILL.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, IT'S CLEAR THAT OUR SOCIETY

190

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

DISCRIMINATES ALL THE TIME AGAINST EVERYBODY AND EVERYBODY ELSE BASED

ON VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE COME TO ACCEPT, NOT ONLY ACCEPT

BUT ENDORSE. SO WE HAVE SPORTS TEAMS THAT ARE JUST FOR WOMEN AND WE

APPLAUD THAT. I HAVE THREE DAUGHTERS, I LOVE THE FACT THEY PLAYED SPORTS

AND THAT THEY HAD THEIR OWN SPORTS TEAMS. BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE

PEOPLE WHO ARE BORN AS MEN WHO HAVE THE MALE CHROMOSOMES WHO

WANT TO PLAY IN WOMEN'S SPORTS, AND IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. AND

MANY STATES ACROSS OUR NATION ARE RECOGNIZING THAT UNFAIRNESS AND

ADOPTING LAWS TO PROTECT WOMEN WHO WANT TO COMPETE ON A FAIR AND

LEVEL BASIS.

BUT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU

CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER EXPRESSION. AND

WE RECOGNIZE, WE HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT SOME RELIGIONS HAVE

VERY, VERY STRONG AND, IN THEIR VIEW, CERTAINLY LEGITIMATE REASONS TO

OPPOSE ABORTION. CATHOLIC CHURCH WON'T DO ABORTIONS. THEIR

INSURANCE WON'T COVER ABORTIONS. THEIR HOSPITALS WON'T DO ABORTIONS.

BUT THIS LANGUAGE PURPORTS TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU

CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE BASED ON THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

CARE AND AUTONOMY.

SO IF THIS LANGUAGE GOES INTO EFFECT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT, PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE CATHOLIC

CHURCH TO FIRE SOMEONE WHO IS VIOLATING THEIR BASIC TENETS ON

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S A GOOD THING, NOT A BAD

THING, A GOOD THING THAT WE SOMETIMES HAVE A SORORITY, I THINK THAT'S

WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, OR A FRATERNITY, FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO GROW UP WITH

191

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

FRIENDS THAT ARE THE SAME IDENTITY. WE RECOGNIZE IT'S A GOOD THING TO

HAVE AN ALL-WOMEN'S COLLEGE THAT DOES NOT ADMIT MEN, OR HOUSING THAT'S

JUST FOR WOMEN. WE RECOGNIZE THAT SOMETIMES THAT'S GOOD. THIS SAYS

DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND BASED ON SEXUAL IDENTITY OR GENDER

EXPRESSION WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YEAH, WHAT ABOUT THE MWBE

PROGRAM? WHAT ABOUT THE TEN TO 15 PERCENT BONUS WE GIVE YOU IF YOU

HAPPEN TO QUALIFY BASED ON YOUR SEXUAL IDENTITY? ARE WE ELIMINATING

THAT? THE SPONSOR SAYS MAYBE NOT, ALTHOUGH ALL DISCRIMINATION IS BAD,

BUT NOT ALL DISCRIMINATION, ONLY DISCRIMINATION THAT DOESN'T HELP MY

GENDER IDENTITY.

HEY, LOOK, IT'S EITHER GOOD OR IT'S BAD. I THINK IT'S BAD,

ALTHOUGH I HAVE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS

WHERE IT'S PROBABLY GOOD LIKE ALL WOMEN'S SPORTS OR ALL MEN'S SPORTS, OR

MAYBE ALL WOMEN COLLEGES OR MAYBE ALL MEN COLLEGES. I MEAN, WE

RECOGNIZE THAT. AND THEN TO TOP IT OFF, AND I AGREE WITH THE SPONSOR ON

THIS, THE SPONSOR SAYS WE DON'T NEED THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY

COVERED BY LAW. BUT HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE, THE LAW CAN BE FINE-TUNED,

RIGHT? WE DO IT ALL THE TIME, DON'T WE? WE START OUT EVERY YEAR WITH

20 OR 30 CHAPTER AMENDMENTS FINE-TUNING WHAT WE DID THE PREVIOUS

YEAR. AND THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

SO WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL

LANGUAGE THAT'S UNNECESSARY, THAT CREATES A LOT OF CONTROVERSY WITH

SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY LANGUAGE THAT

REFLECTS THOSE EXEMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN STATUTE, WHETHER IT'S

IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW OR IN THE INSURANCE LAW OR ELSEWHERE.

