Thought I'd entertain you with the latest letter that I wrote to my Assemblyman. He personally responded to my last letter, I think I got his attention as I'd referred to the Brady Campaign as a minority fringe group. He holds Brady near and dear to his heart. In the letter, he stated that the 2A is for militia's only.
I learned a lot from reading Justice Scalia's majority opinion for DC vs Heller. He address a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric that you hear. It's a fairly easy read too, just takes a bit. Here's a link to it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Dear Assemblyman Steck,
Thank you for your response, dated March 19, to my letter, dated March 6. It was the first time that I received a personal response from a legislative representative.
The Second Amendment defines the historical need for State militias. However, in your letter, you left out the fact that the militias were composed of individual, non-military personnel that bore their own arms. You left out the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was a pre-existing individual right pre-dating the formation of the United States. The following are a few examples of the overwhelming evidence in support of these facts:
“In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
“Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context.”1
Furthermore, the definition of regulated has changed over the years. Regulated, in the context of the Second Amendment, does not refer to the government’s authority to limit the purchase, sale or possession of firearms.
“Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”1
Whether the majority of your constituents support the SAFE Act is inconsequential and has no bearing on constitutional law. The matter of the individual right to bear arms was decided before the Supreme Court. I suggest you read Justice Scalia’s Opinion of the Court as your misguided convictions are addressed in it (copy enclosed for your convenience).
The historical evidence is indicative that the SAFE Act most definitely violates my constitutional and civil rights, at both the state and federal level. I respectfully request that you sponsor legislation to repeal the SAFE Act, amendments are not acceptable.
Very Truly Yours,
 Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court, District of Columbia vs. Heller
 New York State Constitution, Article XII, Defense, Section 1
New York Civil Rights Law, Article II, Paragraph 4