Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act


In January 2013, as the nation still mourned the Sandy Hook massacre, New York State enacted one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws. But three and a half years later, state records obtained after a lengthy court battle show that a key provision of the New York Safe Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act — mandatory registration of assault weapons — has been roundly ignored by gun owners in Ulster County and across the state.

The NY SAFE Act defines assault weapons as any rifle, pistol or shotgun that uses a detachable magazine and has one of a laundry list of “military features,” including flash suppressors, folding stocks, bayonet lugs and heat shields. The law banned new sales of assault weapons in the state and required current owners to register the firearms with state police.

In 2014, attorney and policy analyst Paloma Capanna filed suit on behalf of Rochester-based radio host Bill Robinson seeking data on NY SAFE Act compliance: specifically, how many assault weapons had actually been registered in the state.


Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon. Ulster County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law; he said he believed large numbers of Ulster County gun owners had chosen to ignore the registration requirement.

“We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts,” said VanBlarcum. “So [463] sounds like a very low number.”

Signs at last year's O+ Festival supported the SAFE Act. (Photo: Dan Barton)

Signs at last year’s O+ Festival supported the SAFE Act. (Photo: Dan Barton)

VanBlarcum said he had advised deputies to use their discretion when it came to making arrests for SAFE Act violations like unregistered assault weapons and he had no plans to undertake proactive enforcement measures.

“We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act,” said VanBlarcum.

Capanna said the registration debacle pointed to bigger issues with the SAFE Act: while federal firearms laws and the bureaucracy that enforces them date back a century, New York was effectively trying to create an entirely new regulatory framework from scratch. Capanna pointed to a SAFE Act requirement for background checks on ammunition sales as an example of regulatory overreach. The mandate has gone unenforced because the federal database used to screen gun buyers cannot be legally used for any other purpose. The state, meanwhile, has failed to come up with its own database to track ammunition sales.

Capanna added that the state police, who are charged with enforcing the registration requirements, are a police agency, not a regulatory agency with experience interpreting and enforcing complex rules governing lawful activities like firearms and ammunition sales.

“Cuomo would like to mimic the federal government,” said Capanna. “But that’s a substantial, extremely advanced system and he’s doing it as a startup, I think that led to a lot of fumbles along the way.”

There are 14 comments

  1. nopolitics

    Bulldumpers and hogwash that this is a ‘startup” and that is an excuse. Police agencies are there to enforce the law. This is a law. You can look it up. Police and sheriff’s departments are supposed to be trained to enforce the law and– not selectively. This is at best selective enforcement. If people don’t like the law, they can work to change it. That’s the way it’s supposed to work–not with “we’ll enforce the kinds of laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don’t agree with.” “BS!!” on this sheriff!!!
    So I think really when we think of the nonsense with the tracking down of warrants at DSS, that was a sort of selective enforcement focus also. Political beliefs ought not enter into things, but obviously they do here. The sheriff in fact needs to run for higher office so he can help make the laws he agrees with, and leave the JOB of sheriff to someone dedicated to law ENFORCEMENT. And the same goes for every other police agency in this state that refuses to enforce this law.
    Since the Sheriff refuses to enforce the law, his agency then is not really a part of this state and ought to be declared outside the law itself, and has in fact, without an official declaration, SECEDED from New York State. A sad price to pay for more esteem and lines in “The Lincoln Eagle.”

    1. Sumner

      Yet it’s fine when Obama and DHS ignore immigration laws, congress and the constitution?

      Yea, this is a great example of “you reap what you sow”

  2. Alan Chwick

    Mr. Jesse J Smith

    You should also look at how the Cuomo administration improperly implements the NY SAFE Act. Such as, but not limited to, the fact that the law had a registration drop-dead date that all “assault rifles” (AWs) needed to be registered by. But the registration platform is still active and they are telling people that they can still register their AWs.

    I can only guess/assume that the Cuomo administration, due to the failed NY SAFE Act registration response, that they are still trying to get the numbers up.

    On a side note, I think, as an FFL in Nassau County, that the NSSF 1-million rifles number is far short, as many simple rifles, such as Ruger 10/22s, fell into the AWs category. I would place the number at better than 3-million. I derived this number by reviewing our bound books, back 22-years, and extrapolated the numbers based upon what I know about other FFLs in NYS.

  3. bob grifhunter

    The rifles were rarely used in crime before the SAFE act and have hardly been criminally used since. The State has done nothing to heighten safety, has wasted a ton of time and money, all for some political theater to enhance the stature of politicians. The SAFE act has made felons out of historically law abiding, otherwise righteous Americans whose only desire was to be left alone. Every idiot hell bent on mass killing has an infinite array of options to cause mayhem, and will never be deterred by mag limits, neutered rifles and ammo sales registration. Civil rights be damned.

    1. One that cares

      Tell that to kids at Newtown. Do we need one local to prove the stupidity of these rifles? They were created to kill people not be a extension on one’s penis or to hunt.

      1. Juan Carlos de Burbon

        Actually, I use a Ruger AR-556 to hunt groundhogs, coyote, and fox; all are considered pests to farmers. So, no, you are wrong in your assumption.

        And since both of my girls hunt too, are their ARs an extension of their penises?

        I really don’t understand your comment. It’s both misogynistic and ignorant.

  4. freedom

    There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

    The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

    Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

    Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a cellphone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

    The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

    Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

    Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

    Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

    Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.

    We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

    Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

    Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

    Where does it end?

    Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of freedom?

    Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?

    If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

    If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

    If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

    If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

    Who wants to live in a prison?

    Think. Question everything.

  5. Joseph Kiesznoski

    I believe the safe act is illegal and unconstitutional, And will not comply, Family was at AUSCHWITZ…….And remember Gun Control to well.

Post Your Thoughts