search
top

Bloomberg’s Blueprint

I have obtained a copy of Bloomberg’s secret “Blueprint for Federal Action on Guns” which is really a blueprint for how the Obama Administration can screw gun owners without needing anything from Congress. Chuck Michel is responsible for filing to FOIA request to get this one out and public where it belongs, [UPDATE: If you want to get the exclusive on this kind of stuff, I would suggest heading over to calgunlaws.com and registering. Their law firm does a lot of cutting edge Second Amendment legal work. It’s a great resource.] This was the infamous 40 recommendations that the Washington Post reported on a few months ago. It this document doesn’t convince you that MAIG is a significantly more serious threat than any other gun control organization out there, nothing will. Whoever wrote this knows ATF very well, and understands federal gun laws well enough to know how to effectively make changes using only administrative and regulatory changes, which do not require action from the US Congress. While some of the 40 recommendations are not objectionable, quite a number of them are. Let me go down the list and pick out some of the worst offenders, and this is by no means a comprehensive list. Look at the document yourself to find others:

  • Require REAL ID compliant identification for all gun purchasers. Those in non-complying states, which are many, will no longer be permitted to buy firearms.
  • Recommends a ban on the importation of all “non-sporting” firearms and ammunition, and specifically calls for banning the FN Five-Seven. Kiss cheap imported rounds of military caliber goodbye. Maybe kiss Glock’s goodbye too. MAIG isn’t all that specific on what would be sporting or non sporting. Also note that MAIG can no longer claim they do not advocate banning guns. They do.
  • Calls for keeping records for people who get a NICS default proceed, which means your background check has not “cleared” but you went through the required three day waiting period. These records can be kept for up to 20 years, in the case of someone who’s name matches someone on the “terror watch” list and six months ordinarily. Default proceeds can happen if NICS has incomplete records, or the system is down for a protracted period of time.
  • Calls for more enforcement of gun shows using the Richmond model. The techniques used at the Richmond gun shows were bad enough that Congress held hearings about the methods, and demanding ATF put a stop to them. They actually recommend rescinding a number of the changes made to prevent these abuses.
  • Recommends ways for the administration to exploit loopholes in Tiahrt to publish information on “problematic” gun dealers (so they can be sued by New York City, no doubt). As we’ve pointed out on this blog before, having a lot of traces doesn’t necessarily mean a dealer is breaking the law.
  • Lots of recommendations for new record keeping requirements on the part of FFLs
  • Requiring placement of alternate serial numbers of every newly manufactured gun, and requiring serial numbers to be deeper and larger. Also require that a consistent serial numbering scheme be adopted across all manufacturers and importers.
  • Asks ATF to promote MAIG’s Responsible Dealer Partnership Program that they foisted on Wal-Mart, much like they do with NSSF’s “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy.” They imply NSSF’s program does not go far enough.
  • Asks the CPSC to mandate gun safety lock standards. Gun dealers are required to provide these, but many gun owners are older, or younger, and do not have children. This would be a way to add substantially to the cost of a firearm, if a 30 dollar lock needed to be included with each sale.
  • Extend the multiple purchase reporting requirement to long guns, especially ARs, 50 caliber firearms, and Kalashnikov variants. MAIG is not very clear on this, and I think it would be difficult for dealers to keep track of the current state of regulation.
  • Specifically calls for the Stinger Pen Gun to be reclassified as an AOW. I had never heard of this before, but I guess it really pisses off someone in the New York Mayor’s office, which is a good enough reason, if any, to go buy one.

There can be no doubt now that MAIG is a gun control group, and a particularly dangerous one. This blueprint is comprehensive, and very well put together. Whoever helped MAIG with this knows what they are talking about, and I would imagine is a former higher up at ATF, since it evinces a detailed knowledge of how ATF works, and what their weaknesses are.

Please, if you have a MAIG Mayor in your town, or near your town, we need your help in getting them out. After the holidays, we’re all going to have some work to do in this regard, especially here in Pennsylvania. We’re pretty screwed if Obama even does some of these things. Let’s hope he has the good sense to know that the rest of the country isn’t New York City when it comes to this topic.

44 Responses to “Bloomberg’s Blueprint”

  1. Uncle Bob says:

    Have you ever asked yourself about the extent of Bloomberg’s NYPD police protection; on his person, at his office, and at home? He will not allow his citiizens the means of protecting themselves yet is surrounded by armed officers? What the hell is that about? The man is a obvious coward and hypocrite.