192

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

IT PURPORTS ON ONE HAND TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION WHILE WE'RE TOLD ON

THE OTHER HAND, NO, IT DOESN'T REALLY. AND WE KNOW IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

FOR THOSE REASONS, I REALLY JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT AND I DON'T RECOMMEND

IT TO MY COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE QUESTION IS

DOES THIS HOUSE CONCUR WITH THE SENATE?

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE ON CONCURRENT

RESOLUTION NO. S51002. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY MEMBER WHO

WISHES TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONFERENCE POSITION IS

REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS

PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.

MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: SO WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING IT'S

NICE AND QUIET IN HERE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE REPUBLICAN

CONFERENCE IS GENERALLY OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE. THOSE

WHO SUPPORT IT ARE CERTAINLY ENCOURAGED TO VOTE IN FAVOR HERE ON THE

FLOOR OR BY CONTACTING THE MINORITY LEADER'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

MS. WEINSTEIN.

MS. WEINSTEIN: THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE

SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE IN CONTRARY TO THE

MAJORITY POSITION CAN CONTACT THE MAJORITY LEADER'S OFFICE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

193

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN MY

VOTE. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DEAL WITH A COUPLE OF MEASURES, AND THIS

ONE DEMONSTRATES THAT WE WILL STAND UP AND SAY THAT THE WOMEN OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED, ABSOLUTELY NEED

TO KNOW THAT THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE DECISIONS WILL

BE ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. IF THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT WOULD

HAVE THEIR WAY, RIGHTS WOULD BE ASCRIBED TO GUNS RATHER -- IN GREATER

AMOUNT THAN TO WOMEN, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, OR REALLY ANYBODY IN THE COUNTRY, SHOULD HAVE TO

LIVE ACCORDING TO THE RELIGIOUS TENETS OF ANOTHER RELIGION, ONE TO WHICH

THEY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE.

THE RESULT IS THAT WHEN ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, WOMEN DIE.

AND THE OTHER PARTY HAS DONE PRECIOUS LITTLE TO SUPPORT CHILD CARE, CHILD

TAX CREDITS, OR OTHER MEASURES THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE POSSIBLE FOR

PEOPLE TO MAKE BETTER CHOICES IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. BUT

MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHILDREN CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE CHILDREN AND

IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW TO RAISE THEIR KIDS AND HOW TO LIVE WITHOUT

THE INTERFERENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE INTERFERENCE OF SOMEBODY

ELSE'S RELIGION. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND HAPPILY VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. GONZ�LEZ-ROJAS.

MS. GONZ�LEZ-ROJAS: MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN

MY VOTE. I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKER, THE STAFF, AND THE BILL SPONSOR

194

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

FOR THE DECISIVE ACTION THAT IS BEING TAKEN TODAY. WITH THE FALL OF ROE

IN THE UNITED STATES, CORPORATIONS AND GUNS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN

WOMEN AND PEOPLE WHO CAN GET PREGNANT IN THIS COUNTRY. GIVEN THE

CONSERVATIVE BENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE FAR RIGHT'S DESIRE TO

OPPRESS VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE DO ALL THAT WE

CAN TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS, BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THAT THEY'RE COMING

FOR ALL OF US. TO QUOTE ANGELA DAVIS, IF THEY COME FOR ME IN THE

MORNING, THEY WILL COME FOR YOU IN THE NIGHT.

