Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Our favorite journalist, Emily Miller of the Washington Times warns that Dr. Vivek Murthy, President Obama’s nominee for the post of the Surgeon General of the United States is “rabidly anti-gun”;

At a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Dr. Murthy about public comments on firearms, such as a tweet from before the 2012 president election that said, “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”

[…]

Dr. Murthy sidestepped the questions about his gun-control agenda from committee members throughout the hearing.

According to Miller former Surgeon General Richard Carmona has written a letter to the president complaining that Murthy is unqualified for the position. But, you know, from an administration that has declared publicly that they intend to sidestep the constitutional protections afforded Americans in general and gun owners specifically, I’m sure the good doctor is wholly qualified for their purposes.

Someone should tell Murthy that the NRA represents it’s millions of members, and that’s who Congress should be afraid of, not some little office across the river from them. Playing politics is nominating someone to a job that’s about the health of Americans, but who intends to use his position to attack the millions of gun owners who won’t surrender their guns to his ideology.

I saw this story the other day, but the initial reports were a little blurry about which side of the gun debate he was on. But, Dwayne Ferguson, was an advocate of that SAFE Act in New York State, you know, that gun control measure that New York’s legacy governor passed in the dead of night in his rush to be the first to pass gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. Anyway, Ferguson was arrested the other day for carrying a firearm in his local school, made a felony by the SAFE Act, according to the Buffalo News;

Ferguson, 52, told WGRZ-TV that he frequently carries the gun, for which he has a permit, and did not realize he had it on him when he went to the school as part of the mentoring program.

Those who have worked with him also said they believe it was an honest mistake.

“I’m sure Dwayne went into the school not thinking he had the gun on him,” said Rev. James E. Giles, a friend of Ferguson and president of Back to Basics Outreach Ministries. “We know this for a fact, that he called out to a Buffalo police lieutenant asking why the school was in lockdown, and that they were looking for a man with a gun.

Yeah, they need to take his license from him – anyone who doesn’t know that they’re carrying a gun needs to be slapped. And all of his fellow cretins/gun grabbing fascists need to get a grip. There’s nothing in the SAFE Act that says “…unless you forget…” I’m pretty sure that the Erie County prosecutor will cut him a break and only because he’s a good gun-grabber. But, he broke the law and he needs to be more aware of the fact that he’s carrying a gun. Although, I’m convinced that he knew he had a gun, but because he’s a goody two shoes, he thought he deserved to break the law because he loves the smell of his own farts, and so should everyone else.

Screw this guy, I hope they plant him in a prison exercise yard, not because he had a scary gun in school, but because he’s a fricken hypocrite.

Andy sends us a link from Yahoo News about US Army veteran Louis DiNatale who was driving around the Great Northeast with his wife when he followed his GPS’ directions which took him to the Canadian border at the Thousand Islands Bridge border crossing, but he didn’t want to cross into Canada. He asked the border official if he could turn around and he was told ‘no’.

A border patrol agent then asked if he owned a gun.

“I told him I was retired military, I had respect for weapons, and I had a concealed carry license to do so,” DiNatale explained in a statement. “He asked me when was the last time I had a weapon on me. I told him, ‘Earlier that week.’ He asked me again, ‘Why?’ I told him it was my right as an American citizen to do so.”

According to DiNatale, he had forgotten about the Bersa .380 handgun he had stowed in the center console.

Agents searched the car, found the gun, and arrested DiNatale for attempted gun smuggling and lying to border patrol agents. He was released four days later, and a court date was set for June. If convicted, DiNatale, a retired Army sergeant major, faces three years in a Canadian prison.

Now, I lived a few miles from the border crossing, and I find it hard to believe that Mr. DiNatale was surprised that he was nearing the border. It’s pretty well marked with signs, and oh, a big f’n bridge with big f’n Canadian flags on it. And, since the gun was not locked in a box out of reach of the driver and passenger, he was also breaking New York State’s laws. DiNatale is a resident of Kentucky and the only way you can transport an unloaded weapon through New York State without a license from that state is with the ammunition and weapon separated and locked away.

From the LA Times;

If a Canadian citizen made the same mistakes at a U.S. border post, agents would be able to exercise some discretion, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said. If agents found no evidence of an intent to smuggle weapons, they would probably confiscate the gun and deny entry — but in many cases the offender would not be prosecuted, the official said.

“The Canadians tend to take guns more seriously” because handguns are strictly regulated, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss border practices.

So, I guess they’re going to make an example of Mr. DiNatale. But, he should familiarize himself with the laws of states he’s visiting before he takes a gun with him on his trips around the country. Is it right? Nope, we are endowed by Our Creator with the inalienable right to arm ourselves everywhere on the face of the planet, but then some places will put you in prison for exercising your inalienable right.

Chief Tango sends us a link to the Boston Herald which reports that a “panel of academic experts”, whatever that means, spent a year noodling over Massachusetts’ gun laws in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, and *surprise* they determined that Massachusetts needs more gun laws.

The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.

It looks like a person with a “class B” license is limited to open carry and can’t own a handgun that holds more than ten rounds.

“Overall, Massachusetts continues to be a leader nationally in efforts to reduce gun violence. The committee believes that even more can be done,” the report said. “The committee recognizes that changes such as those proposed in this report may be challenging, but if adopted, provide a pathway to further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.”

Yeah, so I hope that they explain how each of their 44 points will actually reduce gun violence. The mental health database is a good idea, since all of the shootings in recent memory were committed by people who should have been in the database, but weren’t.

The Associated Press lists some of the 44 recommendations;

— Requiring background checks for most private firearms sales.

— Giving local police chiefs greater discretion to deny firearms identification cards.

— Eliminating Class B licenses, which allow people to carry firearms in the open.

— Requiring gun owners to sign affidavits stating they still own all the guns legally registered to them each time they renew their licenses.

— Increasing penalties for failing to report lost or stolen guns.

— Approving tax credits for the purchases of gun safes.

— Requiring Massachusetts to join a federal program that shares information about people who might be unsuitable to own guns because of substance abuse or mental illness.

— Banning convicted felons from receiving firearms identification cards.

— Requiring employees of firearms dealers to pass background checks.

— Encouraging schools to have access to two-way communication with local police departments for use in emergency situations.

— Mandating that firearms training courses require the firing of weapons.

Can anyone tell me how any of those things would have prevented any of the shooting of the last few years, let alone Newtown? Gun advocates say that they were effectively locked out of the task force, because, you know, who needs experts on gun laws and how they affect legal gun owners on their little task force.

California passed a law requiring new firearms sold there to have “micro-stamping” on the face of firing pins that would leave an imprint on expended cartridge which would be unique and lead law enforcement to the gun and hopefully the shooter. But, gun manufacturers claim that the micro-stamping process in it’s current form is not workable and unreliable. For that reason Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson are leaving the California gun market, says Fox News;

“Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms,” the Springfield, Mass.,-based manufacturer said in a statement. “A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.”

Southport, Conn.-based Sturm Ruger also announced this month that they will also stop selling their guns in California due to the microstamping law.

According to the Washington Times, DC had a similar law requiring microstamping which was supposed to take effect the first of the year, however, the city council had to pass emergency legislation to delay the unworkable law until 2016.

Unfortunately, that what these state legislatures want; they don’t want the gun manufacturers to sell their legal products within their borders without having to actually make guns illegal, which would cost them politically. So they’ll continue to make stupid requirements, in an attempt to limit sales to qualified, law abiding citizens.

Fox News reports that a national chain of newspapers is planning to build a broad database of concealed carry permit holders as if that means something. Maybe if they wanted to do something useful, they’d build a state-by-state database of people who have CCW permits and have committed a crime. It’d be a pretty short list because the whole point is to only have honest law-abiding people with a sanction by the states to carry concealed weapons in public.

The plan, laid out in an email from a top editor at North Carolina-based Civitas Media, could be similar to a controversial project a New York state newspaper carried out in 2012 which included an online map that identified gun owners in two counties by name and address. Civitas’ database project was detailed in a Jan. 19 e-mail to newsrooms across the chain, which has papers in 11 states, including Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

The newest project “examines the explosion of ‘conceal and carry’ gun permits across the U.S.,” wrote Jim Lawitz, Civitas’ director of content, in an e-mail first obtained by the Buckeye Firearms Association. “Through public records act requests, we will attempt to build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon.”

The legislators and the courts have already determined that there is no “right” to carry a concealed weapon – hence, the licensing requirements. Like driving a car isn’t a “right” If it was a “right” we wouldn’t need permission. Obviously, Jim Lawitz isn’t a scholar, and I’m guessing that he thinks “rights” come from the government. This is what happens when utter morons inject themselves into discussions they don’t understand.

If I wanted to find out who in my neighborhood has a CCW, I’d file my own FOIA, but then, I’m not a lazy, stank-ass hippie hand-wringer who doesn’t know how to file a FOIA and I don’t demand that I be spoon-fed the ingredients for my nightmares by a compliant left-leaning media. I’d prefer that all of my neighbors have CCW permits, that way I’d know that I’m surrounded by law-abiding citizens who have cleared a rigorous background check and handgun training for whatever weapons they might own.

Yesterday, we wrote that the legacy governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, said in an interview that there’s no room in New York for conservatives. According to The Blaze, Cuomo’s office called and said that his quote was distorted, that he was only trying to discourage conservative candidates from entering any political races in the State. So here’s his quote, you decide;

The gridlock is Washington is less about democrats and republicans. It is more about extreme republicans versus moderate republicans. And a moderate republican in Washington can’t figure out how to deal with the extreme republicans. And the moderate republicans are affair of the extreme conservative republicans in Washington in my opinion.

You’ve seen that play out in New York, their SAFE act, the Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act. It was voted for by moderate republicans who run the Senate. Their problem is not me and democrats, their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay, is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are.

I’m pretty sure that’s what we said. My interpretation of that quote is; conservative Republicans have no legitimate expectation of a voice in the State’s government. If you can’t expect a candidate that reflects your own opinion on issues, you don’t belong in new York State. It’s not like these conservatives are pulling their pro-gun, anti-abortion platforms out of thin air – they’re issues that are important to people, and people have a reasonable expectation of those issues being represented in Albany. If the legacy governor doesn’t like that there are conservatives in that state, he should leave.

However, the New York Times reports that despite the fact that most Upstate New Yorkers oppose Cuomo, 57% of New Yorkers say that they’d vote for him again;

The poll asked the opinions of some 800 registered voters in the state, and a solid two-thirds said they viewed the governor favorably; 54 percent gave him a positive assessment of his job performance, and a solid majority — 57 percent — said they were ready to re-elect him.

So there you go, New Yorkers.