An Open Letter to the Albany Police Officers Union

Mr. Thomas Mahar, President
Albany Police Officers Union
PO Box 6567
Albany NY 12206

Dear Mr. Mahar:

Your letter to the governor and other elected officials outlining the Albany Police Officers Union (APOU) opposition to the SAFE Act is making the rounds on the Internet and in various social media.  I applaud your taking the time to communicate in a clear and understandable way your membership’s opinion, and the thorough explanation you gave regarding your position.

I share your frustration with how the SAFE Act was pushed through.  I believe Governor Cuomo was motivated not only by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but closer to home by the horrific shootings of the first responders in Webster last Christmas Eve.  Both of these incidents touched a nerve, but I don’t believe either constituted an emergency for New York. 

 

While I think this is as good a time as any to discuss opportunities to reduce gun violence, I believe that emotion was the primary driver of this legislation. (And your suggestion that this was 'agenda-driven' does not fall on deaf ears.)  Many New Yorkers have indicated support for at least portions of the law, but that support does not overshadow the fact that just about all New Yorkers dislike how the law was passed.  

I personally believe in reasonable limits on the right to bear arms; I fall on the ‘well-regulated’ side of the discussion rather than the ‘shall not be infringed’ side.  That being said, I have been trying understand the other viewpoint. That’s why I was interested in reading your position.

Sadly, many of the arguments made in your letter were not new, among them that criminals and the mentally ill won’t abide by the requirement of the SAFE Act; that criminals and mentally ill people don’t care about the penalties they would face if caught; that the public won’t be any safer under this law than they are now; and that the law is burdensome to law-abiding citizens. 

I don’t want to take your time addressing these arguments, other than to wonder if your membership feels the same about all of the other laws  they are sworn to enforce (and penalties for breaking them). What I do want to ask you about, however, is this part of your letter: 

We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are.  We see, feel, work and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you do not.

How simply and eloquently did this set up the opportunity for some real insight!  Now, I thought, finally I’m going to hear something from the people who know best what to do.  But then you immediately said this:  

We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know the SAFE Act will not work in the way you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and not about making anyone safer.

 My disappointment was palpable. 

The APOU, other police unions and police departments across this state are uniquely qualified to tell us what we should be looking at try and solve our gun violence problem.  But while you noted that you "applaud and support (the politicians') overall concern for public safety and (their) desire  to improve it" you resorted to the same rhetoric that could have come from any pro-gun individual, politician, or lobbying organization; in short, you offered a non-expert opinion. 

 

I believe that, as you were ‘respectfully demanding' that legislators listen to you and repeal the law, you were squandering a golden opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the discussion. You offered nothing tangible as an alternative to the SAFE Act, nor did you seem to offer any willingness to engage with politicians to make the law better. 

Instead of options that might actually make us safer, you offered only the empty call to repeal a law you don’t like. Instead of suggesting what would work, you only complained about what you think won’t.   

If you and your members believe that there’s nothing that can or should be done, I would find that to be very disheartening, as would most of your fellow New Yorkers. But if that is the case -- you can come up with nothing -- please tell us so, in language as clear and as public as you used to tell the politicians how wrong they were to pass the SAFE Act.

Otherwise, I want your unique perspective. I want to hear from people who have the day-to-day experience with guns and the damage they do when used by the wrong people, and to learn from that perspective. I want to know what you, the experts, think.

I’m looking forward to your suggestions on what will make us safer, on what will help reduce the gun violence that you see, feel, live and work with every day. Not just gun homicides, but all gun violence.  I would like to be able to share your advice with my representatives in Albany and Washington, and to encourage others to do the same.

Thank you.