Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles featuring the candidates, Joe Gerace and Russell Payne, running for Chautauqua County sheriff. Their email responses to questions are listed below.

Both candidates in the race for county sheriff oppose the SAFE Act.

The incumbent is Joe Gerace of West Ellicott. This is the sixth time Gerace will be running for county sheriff. Gerace is a 36-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Department and has been endorsed by the Democratic, Conservative and Independence parties. The Republican-endorsed candidate for sheriff is Russell Payne of Frewsburg. Payne worked for the Jamestown Police Department from 1973-93. He is a former private investigator, who worked for the state for 15 years, and as a teaching assistant at BOCES. He is also a former Carroll town supervisor.

What do you think the sheriff’s role is when it comes to the SAFE Act?

Payne: “As sheriff, I would make a vow and a commitment that as long as I am the sheriff of Chautauqua County, I will stand steadfast in support of our law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I am opposed to the SAFE Act and I am the only candidate for Chautauqua County sheriff that is opposed to the SAFE Act. I am the only candidate who advocates for the repeal of the SAFE Act in its entirety.

A recent poll conducted by The Post-Journal showed that over 90 percent of the people who responded to the poll were in favor of the full repeal of the SAFE Act. This law unconstitutionally removes guns from law-abiding citizens. The SAFE Act has the potential of placing many of our citizens in compromising positions and unable to protect themselves against enemies who now threaten the United States, and many other free countries around the world.

An example of this situation would be the violent acts which are now occurring worldwide, i.e. Canadian Parliament Shootings. With the implementation of the SAFE Act, this has made the populace more vulnerable to attack by criminal elements of our society. The public is less safe under the provisions of the SAFE Act than it was without this unpopular law. In the case of the Canadian Parliament Shooting, it was the sergeant of arms who intervened in the neutralization of the terror attack, not the law enforcement first responders. Based upon this premise, it would behoove us as law-abiding citizens to safeguard and keep our Second Amendment right to bear arms intact.

The sheriffs of the state of New York understand the issues at hand, and many are brave enough to go to Albany and make the bold stand that on their watch, in their county, they would not enforce these laws even if they are passed. I would also suggest that the SAFE Act was passed as a diversionary tactic by lawmakers in Albany to take away from the fact that a sheriff takes direction from his constituents and not from lawmakers in Albany. Furthermore, I hold to the premise that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment, is a birthright handed down by our forefathers and it is an unalienable right not to be infringed upon by the SAFE Act or any other law.

The SAFE Act is contrary to the Home Rule Law and was a scheme devised by Albany politicians to divide the ”haves from the have nots.” This law accentuates class separation. Those with money can have guns, those without, the guns are taken away.

The trust of the public, taxpayers, is first and foremost and the resources come from the citizens and not the politicians. That is, and should be the true role and responsibility of what the sheriff is in this county, and all counties across the state of New York, with regard to the SAFE Act.”

Gerace: “I oppose the SAFE Act and the method that was used to pass it literally overnight without public comment. If it is repealed, two provisions included in it should be enacted into law immediately.

One positive change in the current legislation exempts pistol permit holders from having their personal information subject to a Freedom of Information request.

Unfortunately, the (Freedom of Information) exemption in the SAFE Law was not well thought out. Instead of simply exempting these records automatically, the current law requires each pistol permit holder to complete a form that must be filed with the pistol permit office explaining why they want their names and addresses kept from the eyes of the public. Unfortunately, we now have tens of thousands of these forms which have been filed with the pistol clerk. It has created an unnecessary burden on pistol permit clerks all over the state and an unnecessary expense at the local level. The names and addresses of the permit holders should be protected automatically without an application giving reasons why the applicant wants to keep this personal information private.

The second positive is the increase of penalties for illegal possession of guns and life imprisonment for those who have been convicted for killing of fire and EMS personnel. The sheriff cannot make laws; that is the job of the state legislature. Sheriffs cannot pick and choose which laws they enforce. Sheriffs cannot provide judicial interpretation of the Constitution; that is the role of the courts. Sheriffs can make certain our voices are heard by the governor and legislators loud and clear.

When the SAFE Act was rammed through the legislature, I raised the issue and led the discussion at the New York State Sheriffs’ Association winter conference about the problems this law created. I encouraged all of the sheriffs of the state to speak with one voice on this issue as we are much more of an influence collectively rather than individually. Under the direction of Sheriff Donald Smith of Putnam County, who was our president at the time, we worked into the night to provide a unified position paper stating our position on the SAFE Act loudly and clearly. This was unanimously approved by the association.

We have shared our position with the governor, state Legislature and the public. We are committed to continue to work as a group to push for change and I will be involved in that effort. I represent all the people, and I take an oath to uphold the laws of the state, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. I will continue to enforce the laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.”