TODAY, NEW YORK STATE IS TAKING THE FIRST STEP IN BOLD

AND URGENT ACTION TO ENSURE THAT EQUAL PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND PEOPLE

WHO CAN BECOME PREGNANT, GIVEN THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS ACROSS THE

COUNTRY. THIS EQUALITY AMENDMENT, THOUGH NOT THE STRONGER VERSION

THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY, IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO MORE BROADLY PROTECT

GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION, LGBTQ COMMUNITIES,

COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, IMMIGRANTS, PEOPLE WHO CAN GIVE BIRTH, PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES AND MORE. WE NEED TO GIVE THE COURTS THE ABILITY TO

OBJECTIVELY FIND THAT DISPARATE IMPACT HAS OCCURRED AS IT RELATES TO

DISCRIMINATION.

SO TODAY IS IMPORTANT. WE MUST FURTHER CODIFY OUR

RIGHTS IF WE ARE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS FROM EVEN OURSELVES. MY NEXT

MESSAGE IS DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE: ELECTIONS AND POLITICS ALONE ARE NOT

GOING TO SAVE US. WHEN THIS COMES BEFORE THE PUBLIC AS A BALLOT

MEASURE, THE FAR RIGHT WILL ORGANIZE AND IT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU

ALL, FOR US, TO ORGANIZE STRONGER THAN EVER. TAKE TO THE STREETS, BECAUSE

WHETHER IT IS CITY HALL, WHETHER IT'S ALBANY OR WHETHER IT'S WASHINGTON,

195

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

D.C., IT IS TIME THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY

MUST GET THEIR BANS OFF OUR BODIES. SO I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS.

GONZ�LEZ-ROJAS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SIMON.

MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THIS EQUALITY AMENDMENT SERVES TO PROTECT THE

MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THIS STATE WHO HAVE NOT HAD EQUAL RIGHTS IN NEW

YORK STATE. THIS ALSO PROTECTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

IN ALL ASPECTS OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. GIVEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND

THE MOST RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT REALLY CODIFIED ONE

RELIGION'S BELIEFS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NEW YORK STATE NEEDS TO BE THERE FOR

THE WOMEN, FOR THE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, FOR THE LGBTQ

COMMUNITY, TO ENSURE THAT IN NEW YORK EVERYONE WILL BE EQUAL UNDER

LAW. THAT IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS SO CRITICAL, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL

BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU. MS.

SIMON IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. ABINANTI.

MR. ABINANTI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I EXPECT

THAT THIS WILL BE MY LAST VOTE AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. I'M

BROKEN UP THAT I'M ABLE TO CAST THAT VOTE ON WHAT I THINK IS ONE OF THE

MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN DO FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, WHICH IS

TO ADD AN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

196

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF THE PEOPLE I HAVE WORKED

WITH, ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SO GREAT TO WORK WITH FROM BOTH

POLITICAL PARTIES. AND I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF, THE MEMBERS OF THE

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES COMMITTEE, ALL OF THE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

AND ALL OF THE CITIZENS WHO CAME OUT TO WORK SO HARD TO MAKE SOME

HISTORIC CHANGES OVER THE LAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF. WE TURNED AROUND THE

DIRECTION OF THE STATE FROM A POLICY OF IGNORING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

AND CUTTING SERVICES TO MAKING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES A PRIORITY. I

WANT TO THANK EVERYONE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THANK YOU, MR.

ABINANTI.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. ABINANTI IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE SPOKEN

BEFORE, ESPECIALLY THE JUST -- THE JUST PRIOR SPEAKER, BECAUSE HE KNOWS

HOW MUCH I DO CARE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, AND I DO

RECOGNIZE THAT THIS RESOLUTION WILL ADVANCE THE CAUSE THERE. HOWEVER,

I DO HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE

SPOKEN BEFORE ME, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS.