  2. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, Your final item is telling.

    “Specifically calls for the Stinger Pen Gun to be reclassified as an AOW. I had never heard of this before, but I guess it really pisses off someone in the New York Mayor’s office, which is a good enough reason, if any, to go buy one.”

    I don’t think that’s a good enough reason. I wonder how prevalent that reason is in your other complaints.

    I don’t agree with Uncle Bob’s idea of what makes a “coward and hypocrite.” A wealthy celebrity or public figure may have real need of protection. Average citizens don’t, especially in New York City these days. I’m sure you’ve read the recent reports.

  3. Brad says:

    “A wealthy celebrity or public figure may have real need of protection. Average citizens don’t, especially in New York City these days.”

    How very white of you mikeb302000, for you to proclaim from far off Italy that in America only big shots need protection. Poor people who work tough jobs like taxi drivers are at the most risk of violent crime, not celebrities and Mayors. And a city like New York is where the right of armed self-protection is most suppressed.

    Typically your line is the real line drawn when it comes to gun control. Politicians and rich people can have armed personal bodyguards, but everyone else is out of luck, especially the poor.

    The little people have only the police to protect them. And like the saying goes, when seconds can make the difference between life and death, the police are only minutes away!

  4. Brad says:

    mikeb302000

    I’m amused at your seeming unfamiliarity with the middle finger theory of gun purchasing. Purchasing a particular firearm is a great way to fight back against gun-control zealotry. Like voting with your feet, making use of the power of the purse is a powerful way to demonstrate public policy preferences.

    I know several gun owners who in 1989 had little to no interest in those firearms that anti-gun zealots demonized as “assault-weapons”. No interest that is, until so-called “assault-weapons” were actually about to be banned. Then my friends bought several while they still could.

    In fact the current domestic market for these weapons are mostly the consequence of the decades long campaign to ban them. There is no better gun salesman than gun banning zealots.

  5. Anonymous Homeowner says:

    I’m waiting for the anti-gunners to target the privatized quasi-governments that don’t have to recognize the constitutional rights of their citizens/members/subjects (depending on your point of view). See “The Myth of Privatopia” (December 17, 2002). If they were smart (and that’s a big “if”), they would start with HOAs that would actually vote for a gun ban, in order to set a precedent, so that it can be imposed by court order in other, less-cooperative communities. Since almost all new housing is built in HOA communities , the “problem” of private gun ownership could eventually take care of itself, if the long-term strategy outlined below is adopted. The following was written with a lot of links, but I have removed them to reduce the chance of this being blocked by the spam filter.

    Dear HOA Board of Directors,

    As you are aware, there have been several incidents of violence, including shootings, directed at HOA board members and homeowners in recent years (e.g., the shooting death of Rita Hohmeier in Franlink Park, IL, and the fatal shootings at the Ventena Lakes H.O.A. meeting).

    Scientific statistics compiled by the University of Anglia’s Gun Research Unit (GRU) show that most people are shot by somebody they know, which means that you are at greatest risk from other home owners within your community who own guns.

    Although our lawmakers will not stand up to the gun lobby, and refuse to curtail the easy access to guns in this country, you can do something about this problem and protect yourselves.

    As you are aware, HOAs have the power of small governments, but are shielded as corporations. Therefore, recent court rulings that erroneously refer to the second amendment as an individual right do not apply to your association. You have it within your power to amend the rules of the HOA to prohibit privately owned firearms with the common interest community.

    In exchange for the benefits of common ownership, the residents elect an legislative/executive board and delegate powers to the HOA board. The courts have ruled that this delegation concerns not only activities conducted in the common areas, but also extends to life within “the confines of the home itself” (Nahrstedt v . Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th at p. 373).

    In theory, such a change to the rules would require approval of the homeowners. However, in practice it is easy for an HOA board to produce the desired outcome of an election using perfectly legal methods, without resort to outright fraud. It is also possible to have the courts approve changes to the HOA rules without a vote by the members of the association.

    If HOA home owners are eventually turned into renters — as has been proposed — then such a policy change would be even easier.

    Because HOAs are corporations, many conservative, libertarian, and pro-business organizations will not oppose such a new policy. They have argued in the past that HOAs can do whatever they want. To them, HOA rules are simply a private contract matter between the HOA corporation and an individual home owner, and they have no desire to interfere with what they believe to be a free market.

    The benefits of turning your community into a privatized gun free zone are twofold: (1) board members, and other home owners, would be protected from gun violence, and (2) the HOA would have another source of revenue, by levying fines against those home owners who insist on clinging to their guns, and seizing their homes through non-judicial foreclosure.

    If you are interested in implementing such a change, our lawyers would be more than willing to assist you. Or, if you live in a municipality sympathetic to our goals, we can put you in touch with the city’s mayor and legal office.

    Sincerely yours,

    The Gun Control Lobby

  6. Sebastian says:

    I don’t think that’s a good enough reason. I wonder how prevalent that reason is in your other complaints.

    Why not? I got back into guns and shooting originally because Bill Clinton tried to ban assault weapons. People who are individual minded don’t like other people dictating to them, or telling them what they are too irresponsible to do, or what’s too dangerous for them to own. We resent it. We wouldn’t be passionate about this issue if that wasn’t the case.

  7. Sebastian says:

    I don’t agree with Uncle Bob’s idea of what makes a “coward and hypocrite.” A wealthy celebrity or public figure may have real need of protection. Average citizens don’t, especially in New York City these days. I’m sure you’ve read the recent reports.

    So you don’t think it’s hypocrisy to have armed guards yourself and tell other people “Well, you’re not a big, famous celebrity like me, so no guns for you?” If not, there’s not much I say except that I think not much must be hypocrisy to you.

  8. Gareth A says:

    I believe my country has the most appropriate phrase to use as a reply.

    “Awa’ an’ fuck”.

    Low humour aside, they’re deliberately looking up loopholes in a sensible law (Tiahrt) and still have the stones to whine about gun owners?

    Oh, and I’d say that pissing off one of the most unscrupulous groups in the US is a perfect reason to buy any kind of weapon.

    I seem to remember someone saying that a certain stalkerish anti was pissing guys like Sebastian off, he was doing something right. He couldn’t be more wrong, but his statement applies here. If it annoys the MAIG, it’s a good thing.

  9. Sebastian says:

    I mean, what if Tiger Woods tried to argue as a celebrities need a lot more women and sex than we ordinary people, who can easily satisfy ourselves with one woman. Because we don’t have as much opportunity, you know. And what if he said this while simultaneously leading Golfers Against Adultery. Not hypocrisy? If it is, then how is that different than Bloomberg?

  10. Gareth A says:

    [i]I got back into guns and shooting originally because Bill Clinton tried to ban assault weapons.[/i]

    Funny that. I got into the whole debate when I found out what our anti groups were really like. Before then, I pretty much supported them.

  11. Carl from Chicago says:

    Thanks to Sebastian for posting this, and thanks to Chuck Michel and Associates for successfully making the FOIA request.

    Let’s not get caught up in meaningless, distracting statements that are obviously false (eg. citizens have no need for self-defense). Let’s keep our eye on the ball, where it belongs.

    Bloomberg, his associates, and his billions all mean business … and come Heller or High Water, they will continue their work to advance the ever-evolving gun control agenda one way or the other.

  12. Robert says:

    I think MAIG’s goal is quite clear and always has been… guns should be illegal. Sure, you’ve got the pandering exception of ‘sporting guns,’ another made up term with no clear definition that if accepted as the standard can easily be redefined down to BB guns.

  13. Carl from Chicago says:

    Robert:

    The sporting purpose issue is really something we need not worry about … there are plenty of other things that are real threats.

    I say that because Heller was built around the idea that the “core purpose” of our RKBA was defense of self. Obviously … there is much to be fleshed out from there, including the militia purpose.

    But given that the core purpose for our right to arms is defense of self … there is no way in hell that arms must pass some sort of “sporting purposes” test in order to be protected.

    Let’s worry about real threats.

  14. beatbox says:

    Is the report posted somewhere?

  15. beatbox says:

    never mind. I am a dope.

  16. Robert says:

    Carl, I agree. I was more speaking to the idea that banners have that as long as you say you’ll protect sporting arms then ‘most’ gun owners will support you. It’s the assumption that the average gun owner is an idiot. But that is the tactic they use for all restrictions: ‘Hey, we’re only after the bad guns, that’s okay, right?’

