gun control

NYS H2O is weird

It must be.  It's the only explanation.  And since we're not fracking here, that can't be the reason for the bizarre state of the drinking supply.

Despite being doused by the judge,

Nanny Bloomberg is still busily dashing around, dripping wet, telling everyone what to eat and drink—like most progressives, he seems to suffer from the delusion that he's God—as  well as influencing gun legislation in other states with his megabucks.

And Senator UpChuck Schumer has a surprise in store for legal gun owners, S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, formerly known as the ridiculously misnamed Protecting Responsible Gun Owners Act of 2013:

...Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller's wet dream.

First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer....

...Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the "Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities." More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment! 

If passed, the law goes into effect in 180 days from passage. So far, it has passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote.

While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Gross, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.

Of course, you're not paranoid if they really are after you. Read the whole thing.

What are some of the possible ramifications of Schumer's quietly-snuck-under-the-radar bill?

  • If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.
  • Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.
  • It would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend to take shooting. That would be a transfer. 5 years in federal prison.
  • Steals the livelihood of gun dealers by setting a fixed fee to conduct transfers. The fee is fixed by the Attorney General. What’s to prevent him from setting it at $1000?
  • Enacts defacto universal gun registration, because of record keeping requirements.
  • All lost and stolen guns must be reported to the federal and local government. This means everyone will have to fill out the theft/loss form, and not just FFLs. You only have 24 hours to comply. If you lose a gun on a hunting trip deep in the woods, and can’t get back home to fill out the form in 24 hours, you’re a felon and will spend 5 years in federal prison.
  • Want to lend a gun to a friend to go hunting? It’s a 5 year in prison felony.
  • No exception for state permits. All transfers must go through a dealer or 5 years in federal prison.
  • UPDATE: Teaching someone to shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted transfer.

And lastly (for now...there's never an end to it in this state), there are the state legislators—Republicans included—who seem to think that the laws of economics are suspended the moment one crosses the state line into New York.

We live in an

Q: What has the ability to "dampen the enthusiasm for compromise"?

A: The truth.

Via Weasel Zippers.  Here's NYS Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin (R) being asked to be complicit in keeping a certain list secret:

What list is McLaughlin referring to?  This one, which comes as absolutely no surprise to everyone who understood what the rush to the SAFE act was really all about:

1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation of ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be released to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

None of these amemndments was included in the final bill as passed, but what fool would think that the anti-2nd Amendment folks in NYS governement will be satisfied with less than total confiscation?

As McLaughlin pointed out in his Facebook post, "the cat is outta the bag."

And while I'm at it—to all the folks, Democrats and Republicans, who keep insisting that supporters of limited government as laid out in the US Constitution be "statesmanlike" and "bipartisan" and "compromise" I say:


You don't compromise on basic principles and in this country the Bill of Rights is as basic as it gets. When it comes to basic principles, I'll take evil "obstructionism" over surrender and capitulation any day.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, steadfast adherence to principle and refusal to compromise in the defense of liberty is no vice.


Thoughts on gun control and the Second Amendment from Tim Woods of Freeville, NY:


Let's begin this discussion by stating that the mass murders of school children are undeniably horrendous, tragic and evil.  We all agree we must come to grips with the root causes of this violence and the ultimate solutions for stopping these tragedies from happening again.  Using proper terminology and real-world facts is vitally important if the debate is to result in actual crime prevention and precious lives being saved.  
These incidents are not just shootings.  They are massacres.  A shooting event is anything from Cub Scouts learning BB gun marksmanship to moms using a handgun to protect their babies from an intruder.  The killing of 6, 13, 21 or 34 innocent students and faculty is a massacre.  Let's call it what it is.  
The plethora of new gun control laws being proposed by Governor Cuomo, Senator Feinstein and many others will be practically worthless for preventing crime in general and for specifically stopping future school or mall massacres.  The legislature passing a new Assault Weapon Ban would be comparable to a New York state senator walking into a raging apartment building inferno and passing gas.  The Senator can claim he is being proactive, but not only would it NOT put the raging blaze out, it would most likely add fuel to the fire.  This ban is not a solution.  Its a huge joke on the American people.  Its a superficial, feel good "hey, look what I did" political strategy to win votes.  It accomplishes nothing but turning normally law abiding citizens into criminals just because they agree with and will make crucial decisions based on historic interpretations of our US Bill of Rights.
There are multiple problems with these gun control proposals.
First, these politicians don't even know what an actual assault weapon is.  It's been ILLEGAL for Americans to personally own an assault weapon without a special BATFE license since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  That's right, 1934.  That's because the true definition, the military definition, of an assault weapon is " a magazine, clip, drum or belt fed rifle, carbine or pistol capable of selective or constant automatic fire."  Those type of weapons are commonly known as machine guns.  Those weapons are already highly regulated and are not what these proposed bans are trying to eliminate.
Second, new semi-automatic rifles that just looked like a military-style weapon were prohibited from being sold or imported when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994.  That's right, the weapons that our illustrious Congress and President tried to save us from were our hunting and sporting guns that just looked like a military machine gun. These terrible devices were bad because they might have a different style stock or front grip, or they might be black and ominous looking and have a muzzle flash suppressor or a bayonet lug.  This is laughable.  We think we are safer because hunting rifles that have a way to attach a bayonet are banned.  In the last sixty years of crime reporting, I found NO US citizen that had been attacked or killed in our country by individuals using a rifle mounted bayonet. The FAWB was so ineffective that Congress let it lapse in 2004.  In 2001, a Justice Department study revealed that fewer than 2% of State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military looking semi-automatic gun when they committed the crime they were incarcerated for.  The weapon of choice of these predators was a stolen pistol, not a rifle or long gun of any kind.   So the New York state government and President Obama want to take away weapons from law abiding citizens, weapons that are rarely used in crimes.  If they succeed in doing this, then criminals, who couldn't care less what laws are passed, will continue to use guns that they either steal or buy on the black market.  The criminals would have access to these weapons, but not the citizens they prey on.  Great logic, eh?
Third, according to a Huffington Post 9 January Politics graphic, a fairly liberal source, the US has the highest per capita ownership of guns in the world at 88.8 guns per 100 people.  No one knows if this is the real total since few criminals or citizens admit to owning illegal firearms.  If we accept this statistic as being true, that means there currently are almost 280 million guns of all sorts in private ownership in the US.  The same graphic claims that approximately 17% of these firearms are semi-automatic weapons or about 47.6 million guns.  Now, here's the rub.  The gun control lobby wants you and me to believe that its necessary to confiscate, limit the ownership of, track or outlaw 47.6 million weapons of a certain type.  These are guns that are used everyday by law abiding citizens for self defense, target shooting, hunting and collecting.  If the ban of "assault weapons" is put into effect, these safely used guns will instantaneously become illegal or severely restricted by simple political dictate.  If we use the 2005 statistics of the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, 488,386 total crimes against persons were committed that year using a gun in the crime. So even if every one of these gun crimes involved the use of a semi-automatic weapon, which is ludicrous, the politicians and anti-gun believers tell us we have to get rid of 47.6 million lawfully owned and used guns because criminals used a gun of some kind in less than 1/100 of that number of crimes.  This kind of logic was used during Prohibition. It didn't work then either.
Fourth, folks that claim no hunter or sportsman needs a semi-automatic gun or large capacity magazine either have a severely ignorant grasp of US history, or, they just want to obfuscate the gun control arguments.  Nowhere in the original US Constitution, the BIll of Rights or any of the other constitutional amendments, does it mention hunting or sport shooting.  What is mentioned in these documents and in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the hundreds of personal letters and commentaries of our founding fathers is the militia of citizens and the use of firearms for self preservation and the defense against tyrannical governments.  The founders knew that weapons equal in firepower to the arms used by standing armies was the palladium that protected the common man and his precious freedom.  The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting.  It was written to guarantee the peoples power to protect themselves from the abuse of their government.  If you are honest with history, you cannot understand the goal of this amendment any other way.  The people have the God given right to protect themselves from criminals, from the psychologically deranged and from their own government's abuse.  In this day and age that means they have the right to possess and use semi-automatic rifles and carbines that use multi-round magazines.  To arbitrarily decide that a magazine with seven round capacity is safer than an eleven round magazine is nonsensical.  With this type of reasoning, why not choose eight round or six round or even four round magazines.  The criminally obsessed villain or psychopathic mass murderer doesn't care how many magazines he has to carry.  They will use whatever means necessary to kill the intended number of victims including rental trucks full of fertilizer or homemade chemical weapons.  
Now is not the time to play games with this critical national security issue.  As a retired Special Operations Forces officer and law enforcement team member, I ask you to keep the argument focused on what will actually keep our children and family members safe when they leave the security of our homes and venture out into the world.  Do not lose focus in this debate.  Do not let your political leaders lose that focus.  Demand they come up with solutions that are supported by reality, verifiable facts and history.
God Bless You and God Help Us to find the truth and then to act on it.

Gun control is not about the guns...'s about the control.

In the wake of the shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, Mario's kid has expressed a desire

to crack down on gun violence and form a “consensus” on new laws in next year’s legislative session.
“Gun violence has reached an undeniable point where it’s hard for anyone to refute the damage that’s being done, and I do believe it’s time to find out what else we can do,” Cuomo said.
To which the NYS Senate Republican conference, which of late have been falling all over themselves touting their close ties with the Governor, had this to say:
“We agree with the governor that more can be done to combat criminals who use illegal guns, which account for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in New York..." we need to worry about Second Amendment rights in this state even more than we already do?  November 6th and the next legislative session should prove interesting.
The University of Colorado will not allow students to bring guns into the Boulder campus's dorms this fall, though residents who have concealed-carry permits will be allowed to keep weapons in a limited number of family housing units, school officials announced Thursday.
That's called ghettoization, folks.  It's what they do.
Here's a highly intelligent student response (note the major):
Jeremy Difilippo, a geography major at CU who shares an Athens North apartment with his brother, said he doesn't believe guns should be allowed in his building.
"I don't think this is a threatening environment," he said Thursday, outside of his apartment at 19th and Athens streets. "It doesn't seem like a place people need to bring guns."
Well, that sort of thinking turned out well in another college setting, didn't it?
And as someone once said who had reason to know:
Combine the criminal element in society (who couldn't care less about gun control laws because they're, you know, criminals) with the fact that the mentally ill you will always have with you and you get situations like the ones in Colorado and Wisconsin recently.  And Washington, DC.  Oh, you don't know about that one?  There's a reason for that.
And when guns are outlawed—or so restricted that it amounts to the same thing—then only the government will have guns. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?  Ask any European Jew how that worked out for them.  No, wait...there aren't many European Jews any more, not compared with before WWII.  Hmmm.  I wonder why.
And what can you expect in a society that has so little respect for life, starting here
Maybe if we did a better job as a culture of instilling an appreciation for the the sanctity of life, for how precious, miraculous, and fleeting life is from the start all the way to the nursing home, we'd have fewer situations like the ones that seem to be prompting Governor Cuomo to think that gun control is the answer.
And if they could speak, the 56 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century might point out that gun control is a prerequisite of genocide.
Oh, wait...we already have genocide... 
Subscribe to gun control