I BELIEVE THAT NEW YORK ALREADY HAS ROBUST PROTECTION

OF CIVIL RIGHTS, EXTENSIVE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW

AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I, THEREFORE, JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS

RESOLUTION IS NECESSARY. NEW YORK STATE ALREADY HAS THE REPRODUCTIVE

197

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

HEALTH ACT THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019. THE SPONSOR HAS ALREADY

INDICATED THAT THIS BILL MIRRORS THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

WHICH SAYS IT CURRENTLY PROTECTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE,

RACE, CREED, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY

OR EXPRESSION, MILITARY STATUS, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY. WE

ALREADY HAVE THOSE PROTECTIONS ENSHRINED IN LAW AND I DO THINK THAT

THIS, IN ITS FORM, WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO FURTHER LITIGATION, AS WAS

INDICATED BY MY COLLEAGUE WHO WAS TO MY RIGHT HERE. I THINK THAT

LEGISLATION IS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, MORE FLEXIBLE, BUT ONCE IT'S ENSHRINED,

AS YOU SAY, IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION, IT'S NOT AS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND

THAT COULD BE SEEN, DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW, AS A POSITIVE OR A

NEGATIVE.

I THINK THAT THIS IS VERY REACTIVE TO THE DOBBS DECISION

FROM JUNE 24TH. I THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

HERE AND I THINK THAT IF YOU REALLY READ THE ALITO DECISION, NOT THE

THOMAS CONCURRENCE, BUT THE ALITO DECISION, IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT

THEY'RE -- THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT WAS EXTREMELY

NARROW. AND I THINK NEW YORK DOES HAVE ALREADY SO MANY OF THESE

PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, AND ALSO JUST PLAINLY THE FACT THAT

I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE DEFINITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE

GOING INTO THIS AS FAR AS PREGNANCY OUTCOME, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE

AND AUTONOMY. I JUST THINK THAT IT'S TOO NEBULOUS, I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK

WE NEED IT SO I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

198

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. WALSH IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. BRONSON.

MR. BRONSON: YES, MR. SPEAKER. FIRST, I WANT TO

THANK THE SPEAKER AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS EQUALITY AMENDMENT. IT'S

VITALLY IMPORTANT IN OUR STATE, NOTWITHSTANDING WE DO HAVE STATUTES THAT

GIVE MANY PROTECTIONS, WE HAD TO FIGHT DECADES FOR THOSE STATUTES TO GET

IN PLACE AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WON'T BE REMOVED BY FUTURE

ADMINISTRATIONS AND LEGISLATORS. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN

THAT HISTORICALLY HAPPEN.

THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF AUTONOMY. IT'S

THE RIGHT -- ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE AS YOU CHOOSE.

IT'S ABOUT RECOGNIZING THAT NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, WHERE YOU'RE FROM,

WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE, WHO YOU LOVE, HOW YOU IDENTIFY, WHAT YOUR ABILITY,

WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUITY, JUSTICE, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED.

THAT IS BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY, A RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY,

AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. WE KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY

FIGHTS FOR EQUALITY, FIGHTS FROM ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT, TO THE CIVIL

RIGHTS, FROM SENECA FALLS, TO STONEWALL. ALL OF THESE ARE MOMENTS IN

HISTORY. TODAY IS A MOMENT IN HISTORY AS WE PUT IN OUR CONSTITUTION

THAT WE WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT INEQUALITY. WE WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT

DISPARITY BASED ON WHO YOU ARE. INSTEAD WE, AS NEW YORKERS, AND

WHEN WE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AND NEW YORKERS VOTE FOR IT, NEW

YORKERS WILL SAY THAT WE ARE MAKING A STATEMENT UNDER OUR

CONSTITUTION THAT WE BELIEVE IN EQUALITY FOR ALL, WE BELIEVE IN JUSTICE

199

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

FOR ALL, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS AND

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

I'M PROUD TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS HISTORICAL

AMENDMENT THAT WILL ONCE AND FOR ALL GIVE US EQUALITY ONCE WE VOTE ON

IT AGAIN IN ANOTHER SESSION, AND WE BRING IT TO THE PEOPLE, LET THE

PEOPLE DECIDE. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. BRONSON IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. OTIS.

