Lawmakers push for vote on gun bill

ALBANY, N.Y. » In New York state government news, unions are celebrating a big win in the recent defeat of a constitutional convention and Democrats in the state Senate are urging a vote on a bill allowing police to seize of the guns of suspected domestic abusers.

A look at stories making news:

GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The recent church shooting in Texas has reignited discussion of a proposal to remove any firearms from a home when police respond to a

report of domestic violence.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman, of Manhattan, and Democratic state Assemblywoman Nily Rozic, of Queens, is known as the Safe Homes Act. Under the measure, any guns removed from a home would be returned in the event the charges are dropped or a person is found innocent.

Senate Minority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, DYonkers, called on the Senate’s GOP leaders to bring the bill to a vote as soon as possible — either in January when the 2018 session begins or sooner, if a special session is held before the new year as some have suggested.

“Now is the time for action,” Stewart-Cousins said. “It is simple, domestic abusers should not be allowed to keep guns in their homes.”

Another bill sponsored by Hoylman would authorize judges to permit law enforcement to seize the firearms of a person shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

CON CON CANNED

Gleeful opponents of a constitutional convention are celebrating their convincing win in Tuesday’s election while those who believed a convention could remedy the state’s chronic corruption are licking their wounds.

The call for a convention in 2019, where delegates would consider changes to the state’s governing document, was trounced in Tuesday’s election, with more than 80 percent of the votes cast against the proposition.

Unions led the fight against a convention, organizing an odd coalition of opponents that included Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion groups, environmental groups, gun-rights supporters and officials from both parties. They argued that a convention could be manipulated by deeppocketed special interests to undermine existing constitutional rights.