I know one of the biggest concerns the gun rights community has now that Obama will be in office for four more years are Supreme Court nominees. Several of the current robe-adoren ones are getting up there in age and will likely be retiring relatively soon. The main concern gun rights activists have is Obama appointing anti-gun justices who will reverse the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While the Supreme Court is potentially worrisome it’s also one of the branches that the gun rights community can, for the most part, control.
The Supreme Court only rules on cases that have been appealed to their level and they are willing to hear. Because of these two requirements, and the nature of the gun control movement, the gun rights community can mostly control whether or not gun rights cases get to the Supreme Court. Needless to say so long as the gun rights community doesn’t appeal cases to the Supreme Court level the Supreme Court doesn’t get to make a decision. Unfortunately this may mean holding off on lawsuits, which have proven to be a most effective tool as of late, if anti-gun justices are seated but it also means that the threat of seeing either previous victory reversed is mostly avoidable. This means that gun rights would not move forward through the judicial system but it also means it won’t move backwards either.
I also mentioned that the nature of the gun control movement plays are part in this equation. When it comes to court cases regarding gun rights the only two sides that are apt to file lawsuits are advocates of gun rights and advocates of gun control. Advocates of gun rights have good reason to file lawsuits against municipalities that violate gun rights but gun control advocates don’t because they want municipalities to violate gun rights. Without some kind of violation there aren’t grounds of lawsuits so it’s far more difficult for gun control advocates to initiate one. Furthermore the gun control movement has more limited resources available to it. The only gun control game in town that still has money is Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is funded by the personal fortunes of Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies. On the other hand the gun rights movement has the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO), and numerous state gun rights organizations. Combining forces these gun rights organizations have a funding base of millions of members. Considering the expense of hiring a lawyer that has the required credentials to argue in the Supreme Court it’s unlikely that gun control advocates are going to pursue such lawsuits.
If Obama appoints anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court the gun rights community stands to lose one of its most valuable tools, but it mostly control whether or not ground will be lost. The worst case scenario is that gun rights activists will need to pursue another strategy. One of my biggest criticisms of the NRA is their laser-like focus on a single strategy even when it’s ineffective. When one strategy fails or is no longer viable then another must be developed. Innovate or die is the name of the game. Just because the gun rights movement becomes cut off from the Supreme Court doesn’t mean the game is over, it means a different game must be played.
Of course the real problem is the fact that nine robe-adoren individuals can decide what is and isn’t allowed for an entire country but I touched on that argument already so I’ll not repeat it here.
Mayor Bloomberg’s recent statement on Piers Morgan leads me to only one conclusion, he’s a psychopath. Let’s consider Bloomberg’s statement:
“I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re gonna go on strike. We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’” Bloomberg said.
“After all, police officers want to go home to their families and we’re doing everything we can to make their jobs more difficult,” the mayor added.
That’s an interesting statement coming from Bloomberg. The implication appears to be that police officers are being killed left and right (which they’re not) because of the current gun laws in the United States so, as a means of punishing the public for not demanding stricter gun laws, the police should go on strike until the public decides to surrender their arms. Another implication is that crime would skyrocket so high while the police were on strike that people would surrender their arms to regain police protection. There’s a major catch-22 with his statement. He believes the police are critical for the safety of individuals and guns are dangerous for individuals. Because of these beliefs he wants the police to stop protect individuals which, according to Bloomberg’s beliefs, will cause a great deal of harm to come to those individuals. He’s so invested in his goal of restricting gun ownership that he’s willing to, according to his belief in police being necessary for the safety of individuals, hurt everybody to achieve it. That right there is a classic trademark of a psychopath.
He is one of the people I fear because he’s so sure of his ideology that he’s willing, once again according to his own beliefs, to kill people for it.