MR. OTIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I WANT TO

CONGRATULATE THE SPONSOR FOR HER WORK ON THIS ISSUE OVER MANY YEARS. I

WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE A SECTION IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION THAT

PROTECTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, THAT GUARANTEES EQUAL PROTECTION, BUT

FOR MANY YEARS THAT SECTION HAS BEEN SHORT ON WHO IT'S PROTECTING. IT

DIDN'T EVEN PROTECT WOMEN. IT NOW IS GOING TO PROTECT BASED UPON

ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, WE HAD RELIGION AND IT STAYS,

CREED, SEX, GENDER, REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,

BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING THAT EVERY PERSON IN THIS STATE DESERVES THE

RESPECT AND THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

AND WHAT WE SEE IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SIGNAL

OF THE SUPREME COURT IS THAT NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY IS SAFE. THEY TOOK

AWAY SOME RIGHTS LAST WEEK AND THEY THREATENED, JUSTICE CLARENCE

THOMAS THREATENED TO TAKE AWAY MORE RIGHTS, AND THE OTHER JUSTICES

SAID -- MAYBE THEY'RE NOT THERE, WHEN THEY HAD THEIR CONFIRMATION

HEARINGS, SAID THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO CHOICE, SO IT'S

200

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

IMPORTANT THAT WE ENSHRINE IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION THE PROTECTIONS FOR

ALL THE CATEGORIES THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE LANGUAGE IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT.

THE PUBLIC WILL SUPPORT IT, BUT WE NEED TO SAY EVERY

INDIVIDUAL COUNTS, EVERY INDIVIDUAL DESERVES THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW

OF NEW YORK STATE, AND WE WILL BETTER PROTECT THEM IN THE FUTURE BY

ENSHRINING THOSE PROTECTIONS IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION, NOT JUST IN OUR

STATUTES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I VOTE AYE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. OTIS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. STECK ON ZOOM.

MR. STECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. I

PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE FOR THE REASONS SO ELOQUENTLY STATED BY

MY COLLEAGUE, MR. BRONSON. I DO WANT TO ADD, HOWEVER, THAT THIS

STRUGGLE IS NOT OVER. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING CIVIL RIGHTS LAW FOR

30-PLUS YEARS AND NEW YORK STATE STILL DOES NOT HAVE A CIVIL RIGHTS

ENFORCEMENT BILL LIKE THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW OF 1871, ALSO

KNOWN AS 42 U.S.C. � 1983. THIS HOUSE, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO SAY

THAT WE HAD TREMENDOUS SUPPORT HERE, UNANIMOUS ON ONE SIDE OF THE

AISLE AND EVEN GOT VOTES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, FOR OUR OWN

NEW YORK STATE 1983 LEGISLATION. WE NEED TO FINISH THAT JOB AND ENACT

THAT LEGISLATION IN OUR NEXT SESSION, AND AT THAT POINT WE WILL HAVE

ROBUST CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. STECK IN THE

201

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALLACE ON ZOOM.

MS. WALLACE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY

IMPORTANT RESOLUTION IN THE WAKE OF THE FALL OF ROE, WHERE WOMEN WHO

ENJOYED THE RIGHT TO A SAFE AND LEGAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE FOR 50

YEARS LOST IT IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. WHAT CHANGED? DID PUBLIC OPINION

CHANGE? NO. DID SCIENCE CHANGE? NO. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED

WAS THE MAKEUP OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IT DOESN'T MEAN

THEIR DECISION WAS RIGHT, IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY WERE THE LAST TO HAVE A

WORD TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AT LEAST FOR NOW.