    The reason MAIG is so dangerous is because of their claim to only target illegal guns (bad guns) while actively taking action to make all guns illegal ( since all guns are bad in their view). Their thinking, deliberately malicious or not, is that in order to get rid of illegal guns you have to get rid of all guns. The fact that it doesn’t make any damned sense doesn’t matter because they’re ‘doing something.’

    The best tactic for fighting MAIG is going to be to engage them in public debates in whatever media available to show the ignorant that when MAIG says illegal guns they mean all guns.

  17. Carl from Chicago says:

    Robert:

    I fully agree. In my thinking their PR modus operandi is to:

    1) Drum up support for action against “illegal guns.” I mean … who would not be supportive of such efforts?

    2) Work to ever increase the scope of what constitutes “illegal guns”, including what constitutes the scope of prohibited persons (thereby making illegal as many guns as possible).

    They will proceed on #2 by:

    A) Working public support against “illegal guns” into legislative action as described in their document, and

    B) Working administrative and legislative rule changes and enforcement of current law (and exploiting any loopholes that work in their favor).

  18. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian said, “So you don’t think it’s hypocrisy to have armed guards yourself and tell other people “Well, you’re not a big, famous celebrity like me, so no guns for you?” If not, there’s not much I say except that I think not much must be hypocrisy to you.”

    I think the word is overused, yes. What Bloomberg does is more like elitism, at least the way you describe it. If a man feels too many guns in the society at large are causing problems and strives to reduce that number, but still owns a gun himself or has body guards, I see no hypocrisy.

    If he said guns are evil and absolutely no one should have one, and then owned a gun or had guards, then I’d agree, it would be hypocritical.

  19. Sebastian says:

    I think the word is overused, yes. What Bloomberg does is more like elitism, at least the way you describe it. If a man feels too many guns in the society at large are causing problems and strives to reduce that number, but still owns a gun himself or has body guards, I see no hypocrisy.

    I’m not sure a man who argues that there are too many guns in society, just that his aren’t among them, is really not a hypocrite. Elitism might be a better term though. But I’m not sure one is really any better than the other in terms of reprehensibleness.

    I judge Bloomberg’s beliefs based on what New York City’s gun laws are, which he supports. Guns for the famous, the rich, and the wealthy, leaving the less well-to-do either without, or having to keep guns at great legal risk to themselves. Even if it reduces crime, I think it’s morally wrong to promote and support such laws.

  20. O. Rly says:

    Why are MAYORS asking the FEDERAL government to infringe on liberty? I always thought political subdivisions of states were largely subordinate TO THE STATE. What don’t they understand about federalism?

    Why would any oath-taking representative ask the federal executive to violate the Constitution? “shall not be infringed”…something that never actually had to be written because the federal government was never conferred such a power to generally regulate arms in the first place.

  21. Crotalus says:

    This, of course, is why I have always said that the existing gun laws should not be enforced, but repealed. No matter who is in power, he will use these laws against the people, not criminals. Neither party is fit to govern anymore.

  22. anon says:

    Mayors Against “Illegal” Guns?

    There are no “Illegal” guns. Only unconstitutional laws.

  23. Mark Turner says:

    A few points:

    1) I read the document and nowhere did I find mention of ammo. There is no authority under the GCA of 1968 as amended to prohibit the inportation of any ammo except that which meets the definition of Armor Piercine as defined by statute.

    2) His assertion the ATF is not upholding the HW Bush era prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms. They are, it is just to the point the firearms in question have been so modded they meet the definition of sporting. The barrels, frames and recievers language is directly contained in the 1968 GCA.

    3) Multiple reporting of Long Guns. Cannot be done without amending the 1968 GCA. This requirement is set in Statute for Handguns.

    4) Baning Glocks and FiveSevens. Cannot be done without amending the 1968 GCA. There is a point system in place and if ahandgun meets it, it is importable. The Glock and the FiveSeven meet it.

    Much of what that foul collection of miscreants propose would require an amending of the 1968 GCA by Congress.

    I wonder if Palin would be willing to go RICO on this bunch if she become President? That would get me to work for her 24/7. I would love to see Bloomberg in a Federal Slam.

  24. Mark Turner says:

    A few points:

    1) I read the document and nowhere did I find mention of ammo. There is no authority under the GCA of 1968 as amended to prohibit the inportation of any ammo except that which meets the definition of Armor Piercing as defined by statute.