Personally I’d have no problem with the police going on strike because I don’t believe they’re necessary to the safety of our society. In the absence of police I believe the market would take over and protection would be offered through voluntary means. But Bloomberg doesn’t share my belief in market anarchism so for him to suggest what he’s suggesting is despicable. It would be akin to me suggesting a North Korean-esque state be established in the Untied States to viciously beat and murder people until they’re convinced the state is evil and come over to my way of thinking.
Mayor Bloomberg is a special kind of tyrant. He views himself as king of New York and people treat him as such. Like any good monarch he acts like his decrees are divinely inspired and therefore he is justified in using force make the heathens obey. His latest crusade has been against soft drink manufacturers:
The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is calling for a municipal ban on sales of super-sized sugary drinks in an attempt to tackle obesity.
He wants to stop the city’s restaurants, delis, sports stadiums and cinemas from selling large sizes of sweetened soft drinks.
Under the proposals, any bottles of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces would be taken off the shelves in cafes while extra-large options will disappear from restaurant menus.
I would point out that this ban is pointless as most soda isn’t “sugary” as it’s sweetened with corn syrup, a substance that isn’t sugar in any regard, but nobody cares. A far more relevant criticism is the fact the state is willing to use violence to prevent the sale of soft drinks that are above an arbitrarily selected size.
We need to break down Bloomberg’s decree, specifically we need to follow it to its logical end. Let’s say we have a restaurant that gives Bloomberg the middle finger, their customers want 20oz. soft drinks and the restaurant wants to fulfill the wants of its customers. What will happen? Will Bloomberg personally show up and ask the restaurant owner to cease such sales kindly? Will Bloomberg attempt to make a voluntary agreement, a trade in exchange for the restaurant stopping the sale of large soft drinks? No. What Bloomberg will do is sent a bunch of gun toting thus wearing costumes to the restaurant and have them forcefully close the establishment. They’ll likely kidnap the restaurant owner and put him in a cage to boot. After patrons and employees have been removed from the restaurant at gun point the costumed thugs will then start writing extortion notes, commonly referred to as fine. Unless the restaurant owner pays the extortion money he will be held in a cage and the restaurant will continue to be occupied and controlled by the state invaders. Thor help the restaurant owner if he refuses to be kidnapped. If he should resist he will be beaten or even murdered because he dared give his customers what they wanted.
Every law is a threat against the people. Every piece of legislation should read, “Obey or else.” Is it just to threaten somebody with murder just to prevent them from selling soft drinks larger than an arbitrarily selected size? When you boil it down that’s exactly what Bloomberg’s law is, a threat of violence against the people to prohibit voluntary association.
To those of you who have been telling us to support Romney to protect the rights of American gun owners let me just say… you’ve been suckered:
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a private breakfast with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Tuesday morning at the the headquarters of the billionaire mayor’s philanthropic foundation. Romney’s campaign did not inform the press that the meeting would occur, although later confirmed that the men had met.
According to two people with knowledge of the Bloomberg meeting, cited by the New York Times, the pair discussed the economy, immigration, education and gun control over coffee and juice.
Romney is already having secret meetings with the biggest opponent of gun rights in this country, likely seeking an endorsement. As the head of Mayors Against
All Illegal Guns I’m sure Bloomberg could be persuaded to endorse Romney if Romney promises gun control measures.
If you’re a gun owner and supporting Romney you’re making a sucker’s deal. He’ll get all the benefits (a National Rifle Association endorsement, campaign contributions from gun owners, votes, etc.) and we’ll get shafted. But the best part is that gun owners will have actively helped bring on their own destruction. I guess the state is great at hypocrites of people. When it comes to gun rights I think we’re basically screwed this election cycle (unless Paul manages to get the nomination) and the best we can hope for inaction on behalf of the president or a strong pro-gun majority in Congress.
A hat tip to Uncle for the story.
First the city of New York banned donating food to the poor:
Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.
Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.