IN THE MEANTIME, HERE IN NEW YORK WE WILL PROTECT

OUR WOMEN IN OUR STATE. WE WILL PROTECT OUR LGBTQ FRIENDS AND

NEIGHBORS. FOLKS KEEP ASKING WHY IS THIS NECESSARY? WE ALREADY HAVE

THESE PROTECTIONS IN NEW YORK. WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE DAY

MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO CONTINUE TO CHIP

AWAY AT THE CODIFICATIONS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY ENACTED. SO THIS WILL

ENSHRINE THE PROTECTIONS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL -- IN THE CONSTITUTION. I

WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER TENACITY AND HER PERSEVERANCE AND

HER HARD WORK, AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. WALLACE IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. BURKE ON ZOOM.

MR. BURKE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. NEARLY ALL

OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE ALREADY IN STATE LAW IN THE STATUTE, SO THE NEED

202

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

TO DO THIS NOW IS, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT A MONKEY IN THE ROOM, IT'S NOT AN

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, IT'S NOT A GORILLA IN THE ROOM, WE ALL KNOW WHAT IT

IS. IT'S, OF COURSE, IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTIVIST RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT

AND WHAT THEY'RE CLEARLY INTENDING TO DO TO THIS COUNTRY, AND WHAT

THEY'VE HAVE DONE SO FAR IS JUST THE BEGINNING. IT'S BEEN PRETTY CLEAR,

AND JUSTICE THOMAS HAS MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT IS JUST THE

BEGINNING.

SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS NOT JUST TO ENSHRINE THE RIGHTS IN

THE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE TO DO IT SO THAT WE CAN GIVE NEW YORKERS THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND SPEAK STRONGLY, AND HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD

THROUGH A REFERENDUM, AND WE HAVE TO DO IT SO ALL OF THOSE WOMEN OUT

THERE WHO ARE TERRIFIED ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM

KNOW THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST HERE IN NEW YORK, IS STANDING

WITH THEM. I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MR. BURKE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SILLITTI.

MS. SILLITTI: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THERE'S

BEEN A SLOW AND STEADY ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS FOR DECADES, AND LAST

WEEK THE SUPREME COURT THREW OUT 50 YEARS OF ESTABLISHED LAW AND

SAID WOMEN DON'T GET TO DECIDE ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR OWN

BODIES. WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER WE LIVE OR DIE, WE DON'T GET TO

DECIDE WHETHER TO HAVE A HEARTBREAKING MISCARRIAGE NATURALLY OR ALLOW

A DOCTOR TO INTERVENE, SPARING EXCRUCIATING PAIN. WE ARE LEAVING IT IN

THE HANDS OF STATE LEGISLATURES, SOME LEGISLATURES THAT LOOK TO CONTROL

203

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

WOMEN, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT,

CONTROLLING WOMEN.

WELL, NOT IN NEW YORK. HERE WE PROTECT

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. HERE WE VALUE WOMEN. WE ARE A STATE THAT

VALUES ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY

AND EXPRESSION, ETHNICITY, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, DISABILITY. WE ARE A STATE

THAT 50 YEARS AGO TODAY, AND THREE YEARS BEFORE ROE, MADE HISTORY AND

LEGALIZED THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. AND WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE VOTERS, NEW YORK IS ONCE AGAIN

POISED TO MAKE HISTORY. I VOTE PROUDLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. SILLITTI IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MRS. GRIFFIN.

MRS. GRIFFIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

EXPLAINING MY VOTE. TODAY MARKS 52 YEARS TO THE DAY OF LEGALIZED

ABORTION IN NEW YORK STATE AFTER THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS IN 1970,

THREE YEARS BEFORE ROE V. WADE. THIS IMPORTANT AMENDMENT PROTECTS A

WOMAN'S AUTONOMY OVER HER OWN BODY, AND IT ALSO INCLUDES PROTECTING

ANYONE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON AGE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, DISABILITY OR

ETHNICITY. AND THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, AND NOW THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK

STATE WILL BE PROTECTED AND THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON

THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. AND I THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER HARD

