Friday, December 31, 2010

Matter of Chwick v Mulvey

Next, we want to thank SCOPE, the Freeport Junior Club, SAFE, and SASI for their strong support on this matter
This ruling strengthens the NYS Preemption Laws and sends a strong message to the counties. It is a very good win for licensees, and it does begin to open doors on other suits.

It is a stepping stone!
Though sometime in coming, all four Appellate Division, Second Department,
Judges concur that NY PL 256 & 400 ARE the "comprehensive and detailed regulatory language and scheme...which demonstrates the Legislature's intent to
preempt the field of firearm regulation," and they find that it preempts the[Nassau County] amended ordinance.

First, the Appellants thank Mr. Robert Firriolo, Esq., for his concise brief and brilliant oral argument. Without his masterful touch, we may not have gotten the ruling we received.

Next, we want to thank SCOPE, the Freeport Junior Club, SAFE, and SASI for their strong support on this matter

This ruling strengthens the NYS Preemption Laws and sends a strong message to the counties. It is a very good win for licensees, and it does begin to open doors on other suits. It is a stepping stone!

Here is part of the claim~

Matter of Chwick v Mulvey
2010 NY Slip Op 09911
Decided on December 28, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
Belen, J., J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 28, 2010
(Index No. 13564/08)

[*1]In the Matter of Alan J. Chwick, et al., appellants, et al.,petitioner/plaintiff,v Lawrence W. Mulvey, etc., et al., respondents.

APPEAL by the petitioners/plaintiffs Alan J. Chwick and Thomas G. Fess in a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to enjoin the enforcement of
Nassau County Ordinance No. 5-2008, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance 9-2008, and action for a judgment declaring that the subject ordinance is preempted by State law and unconstitutional, as limited by their representations
at oral argument, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kenneth A.

Davis, J.), dated December 18, 2008, and entered in Nassau County, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Duane Morris, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert P. Firriolo of
counsel), for appellants.
John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Lisa B.
Ross and Dennis J. Saffran of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION & ORDER BELEN, J.This Court is called upon to resolve two issues. The first is whether a Nassau County ordinance that bans "deceptively colored" handguns is preempted by State law. The second is whether the ordinance violates the appellants' rights under New York's Civil Rights Law. We need to consider the second question only
if the first question is answered in the negative.
The principal issue on appeal is whether a Nassau County ordinance (County of Nassau, Miscellaneous Laws, Title 69, Local Law, 5-2008) (hereinafter the ordinance), which bans the possession of "deceptively colored" firearms, is
preempted by Penal Law § 400.00. New York State bans the possession of all firearms but exempts individuals who obtain a license for their firearms (see

Penal Law §§ 265.01, 265.03, 265.20[a][3]). Furthermore, State law enables firearms license holders "to carry or possess a pistol or revolver" and provides that any license "shall be effective throughout the state," subject to certain limitations (Penal Law § 400.00[6]). The appellants each allege that they hold valid licenses for their firearms and allege that certain of their firearms
violate the ordinance because they fall within the definition of "deceptively colored" handguns. The appellants contend that Penal Law § 400.00 preempts the ordinance, and that the ordinance violates the protections of the New York Civil Rights Law (see Civil Rights Law, art 2, § 4). The respondents, Lawrence W.Mulvey, the Nassau County Police Department, and the County of Nassau(hereinafter collectively the County) argue that the ordinance is not preempted because it merely affects the possession of a firearm while the State Law affects firearm licensing. The County further asserts that the ordinance does not violate the petitioners' rights under article 2, section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law.

In May 2008 Nassau County enacted Local Law No. 5-2008, the "Deceptively Colored Handgun Law" (see County of Nassau, Miscellaneous Laws, Title 69 § 1). The ordinance made it a [*2]misdemeanor to possess a handgun that has a substantial
amount of its exterior surface plated with gold or colored anything "other than black, grey, silver, steel, nickel, or army green" (County of Nassau,Miscellaneous Laws, Title 69 § 3[b]; §§ 4, 5). Violators were subject to a fine of up to one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for no more than one year, or both (see County of Nassau, Miscellaneous Laws, Title 69 § 5). The purpose of the ordinance was to protect the public and law enforcement officers from the dangers associated with mistaking a real gun for a toy because it is deceptively colored (see County of Nassau, Miscellaneous Laws, Title 69 § 2).
In July 2008 the petitioners, proceeding pro se, commenced the instant hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance and action for a judgment declaring that the ordinance is preempted by State law and unconstitutional. The appellant Alan J. Chwick alleged that he is a Nassau County resident who owns a pink Kel-Tec Model 32 pistol and a "browned"[FN1]
model 1930 J.P. Sauer & Sohn pistol. The petitioner Edward L. Botsch alleged that he also is a Nassau County resident, and that he owns a gold plated Sigarms pistol, Model P-226, which commemorates the 37 Port Authority Police Officers killed on September 11, 2001. The appellant Thomas G. Fess alleged that he is a resident of Monroe County but frequently visits Nassau County for shooting competitions and owns a camouflaged [FN2] Glock Model 20 pistol. The appellants contend that all of the above-described weapons are properly licensed under State law, but in violation of the ordinance.[FN3]--

Alan Chwick, Editor
Nassau County News Flash
5 Brunella Street
Long Island, NY 11520

Monday, December 27, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

From the desk of Walt Paul – NYS Conservation Council

From: "wpaul"
Subject: Status of UMP's and other land use plans
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:17:31 -0500
From the desk of Walt Paul – NYS Conservation Council
Good morning:

Below find a summary of some pending UMP's and land use plans developed by the DEC and the APA; the Final Draft UMP for the Moose River Plains is particularly disappointing.
I am going to offer some opinions on the DEC's lack of responsiveness to the sporting community, the examples are countless. For me it is hard to understand how a group, the sporting community, can contribute 53 million dollars a year to conservation efforts in N.Y.S. and have so little impact on land use policy. Along parallel lines The Adirondack Park Agency Review Board recently let it's white paper (paper is an attached) "Under the Influence and In Need of Detoxification" referring to the Adirondack Park Agency being under the influence of the environmental groups and needing a cleansing. Following the upper level DEC administrations lack of response to tremendous public input from the sporting community on the future of the Moose River Plains and other land use plans, and their continued propensity to develop plans that seem to favor the agenda of the protectionist groups, (more and more wilderness, shutting down access and more and more roads closed and now actions to protect the wilderness) one has to conclude that some key leadership in the DEC is also under the "influence" of the green groups as well.

They want our money, but do little to support us! At this point sportsmen I talk with are feeling taken advantage of ! My opinion new leadership is necessary in the DEC's Office of Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources.The old saying "a new broom sweeps clean" appears to be a necessary approach to detoxify that office. An equatable approach to working with all stake holder groups has been lacking now for some time!

From the desk of Walt Paul – NYS Conservation Council
Access and Land Use Specialist
This past year has been a busy one regarding sportsmen's access and land use issues. The Counsel has taken an active role advocating for maintaining and expanding sportsman’s access on easement and state lands. The Moose River Plains UMP, the APA/DEC MOA regarding Easement Lands and the DEC Strategic Plan for State Forest Management all will have a significant impact on our ability to access hunting, fishing and trapping locations.
The Status of these plans is as follows:

Moose River Plains - First for the bad news!

  The Draft Final Plan is out and has been approved by the Adirondack Park Agency. Despite tremendous public opposition to closing the Indian Lake Road (access to some of the best trout fishing in the northeast) and opposition to creating additional wilderness, the DEC has put forward a final plan to expand the wilderness by 14667 acres and shut down two miles of the Indian Lake Road starting at a parking lot which will be created one-half mile from Squaw lake. This means the public will have to walk two and one-half miles to get to Indian Lake to fish, canoe and enjoy nature. It is my understanding that discussions are under way to designate the last two miles of the Indian Lake Road as part of the North Country Scenic Trail, a hiking trail.

The 14667 acres wilderness expansion will be removed from existing wild forest and designated wilderness creating a new wilderness area of 12,270 acres south of the main Cedar River Road. The new wilderness would be formed on the North side of a mountain biking trail that will have Wild Forest designation. The other 2, 397 acres will be added to the West Canada Wilderness area.

Roadside Camping on the Moose River Plains will continue with some adjustments to site locations As I understand it the designation of an intensive use corridor within the Adirondack Park will require an addendum to the State Land master Plan. Let us not forget this was a preexisting condition and as such we gained very little. It also appears that agreement has been reached where none of the existing sites will be removed until new sites have been constructed. Floatplanes will be allowed.

The UMP now goes to the Governor for his approval. The outcome in general is very disappointing for the sporting community when we consider this land was gifted to sportsmen by a timber company and many of the roads were actually deeded to insure access. The change in classification of the 14,667 acres of wild forest to wilderness requires the approval of the Governor; thus the future of the entire plan hinges on the Governors sign off and approval by the DEC Commissioner. Next steps are being considered.

Adirondack Park Agency / Department of Environmental Conservation MOA regarding Management of Easement Lands has been approved. A major concern was that the APA would be involved and would have to approve use of existing trails and roads for snowmobile and ATV use for sportsmen involved in hunting, fishing and trapping. It appears the DEC recognized that easement lands are private lands and that existing uses should not fall under the APA's purview. Following negotiations it appears APA oversight will be limited to new use and development and when the intensity of use by the public reaches a certain level. The Council provided extensive comments and it appears the comments supported the Department of Environmental Conservations thinking and helped facilitate a positive outcome. It now appears the traditional use of trails and roads on easement lands by sportsmen utilizing trucks, ATV's and snowmobiles will continue, contingent on easement language. The outcome appears positive for the sporting community.

DEC State Land Use Strategic Plan – A high number of public comments have been received on the plan and the Department of Environmental Conservation is reviewing and preparing responses to the comments. As I understand it the Dec Commissioner must sign off on the plan. At this point it does not appear the plan will be approved during the current administration. The Council weighted in heavily on access issues pertaining to State Lands. The impact on sportsmen is unknown until the plan is finalized.

Champion Camp Retention – 200 camps occupied by Sportsmen are scheduled to be torn down per the Easement Agreement. Club members and the sporting community have lobbied, litigated and negotiated to see that the camps remain. The DEC after careful deliberation decided to support the camps remaining and is awaiting a final review from the APA. Environmental Groups are opposing the action and it would appear continued pressure from the sporting community is important at this point. The decision will be precedent setting in terms of keeping hundreds of camps on other easement lands. It seems people are realizing that the traditional hunting clubs have been good stewards of the land. Current outcome unknown.
Thank-you - As we conclude the year I would like to thank everyone that took their time to weigh in with Public and Elected Officials on the critical land use and access issues facing the sporting community. Our efforts are yielding some results; visit the Council’s website frequently for action alerts. If you are not a member of the N.Y.S. Conservation Council an application can be accessed at and click on "get involved".

Happy New Year!