Now a New York court has rule that a $340 fee to obtain a permit to carry is perfectly fine:
A New York judge says it’s Constitutional for the city to charge an application fee for a handgun permit.
Federal Judge John Koeltl (KOH’-tuhl) Monday rejected a lawsuit brought by guns rights advocates including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. They sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.
The judge says there’s no evidence the fee has stopped anyone from exercising their rights. He says the city showed the fee helps cover administrative costs.
From the evidence I have at hand it appears as though New York wants all the poor people to go somewhere else. What does that city have against those with little means? Are they just not valuable because they can’t make major campaign contributions to Bloomberg’s reelection campaign? Do city officials think they’ll reduce crime by making life more miserable for the poor? After all somebody who doesn’t have the means to purchase food or legal permission to defend themselves obviously has the means to move out of the city right? It’s not like moving costs money or anything, you just rent a U-Haul… wait that’s not free.
Either way it’s becoming obvious that New York is becoming more hostile towards the downtrodden every day. I wonder when they’ll start rounding up people who make less than an arbitrarily selected amount of money every year and place them in designated ghettos.
Speaking of New York, Remington is now threatened to leave the state if the microstamping bill makes it’s way into law:
Top Remington Arms officials are threatening to pull out of New York if the state Legislature passes a bill mandating that guns carry tiny identifying stamps.
“Mandating firearms microstamping will restrict the ability of Remington to expand business in the Empire State,” wrote Stephen Jackson, Remington chief strategy and acquisition integration officer, to top state officials. “Worse yet, Remington could be forced to reconsider its commitment to the New York market altogether.”
Such a move could decimate Ilion, where Remington’s flagship plant employs more than 1,000 people.
Infringing on individuals’ rights should hurt, and mandating all guns include so-called microstamping technologies infringes on the rights of gun manufacturers to make a product of their choosing. Loosing 1,000 jobs would certainly cause some pain to the state of New York and make its barons look less desirable to the denizens.
Microstamping technology is a sham and a study performed at the University of California [PDF] demonstrates the absolutely insane amount of difficulty (and therefore expense) involved in implementing such technology. Remington would stand to inherit a great deal of expense and possible litigation if they were to stay in New York after the microstamping law passed. What litigation would they be subjected to you ask? I’m sure the boys in New York could find several conditions in which to sue firearm manufacturers for failures in microstamping technology including the construction of a firing pin that a purchasing can file the microstamping number off of, constructing a firearm that can has a replaceable firing pin, and constructing a firing pin that wears overtime making the imprinted microstamping harder to read.
Anti-gunners love the idea of microstamping technology not because it could assist law enforcement, but because it would make the cost of firearms skyrocket. If the price of an average handgun goes from $500.00 to $2,000.00 because the cost of developing and including microstamping technology has to be recouped the number of people able to afford firearms will drop significantly. Anti-gunners, like New York City, are waging a war against the poor.
Through Uncle I learned that Mayor Bloomberg is putting up some major money and buying an advertisement during the Super Bowl to promote his gun bigotry:
He also announced that he and his Boston counterpart, Mayor Thomas Menino, would appear in an anti-illegal gun commercial during the championship game, joining the race for Super Bowl ad space.
The spot shows the two leaders of Mayors Against Illegal guns in an animated discussion and clad in their team jerseys on a couch in front of a television.
Bowls of chips and popcorn along with a football lie on a glass table before them.
The 30-second spot will run regionally because of restrictions against issue-oriented ads on the national broadcast. The Mayor’s Against Illegal guns, which counts Bloomberg among its private donors, funded the clip.
The biggest problem with anti-gunners is that they only know how to do one thing: throw money at something until it goes away. Members of the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have no facts to backup their cause so they simply hope they can spend enough money to make guns go away. Luckily for use throwing money at something never actually makes it go away.
While the police state is expanding throughout the United States it’s expanding at a faster pace in some places. States like New York, Massachusetts, and California are expanding at an incredibly rapid pace as are the cities of Chicago and New York. Not only has New York all but disarmed the law-abiding citizenry they’re working on ensuring those individuals remain disarmed. Because of the recent cases involving law-abiding citizens being dumb enough to attempt compliance with posted “No Guns Allowed” signs the police force in New York is looking for new technology to detect those who are carrying concealed weapons:
The NYPD is stepping up their war against illegal guns, with a new tool that could detect weapons on someone as they walk down the street.
But is it violating your right to privacy?
Police, along with the U.S. Department of Defense, are researching new technology in a scanner placed on police vehicles that can detect concealed weapons.
“You could use it at a specific event. You could use it at a shooting-prone location,” NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told CBS 2′s Hazel Sanchez on Tuesday.
It’s called Terahertz Imaging Detection. It measures the energy radiating from a body up to 16 feet away, and can detect anything blocking it, like a gun.
With the recent introduction of body scanners at airports I’m sure you’ve heard of terahertz imagine. Most airport body scanners use millimeter waves as terahertz imagine is still a relatively new technology with a rather disturbing side-effect:
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they’ve found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That’s a jaw dropping conclusion.
So the New York Police Department (NYPD) is using a technology that can damage DNA to detect concealed firearms. First of all it’s none of NYPD’s business who is and isn’t carrying a firearm because, regardless of what city officials believe, the right to keep and bear arms is still codified in the Constitution (and even if it wasn’t the right to self-defense is a natural one that can’t be rightfully overridden by some assholes in a government building).
If this technology gets off of the ground the denizens of New York City may find themselves exposed to dangerous terahertz waves just so some piece of shit working in NYPD can get his jollies off disarming a peaceful individual (or outright shooting the poor schmuck because “he had a gun”). I’m still waiting for New York City to setup checkpoints at every point of entry where people and their vehicles are thoroughly searched before being granted entrance into the
Who’s a sad panda? As pointed out by No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money Michael Bloomberg is a sad panda after H.R. 822 managed to make it through the House successfully. He chose to have his shit fit in the form of a written statement:
“A majority of the House ignored the advice of police, prosecutors, domestic violence experts, faith leaders and more than 600 mayors who made clear that this measure will put police and communities at greater risk. Many members also cast aside their usual respect for the authority of states to decide how to protect public safety in their communities.
Emphasis mine. What authority? I never gave any state authority over my ability to defend myself. In fact the Constitution, which I’m often told forms the foundation of our government, explicitly states I have a righ to to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed. So tell me Mayor Bloomberg, what authority are you talking about? Please tell me soon so that I can choose to refuse to recognize it.
While I still maintain some reservations regarding this legislation due to its potential to expand federal authority over individuals’ right to defend themselves, seeing this legislation pass will fill me with joy for no other reason than it will cause Bloomberg to cry and Mayors Against
All Illegal Guns to fade further into irrelevancy. Honestly though we shouldn’t need legislation to carry a firearm on our person wherever we choose so long as doing so doesn’t violate the property rights of another (and the state can’t own property so they can’t claim we’re violating their property rights when traveling on “their” land).
You know you’ve become a true anti-gun organization when you start lying about anything and everything. Miguel points out that Mayors Against
All Illegal Guns (MAIG) is lying about their membership, probably in an attempt to make themselves look larger than they really are. While Mayor Perry Knight of Bowling Green, Florida is listed as a member of MAIG he wasn’t aware of that fact:
There seems to someone outthere who just decided my name should be added to this list. I do not support anything these folks are trying to do. I have asked repeatedly to have my name removed yet they ignore me. If I could ask you for your help by clearly an plainly stating that I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS . I am a gun owner an avid hunter. thanks for your inquiry an wish you well. Perry Knight
Good on you Mayor Knight for explicitly stating you do not support this organization. Those of us in the gun community will do our best to help you clear this blatantly undeserved blemish from your record by getting the word out.