WORK ON THIS, AND EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED, THE STAFF AND ALL THAT. IT'S AN

IMPORTANT DAY IN NEW YORK STATE, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT DAY THAT THE

NEW YORK STATE RESIDENTS WILL GET TO VOTE ON THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

204

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MRS. GRIFFIN IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SEAWRIGHT.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I RISE TODAY TO DEDICATE MY VOTE TO THE NEW YORK

STATE EQUALITY AMENDMENT, TO MY MENTOR AND FORMER EMPLOYER WHO

WAS IN THIS CHAMBER IN 2019, SARAH WEDDINGTON, THE ROE V. WADE

ATTORNEY WHO DIED LATE LAST YEAR. I HAD THE GREAT HONOR OF SPEAKING AT

HER FUNERAL IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AT THE STATE CEMETERY EARLIER THIS YEAR. IN

THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION OF HER BOOK, A QUESTION OF CHOICE, SHE

MADE CLEAR THAT THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THE HORRORS OF ILLEGAL ABORTION,

THE ONLY WAY IS TO KEEP IT LEGAL. SHE SPECIFICALLY CITED THE IMPORTANCE

OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS A VEHICLE. JUST AS WE ARE HERE TODAY IN

ALBANY FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE OF EQUALITY, WOMEN AND MEN MET HERE IN

THE MID 1800S FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE

HISTORIC SENECA FALLS FIRST WOMEN'S RIGHT CONVENTION. AT SUCH MEETING,

SUSAN B. ANTHONY, ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS

VIGOROUSLY ADVOCATED THAT WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS.

AS OUR EFFORTS MOVE FORWARD, I WISH TO THANK OUR

GOVERNOR FOR INCLUDING THIS IN THIS SPECIAL SESSION, THE SPEAKER FOR HIS

STEADFAST SUPPORT, THE CENTRAL STAFF, JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN CHUCK LAVINE

AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR SUPPORTING THIS, TO ALL THE ADVOCATES THAT WORKED

ON THIS LEGISLATION, AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUE, STATE SENATOR

LIZ KRUEGER. THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION WAS LAST AMENDED TO

205

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

ADDRESS THIS TOPIC IN 1938 WHEN SECTION 11 WAS FIRST ADOPTED, PRIOR TO

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, THE MOVEMENT FOR GENDER JUSTICE, THE

LGBTQ MOVEMENT, THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND THE MANY

DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW. AS A BEACON OF OUR FUTURE,

NEW YORK'S CONSTITUTION MUST REFLECT OUR BROAD CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE,

EQUAL RIGHTS, AND PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION. THIS IS THE FIRST

STEP TO GIVE THE VOTERS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE DECISION. I CAST MY VOTE IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. SEAWRIGHT IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

(APPLAUSE)

FOR EXCEPTIONS.

MS. WALSH: EXCEPTIONS, THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: MS. WALSH WITH

EXCEPTIONS.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU. WOULD YOU PLEASE RECORD

MR. KEITH BROWN IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: SO NOTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD YOU

PLEASE RECORD OUR COLLEAGUE MR. TAYLOR IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS ONE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: SO NOTED.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?

ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

206

NYS ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2022

THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

(APPLAUSE)

RESOLUTION FROM THE SENATE, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 2, SENATOR

STEWART-COUSINS. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE

ASSEMBLY RELATIVE TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF

THE LEGISLATURE SINE DIE.

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

THE CLERK WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, HAVE THE

GOVERNOR AND THE SENATE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSEMBLY HAS

COMPLETED ITS LABORS IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY SESSION AND IS READY TO

ADJOURN?

ACTING SPEAKER PRETLOW: YES, MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES, THEY HAVE BEEN SO INFORMED.

NOW I DECLARE THIS EXTRAORDINARY SESSION ADJOURNED

SINE DIE.

(APPLAUSE)

(WHEREUPON, AT 8:17 P.M., THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION

OF THE ASSEMBLY WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE.)

207