New York Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo on Assembly bill A7575A

As previously stated, we had the opportunity to ask NY 126th district Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo about her NO vote in regard to Assembly bill A7575A last night after her appearance at the Vestal Public Library – an event sponsored by Americans for Restoring the Constitution.

The issue dealt with preventing domestic abuse offenders from obtaining or maintaining gun licenses and firearms. As stated above and mentioned in our article NY Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo – voting record in summary, Assemblywoman Lupardo voted against the Bill.

We have already amended the article, and present below the update, based on Assemblywoman Lupardo’s answer to us at the Vestal, New York event.

**Update** – Assemblywoman Lupardo spoke to us directly about this, though she was not directly familiar with this exact Bill, and stated that she has consistently voted against any Bill that infringes on the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans and constituents. She also was not sure if there were any other provisions in the Bill that may have led her to vote against this. We give her the benefit of doubt and acknowledge that she does consistently vote to protect the 2nd Amendment. Any further updates will be addressed as we receive it.**

Assemblywoman Lupardo promised to provide a more clear answer to her reason for voting against this Bill. We are providing her respond recieved at 2:17pm on October 7th, (less than 24 hours later), VERBATIM.

Mr. Voss,

I’m following up on our discussion last night regarding Assembly bill A7575A, which would amend the penal law, in relation to the definition of serious offense. The bill would add violations and misdemeanors where Family Court shares jurisdiction to the list of “Serious Offenses” defined in PL § 265.00(17). This would preclude anyone convicted of one of these offenses from possessing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun.

While the stated purpose of the proposed legislation is to prevent domestic violence incidents from escalating, I received opposition memos from organized groups as well as individual emails from constituents throughout my district expressing concerns about this bill. That’s why I decided to vote against it.

According to the Shooters Committee on Political Education (SCOPE), “It is not clear that there is really a need for this legislation. Any judge of a court of record can revoke a pistol license and compel the holder to surrender their handguns. Under CPL § 530.14 and FCA § 842a the court has broad authority to compel the surrender of all firearms upon violation of an order of protection or conviction on a violent offense.”

The Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education (SAFE) pointed out that the bill “broadly expands offenses that would be included in ‘serious offenses’ which would permanently ban one from possessing firearms. It also ties these offenses to ‘family members’ but does not define what a family member is.” They argue that the bill would give courts dangerously broad authority to act and to determine who is included in the definition of a family member.

I hope this clears things up.

Donna Lupardo

We thank Assemblywoman Lupardo for the further clarification and timeliness of her response. We hope this clarifies any questions our readers may have on this issue. We further look forward to interviewing Assemblywoman Lupardo before the mid-term elections. [We also forgive the continued misspelling of M V Consulting, Inc. president Michael Vass’ name]

About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: