Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

The Daily Beast posts an article written by a convicted felon to influence the gun control debate. The NRA Is Wrong: The Myth of Illegal Guns is written by Matthew Parker who by his own admission has been convicted of crimes ranging from “counterfeiting to felony-shoplifting to possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia”. He claims that because Adam Lanza, didn’t know his way around the underworld, he couldn’t have bought a gun illegally;

My point is that purchasing firearms illegally should be an ordeal, and that effective background checks would be the first step in making it so. But what’s also pertinent is that Lanza was not a shady character with a long criminal history, and so would have had no experience moving in illicit circles. Background checks may have forced him to do so—to risk being arrested, robbed, or even killed in some dark alley for the substantial sum he’d have needed in order to buy a gun illegally.

Yeah, well, Lanza didn’t need background checks, he murdered the owner of the guns – his mother. When he tried to buy a gun legally, he was stymied by the waiting period. Apparently he couldn’t wait three days to kill those children.

When pro-gun lobbyists insist that it’s relatively easy for criminals to obtain firearms illegally they have the luxury of categorizing Lanza, Loughner, and Holmes as criminals because it is after the fact of their crimes. But if you examine the scenario before the fact it’s plain to see that you’re dealing with sick individuals whose criminal proclivities existed solely in their minds. Their first step in becoming criminals was getting their hands on guns and ammunition. Holmes and Loughner, in particular, were able to buy their weapons legally, passing the nominal background checks that currently exist with ease.

So, the author’s solution is that we should all take a two-hour psyche test that is given to prisoners. Sounds reasonable, right? Give law abiding citizens a test that those incarcerated take to determine their place in the penal system. Of course, prisoners have no reason to lie about the questions they answer because they’re already behind those walls. Doesn’t Parker think that sociopaths not in the prison system and aiming to buy a gun for their nefarious purposes wouldn’t lie?

Of course, the larger question is; can anyone think of a real obvious reason a four-time loser would want to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to buy guns? The answer is fairly obvious to me – well, more obvious than it is to the editors of the Daily Beast, apparently.

The Albany Times-Union reports that New York’s legacy governor Cuomo recently called his state’s sheriffs to Albany. They thought that he was asking them to discuss the letter they sent him with recommendations to change NYS’ onerous SAFE Act, a restrictive new gun bill that Cuomo and his cronies shoved down the throats of New Yorkers. However, that’s not the reason the sheriffs were summoned to the court of the prince of New York;

Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.

“The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law,” Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can’t do that and enforce the law.

One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state’s chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as “cordial.”

Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, “strongly” denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.

Last week, the Sheriffs’ Association as well as several elected sheriffs filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.

Yeah, I’m sure that Cuomo’s bullying tactics, the same bullying tactics he used to get the massively flawed bill through the legislature will work so well against the State’s sheriffs. I’m sure they’re shaking in their boots. Maybe Andrew should tell his daddy on them, too.

Fox News reports that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a Federal lawsuit against Nelson, GA, where the city council recently passed an ordinance requiring heads of households to own a fire arm with certain exceptions – like people who oppose firearms, criminals and people with mental or physical problems which preclude gun ownership or operation. But that won’t stop the gun grabbers at the Brady Center from this needless law suit;

“Forcing residents to buy guns they do not want or need won’t make the city of Nelson or its people any safer, and only serves to increase gun sales and gun industry profits,” Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said in a statement.

City manager Brandy Edwards said town leaders had not seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.

Council members passed the ordinance April 1 requiring every head of household in the town of 1,300 to have a gun and ammunition, but there are exceptions. The law exempts anyone who opposes gun ownership or has certain disabilities.

City leaders said the law was mostly symbolic, isn’t being enforced and includes no penalty.

So, the Brady Center applauded New York, Colorado and Maryland when they passed gun-restrictive laws that won’t make anyone safer, but they oppose laws that they claim won’t make anyone safer when if puts guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I think they’re just afraid that this particular social experiment in Nelson will only support the contention that allowing law abiding citizens to own gun reduces crime and make them look foolish. Why else would anyone at the Brady Center care what happens in Nelson, GA, with it’s population of 1314 souls (in the 2010 census)?

The Washington Times reports that Magpul, the company that makes those excellent magazines for AR-style rifles along with other modifications to the popular rifle, has joined with 54 Colorado sheriff departments in a Federal lawsuit against Colorado’s new gun ban legislation. Magpul says although it’s joined in the lawsuit, it’s still leaving the state, according to a post on their Facebook page.

Just to clarify, we are still moving, regardless of the outcome of this legal action. That train has left the station, and we are well into the selection and negotiation process as well as arranging many elements to be prepared to launch and already moving some production out of state.

This lawsuit, however, could have national implications. If this suit can get a mag ban struck down as unconstitutional, the nation may see a ripple effect across other states who choose not to trust their Citizens with their natural rights. That makes this fight worth fighting even more than just the implications for CO, which would have been enough to get us involved.

The Times reports;

“This isn’t good public policy. These are really awful bills,” said Weld County Sheriff John Cooke at a Friday press conference. “They are unenforceable and encourage disrespect for the law, which puts both law enforcement and the public in greater danger.”

The Democratic state legislature approved the bills, along with a third bill requiring gun owners to pay for their own background checks, with no Republican votes. Democratic state Sen. Mary Hodge issued a statement Friday accusing the sheriffs of “playing politics.”

“We can’t just sit by and do nothing while first-graders and moviegoers are being mowed down in one fell swoop with weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines,” said Ms. Hodge. “It’s time to stop playing politics and start protecting Coloradans from massacres and unnecessary gun violence.”

Yeah, the sheriffs and Magpul are playing politics while the hippies wave bloody shirts claiming that they’re “doing something” dredging up images of dead children regardless of the fact that doing something, this legislation, will actually do nothing in The Greater Scheme of Things.

ROS sends us a link to our favorite pro-gun journalist, Emily Miller, of the Washington Times who reports that the City Council is considering mandating liability insurance for legal gun owners in the District. In her series of articles, Ms. Miller illustrates the financial burden the District already places on legal owners just getting through the process to own a gun, now, Mary M. Cheh is planning on introducing the measure today.

The insurance has to “specifically cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policyholder.”

“A lot of it really revolved around Howard Brooks, as far as I was concerned,” said D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh. “He’s like a mystery man.” She looked into allegations of wrongdoing in the Vincent C. Gray campaign as part of her oversight duties.

Mrs. Cheh does not seem to care that this kind of insurance doesn’t even exist.

Willem O. Rijksen, The vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association told me that, “We oppose proposals that would mandate gun liability insurance as property-casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional criminal behavior.”

Accidents are already covered under homeowners’ insurance policies.

Not only doesn’t the insurance exist, they can’t even make District residents buy car insurance for longer than it takes them to register their car. Yes, people who regularly obey the law, will buy the insurance, if such a thing exists, but the City Counsel is trying to make the residents safer, but all they’ll end up doing is making more criminals.

Cheh is just like the legacy governor of New York State in that she doesn’t even understand insurance, but she’s trying to invent something that doesn’t exist – like Cuomo tried to invent seven round magazines by simply arriving at a compromise. Insurance doesn’t prevent auto accidents and insurance won’t stop gun violence. Stupid hippies.

WV Senator Joe Manchin has been trying to breathe life back into his background checks bill which would make it mandatory for most private gun sales to go through the same background checks as gun stores sales and require that those records be maintained for government scrutiny by firearms dealers. But, I guess the fears that many of us expressed, that it wouldn’t stop there, have been illustrated quite well by the IRS scandal and concerns Manchin, according to the Washington Times;

“The difference is this,” Mr. Manchin continued. “Let’s say the EPA, which we’re fighting every minute of every day, because we believe that they’re overreaching, they’re creating rules and regulations. They’re interpreting and they’re doing things on their own because they are a federal agency. The Second Amendment is [in] the Constitution – it can only be changed by the legislative branch of government.”

Mr. Kercheval said Mr. Manchin’s legislation makes sense, but that the IRS situation doesn’t help the prospects of its reintroduction.

“Sure, it doesn’t help us – heck no,” Mr. Manchin replied. “But the bottom line is, [host Hoppy Kercheval], you cant stop government; you can’t stop this great country, you can’t stop the entrepreneurial spirit.”

Actually, you can stop government, Joe. That’s why there’s Constitution and a Bill of Rights. The Constitution was written to protect we, the people, from government. Like I’ve said, there are elements of the bill that I like – not needing a background check with a CCW license is an example, but I’ll give that up if it means less government intrusion into our legal purchases.