    2) His assertion the ATF is not upholding the HW Bush era prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms. They are, it is just to the point the firearms in question have been so modded they meet the definition of sporting. The barrels, frames and recievers language is directly contained in the 1968 GCA.

    3) Multiple reporting of Long Guns. Cannot be done without amending the 1968 GCA. This requirement is set in Statute for Handguns.

    4) Baning Glocks and FiveSevens. Cannot be done without amending the 1968 GCA. There is a point system in place and if ahandgun meets it, it is importable. The Glock and the FiveSeven meet it.

    Much of what that foul collection of miscreants propose would require an amending of the 1968 GCA by Congress.

    I wonder if Palin would be willing to go RICO on this bunch if she become President? That would get me to work for her 24/7. I would love to see Bloomberg in a Federal Slam.

  25. Sebastian says:

    Mark:

    From the document:

    Recommendation 38: The federal government should resume enforcement of federal law that bans importing “non-sporting purpose” firearms and ammunition.

    GCA does give this power, if you read it carefully, it’s just that the government has never used it. They are mistaken, however, as to the extent the ban was enforced prior to 2001, which was not to any great degree. They may just be misinformed here, but the recommendation does call for curtailing ammunition imports.

  26. Sebastian says:

    His assertion the ATF is not upholding the HW Bush era prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms. They are, it is just to the point the firearms in question have been so modded they meet the definition of sporting. The barrels, frames and recievers language is directly contained in the 1968 GCA.

    That’s based on ATF rules. It’s not even a regulation. All ATF has to do is change the rule, and no more imports. Congress’ guidance was that any non-sporting purpose firearm could be barred from importation. It’s up to ATF to decide what that means.

    Baning Glocks and FiveSevens. Cannot be done without amending the 1968 GCA. There is a point system in place and if ahandgun meets it, it is importable. The Glock and the FiveSeven meet it.

    The point system is ATF policy. It’s not even in the Code of Federal regulations. ATF can change the point system at a whim if they want to, without even having to go through the rule making process. All Obama needs to do to ban importation of Glocks is issue an executive order.

  27. Carl from Chicago says:

    anon said:
    Mayors Against “Illegal” Guns? There are no “Illegal” guns. Only unconstitutional laws.

    I vote this as the best comment yet.

    BTW … because the mayors are advocating this agenda based on their official power and influence as heads of municipal governments … I suspect that incorporation of the second amendment against state and municipal governments might take the wind out of many of these sails.

  28. Peter says:

    I’ve hammered you for stuff you’ve published in the past, and I’ll probably do so in the future, but in all fairness, you’ve done a great job here. Thank you.

  29. Sebastian says:

    Thanks Peter. Ultimately we are on the same side, even if we do have our disagreements.

  30. Mike Gordon says:

    Thanks for the posting, one more reason to hate Mike Bloomberg.

    New York’s Mayor is shaping up to become the most dangerous man in America. His model seems to be Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore with his desire to micromanage every aspect of an individual’s life.

    On top of that he has managed to kill democracy in New York City. Who is willing to run against or even stand up to someone who spent $100 million of his own money to get relelected to the office of mayor.

    We clearly have a lot of work ahead of us.

  31. PMain says:

    This only goes to show just how important the ramifications of McDonald v. Chicago can/could potentially be. Once there’s incorporation the opinions of city or state officials will matter very little & lead to nothing more then more timely filed suits hopefully expanding the rights of gun owners & reducing or nullifying the measures allowed by the anti’s. While it will take time, the momentum looks to be building for the pro-2A side for once.

    Thanks for mentioning calgunslaw.com, I’m a member! I would also suggest calguns.net forums for a peek into the one of the front-line groups behind the pro-2A legal battles… not just for California but the US.

    Also, if you haven’t joined the NRA, please do!

  32. Henry Bowman says:

    Why are MAYORS asking the FEDERAL government to infringe on liberty? I always thought political subdivisions of states were largely subordinate TO THE STATE. What don’t they understand about federalism?

    Because the crime and violence cesspools of America are the large cities, every one of which is heavily colored blue. Governors of states large enough not to be merely suburbs of one or a few large cities understand this — in most of their territory, gun crime is hardly on the radar. It is the big city mayors who are uniformly the keepers of the cesspools, and so it is the mayors who organize. And they’re targeting the federal government because it is a single weak-point target, as opposed to those mayors trying to persuade 30 or so different governors, most of whom already know them for the whiners they are and give them no respect at all.