Friday, December 17, 2010

ATF to Require Multiple Sales Reports for Long Guns


ATF to Require Multiple Sales Reports for Long Guns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011. Specifically, the ATF requirement calls for firearms retailers to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.
Today’s Washington Post suggests that the reporting mandate would be limited to retailers along the Southwest border; however, the Federal Register Notice does not limit the geographic scope of the reporting requirement.
This ATF “emergency” mandate was originally pushed by the anti-gun Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) coalition, headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, more than a year and a half ago. And the Post reports that the Department of Justice has “languished” over this plan for several months.  Given this timetable, it’s hard to see exactly where the “emergency” is.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation opposes this reporting requirement because it further burdens America’s law-abiding firearms retailers with yet another onerous regulation that will do nothing to curb crime.  Multiple sales reporting of long guns will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement, thereby driving traffickers further underground. This is not unlike how criminals maneuvered around one-gun-a-month laws in states like Virginia – which is still considered an “exporting source state” by anti-gun organizations like the MAIG despite its restrictions on the number of firearms law-abiding residents may purchase.
Multiple sales reporting for long guns is an ill-considered mandate and one that ATF does not have the legal authority to unilaterally impose. In fact, ATF has not specified under what legal authority it presumes to act. The decision as to whether ATF can move forward with this agenda-driven mandate will be left to Cass Sunstein who heads the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).  This is the same Cass Sunstein who in a 2007 speech at Harvard University said, “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
NSSF will be submitting comments in opposition to this registration scheme and is encouraging all firearms retailers, sportsmen and enthusiasts to do the same.
Please voice your concern by doing the following:
1. Call the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Department of Justice, Desk Officer at (202) 395-6466.
2. E-mail Barbara A. Terrell, ATF, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at
3. Call your Senators and Representative: United States Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Points to make:
  1. Multiple sales reporting of long guns will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement. Traffickers will go further underground, hiring more people to buy their firearms. This will make it much harder for retailers to identify and report suspicious behavior to law enforcement.
  2. Long guns are rarely used in crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
  3. Imposing multiple sales-reporting requirements for long guns would further add to the already extensive paperwork and record-keeping requirements burdening America’s retailers – where asingle mistake could cost them their license and even land them in jail.
  4. Last year, ATF inspected 2,000 retailers in border states and only two licenses were revoked (0.1%). These revocations were for reasons unknown and could have had nothing to do with illicit trafficking of guns; furthermore, no dealers were charged with any criminal wrongdoing.
  5. According to ATF, the average age of a firearm recovered in the United States is 11 years old. In Mexico it’s more than 14 years old.  This demonstrates that criminals are not using new guns bought from retailers in the states.
  6. Congress, when it enacted multiple sales reporting for handguns, could have required multiple sales of long guns – it specifically chose not to.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The Fallacy of Passive Management

NY state parks has developed a passive management program for it's lands. The article below while not specific to our situation outlines the problems of "passive management" . FYI: passive management is a term for wilderness & almost non use with very restrictive public use.

The Fallacy of Passive Management

Here is a short opinion on a email I sent out today.

I took one master plan from the Allegheny state park area which is listed here with the 6 or so other park plans
I'm going to assume that this it the base goal for all parks with the exception of a few watersheds, WestPoint ect... You’ll see I highlighted a few lines. It’s my opinion the state could never achieve these goals in any of their parks regardless of the present fanatical situation New York is in. This thinking and the eco-laws is what gave the antis the firepower to sue the Feds and states. They, the government simply could not follow their plans as written. Thus the antis sued and the Government which used taxpayer money to fight them. Many times it was money from the coffers of sportsmen’s programs.

If you look at this article on Passive management it explains the down fall of the project.

In My Opinion, the DEC, State or Greenies which ever name or group you choose had already set the stage to cut the labor force within the DEC. The present financial situation made, hastened this.
To be blunt, a state does not need a 1,000 biologist when it turns half its land holdings into non-use or passive areas. Tending bird watchers and hikers is a lot easier than dealing with the very strong opinionated hunters, trappers and fishermen.

IF ~ IF we tell the state as stated in the resolution; that we want the DEC to remain as it is. This will fly in the face of all those who have complained for years that the DEC was better off as a Fish & Wildlife instead of being combined.

I did not write this to “poop in someone’s flat hat”! I just want people to understand the states parks service goals.

Like I stated earlier, just my opinion of which I have many.

Bill Brookover

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Food Prices IMHO with quotes

food prices

 by BPB

For over a year now, actually longer, the markets have told us we'd see at a min of 50% food price increases. With that said, the lame stream media hasn't reported on it much as dance with the stars was more important.