  33. NYer says:

    “A wealthy celebrity or public figure may have real need of protection. Average citizens don’t, especially in New York City these days.”

    Are you on crack? There is a HUGE difference between “reports” (that can be manipulated to say whatever the media and/or politicians want them to say), and the real world. I’m guessing you don’t live in NY. I do.

  34. Harvey says:

    With Bloomberg, it’s all about power and control, the elite vs. the common man. Money is not an obstacle, his personal fortune is in the billions. After getting the city council to amend election laws to allow him to run for a third term, he spent more than any other candidate in history to win, albeit by a narrow margin. Added to that, is his access to city funds, $1.5 million of which were spent on his recent out of state anti-gun activities. In addition, both he and his police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, have no qualms actively conducting operations outside the city. In fact, there are NYC detectives currently assigned anti-terrorism duties in foreign countries, and the NYPD Intelligence Division is commonly referred to as “The Mini CIA”. The point of all this – he has the resources, both personal and as the NY mayor, to do what he wants MAIG to do, and his lack of restraint, normally imposed by conventional jurisdictional limits is also, unfortunately obvious.
    MAIG, with Bloomberg in control, is a far greater threat than HCI ever was. As you read their agenda, everything they want to do can be accomplished by “back door” regulations, vs. the passage of laws. And for the White House, this is a perfect solution, they can sit back, see all they want accomplished, and yet distance themselves from the actions.
    While we are all feeling the brunt of the economic downturns, now would be a good time to support whichever gun rights organization you feel best equipped to fight Bloomberg and MAIG. This fight will require the resources capable of exposing MAIG for what it really is, and educating the rest of the country as to their true goals.

  35. Kerry says:

    Do not be taken in by the soft lies ‘sporting purposes’ or ‘average citizens do not need’…The Bill of Rights enumerates them, it does not grant them. A Right is not contingent! ” We have rceived certain intelligence, that ( Bloomberg), the (May of New York), is instigating the people of (D.C.) and the (ATF) to fall upon us… We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery…With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather thanto live slaves.”
    from The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1776.
    Dollar to a donut the Mayor has not read this. And forgets that certain valiant creatures among the breed called Americans have read it.

  36. IdahoHunter says:

    Com’on guys, don’t get get all up in “arms”. Snowflake and the NRA will save us

  37. As I’m sure you’ve heard, Texas loves guns. When we passed the concealed carry law opponents of it predicted a bloodbath in the streets. Didn’t happen. Until Fort Hood, that is. The U.S. Army keeps it’s weapons and ammo locked up so unless you’re on duty specifically requiring you to have a loaded firearm, you don’t.

    As a combat vet, I am also considered a potential terrorist by my country, according to Napaliotano (sp?). I don’t even own a gun and I am disabled because of service related health issues. But if MAIG gets it’s way, I will go buy one with ammo, hide it and report it stolen. Nothing on my record disqualifies me from buying a gun yet. I’m an American, not an Englishman. I thought we settled that in 1776.

    Has anyone noticed we’ve lost a large part of out First Amendment right, Freedom of Speech, to Political Correctness? And the Constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state. It says the government cannot establish a religion and force it on others. Read it.

    Gary

  38. Johnny Gee says:

    Is that the same East Anglia University that faked all the climate change data?

  39. Jason says:

    Communist Democrats take your guns away when in office. Then when the Fascist Republicans get in they do NOTHING to get any of your rights back. 2 sides of the the same coin folks. WAKE UP!

    Jason the Fed

  40. Robert says:

    Bloomberg is a billionair and could afford to pay for his on security instead of having the tax payers pay for his security above what would be normal for his job. Also he needs to clean up his own back yard like the drugs that keep coming out of his city. If the city didn’t outlaw guns as they do the illegal stolen guns would drop off to almost nothing. When you make something illegal it will have the opposite effect, everyone will want one. So in all reality bloomberg is causing the gun problem in his city

  41. dave says:

    Uncle Bob,
    You silly man, don’t you know his life is far more valuable than yours or mine. He is such an important man. We are just nobodies.

  42. Jane says:

    With a tanked economy, a burgeoning number of misogynist immigrants, and the fact that criminals prey on the weak, how can anyone in good conscience say that citizens don’t need the only really effective tools of self-defense–affordable firearms and affordable ammo?

    And what about that pesky 2nd amendment, which guarantees the pre-existing natural right to self-defense? (I’m a nontheist, so I don’t buy into the ultra-conservative mantra about “god-given”.) And “shall not be infringed” could’t be any clearer.

    We are talking about the ravings of an anti-democracy totalitarian who bought himself an illegal 3rd term in office against a democratic vote for term limits by his constituents. Why should we listen to anything Bloomberg and the anti-democracy groupies who follow him have to say?

  43. Billy Dick says:

    Remember, in 1776, every gun was an “assault weapon”.

  44. Dan Hunter says:

    Blomberg,Holder,Obama,Clinton,and others what a nightmarish group.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Think Your 12g Shotgun is Safe? « Cemetery's Gun Blob - [...] over to Snowflakesinhell for [...]
  2. 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » Another Win for MikeB302000 - [...] MikeB302000 dropped this incredible statement over at Snowflakes in Hell. A wealthy celebrity or public figure may have real …
  3. MAIG’s gun ban blueprint « Gun Nuts Media - [...] Chuck Michel of CalGuns, we can see out in the open what a lie that is.  Here’s a copy …
  4. Sharp as a Marble - Mayors Against Gun Ownership - [...] A sh***y year for firearm acquisition | Home Mayors Against Gun Ownership Gun banners …
  5. They Are Coming For Your Guns « - [...] using BATF regulatory processes to achieve what he cannot get voters or Congress to agree to.   Snowflakes in Hell …
  6. Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Blueprint - NJGunOwners.org - [...] “Snowflakes In Hell” an 2nd Amendment Blog featured this story today on a Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Blueprint. This clearly shows …
  7. Mayors Against Civil Rights Secret Document « A Geek With Guns - [...] a comment » Snowflakes in Hell let us know that California Gun Laws has obtained a copy of …
  8. MAIG's blueprint to control your life - NY Firearms - [...] blueprint to control your life Bloomberg’s Blueprint | Snowflakes in Hell [...]
  9. Alphecca » Bloomberg’s End-Around - [...] isn’t possible right now. I’ve been anxiously waiting till I got home to tell you to read this post …
  10. Bloomberg’s 40 | Constant Conservative - [...] Bloomberg and his fellow mayors have compiled a list. Sebastian from PA has it. It is a blueprint of …
  11. We knew it all the time « Stuff From Hsoi - [...] Proof is in the pudding. [...]
  12. SayUncle » More on the 40 point plan - [...] Against Guns has their plan to target law-abiding gun owners. David notes the odd press treatment: The contents of …
  13. The Sentinel - VA-ALERT: 3 more pro-gun bills filed!... From Philip Van CleaveTable of Contents----------------------------------------------------------------------VCDL's meeting schedule:  http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html----------------------------------------------------------------------Abbreviations...
  14. Old Virginia News» Blog Archive » The REAL agenda for Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) - [...] http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/12/28/bloombergs-blueprint [...]
  15. Tech Paladin » Blog Archive » Parade of statism: Michael Bloomberg wants gun control with a side of REAL ID - [...] actually organized and intelligent enough to be a threat to civil liberties. They have a 40-point plan (PDF here) …
  16. State of Pennsylvania Gun Rights in 2010 | Pennsylvania Gun Rights - [...] shortly after Christmas, a document the mayors sent to President Obama & various agencies was released online. Bloomberg & …
  17. UPDATEx1: Individual Gun Ownership At Risk « Daniel McAndrew for U.S. Senate - [...] read this article, and follow the links within it. This appears to be a blueprint to skirt the 2nd …
  18. Tops of 2009 | Snowflakes in Hell - [...] Bloomberg’s Blueprint [...]
  19. Article II Lives! | Snowflakes in Hell - [...] Yes, he’s going to find out just how alive Article II is if the Obama Administration starts implementing Mayor …
  20. By Bloomberg’s Grace | Snowflakes in Hell - [...] that new media has freed MAIG’s Blueprint for Screwing Gun Owners, his eminence the Mayor has decided to grace …
  21. Nanny Bloomberg’s Bureaucratic Flank Attack on Liberty | Right Wing News - [...] harem of mayors are doing, and put together a good summary of some of the worst proposals.  Read it, …
top