(and $900.00 TV's are now $199.00)

3# of bacon at the Bi-Lo in Washington ,Ga was $20.00 Thanksgiving week. We found the same bacon at ChinaMart in Athens for $13.99. Still a rip off, but my father in law likes his bacon as well as me so I picked it up for him.

FYI: Bi-Lo is Tops markets
Company History:

Tops Markets LLC is a subsidiary of the U.S. operations of Dutch supermarket giant Royal Ahold N.V. In addition to the Tops chain, Ahold also owns Stop & Shop, Giant Food, BI-LO, and Bruno's Supermarkets. With its headquarters located in Williamsville, New York, Tops is comprised of some 160 Tops Friendly Markets, more than 200 Wilson Farms and Sugar Creek convenience stores, and B-Kwik Food Markets superettes. Tops' units are located in central New York and neighboring parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio.


While people cuss ChinaMart for its vampire tactics on small town America you can see Tops is no different~ other than a name change from town to town.

Food has risen by 1 to 3% monthly with some dips for about 3 years now. But it's reported at a much lower rate. All you have to do is look at your food bill to see the increase.

Sugar is the biggest rip off. Sugar should be the cheapest commodity around; but since it is subsidized it cost twice as much here in the states as in other countries. The only thing different today than in the past, in the ships holds, is the lack of slaves to sell on the docks along side the sugar and molasses.

What cooks my ass is how food prices are not factored into the consumer price index.
According to the WSJ article;

Costs are being driven by growing demand for meat in China, India and other emerging markets. That's driven up grain prices, which in turn boost the cost of chicken, steak, bread and pasta. Grain prices also have been nudged higher by drought in Russia, planting problems around the world and speculative trading.


In a Canadian article some time back the government had farmers slaughter hundreds of thousands of hogs sending the majority of them to the landfill. Why, because if they would have hit the open market prices would have dropped to low.
Again, as in the past we'll be paying for China & India's so called emerging market~ which has lasted way past the emerging state for some time now. I suppose their emergence will be final when every person in China & India has a cell phone next to their piss pot & hog trough.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Animal Farm movie~How true

Hum, GREED something I spoke about last year at this time. Naturally the person I directed it at didn't grasp what I was saying. Even thought it was explained to him twice before.

Public utilities sold to private operators??

Pulled from the internet~

St Lazare Foundation – of Prince Charles-Philippe d’OrlĂ©ans Duc d’Anjou Saint Lazare Investment will be the largest owner of aquatic property and will thus face the prerogatives of future international ecological policies from the point of view of an influential investor in the Carbon Finance marketplace. Water will soon become an instrument of power and influence. The Saint Lazare Foundation aims to become an essential global player specializing in water. Its strength and distinctiveness derive from the three pillars on which it stands:

■ A think tank
■ An investment source
■ A centre of operations

Affiliations: United Nations - World Water Forum - World Water Council - UNESCO European Union NGOs - International Office for Water - Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council Vatican The World Society
The World Society was created to finance the Saint Lazare Foundation. The World Society is a global network, which offers unique advantages to its members. It comprises those men and women around the world who are part of the economic, financial, social or cultural elite. The World Society is one of the world’s most exclusive societies. Joining the World Society is a unique opportunity, a privilege. The future is water. The members of the World Society are among ‘the happy few’ who will become key players in the future of our planet. The World Society: What separates the elite from the elites
The object of the World Society is……the financing of the Saint Lazare Foundation and all of its activities. The World Society is a global network which offers unique advantages to its members. It comprises those men and women around the world who are part of the economic, financial, social or cultural elite. The World Society is one of the world’s most exclusive societies. Joining the World Society is a unique opportunity, a privilege: fees and selection criteria are set accordingly. The future belongs to those who invest in it. The future is water. The members of the World Society are among ‘the happy few’ who will become key players in the future of our planet.