Bloomberg’s Justice

Having failed to obtain the conviction of a woman who killed her husband who had threatened to kill her, they apparently decided to go after her for using her abusive husband’s gun. And Bloomberg wonders why we’re committed to dismantling New York City’s gun laws.

7 thoughts on “Bloomberg’s Justice”

  1. In light of Heller and McDonald, should her attorney get in touch with folks at Second Amendment Foundation?

    They charged her with lawful possession of a gun at home.

  2. Whatever the legalities, this sounds like a case where the jury decided they didn’t want to convict her on the big charge but wanted to punish her nonetheless.

    In a column mostly on suicide by cop Massad Ayoob mentioned a case that was in every way clean—it was a “suicide by armed citizen”, something for us CCW types to think about—except that the shooter said he was “s**t faced drunk” immediately afterwords (it was during or after an office party, although he clearly wasn’t very drunk at all). The jury convicted him of murder, but this being Texas they also got to decide on the sentence: probation (!).

    1. that was quite a while before the heller and mcdonald cases. this case piqued my interest because i live in nyc and have a nyc premise/target permit. but my wife does not. if she touches the gun or has to use it that would be an illegal transfer and/or unlawful possession. i can’t legally teach her basic firearms safety in the house (living in pre-war apartment, i wouldn’t) or let her gain that proficiency at any new york city or state range.

      i think there’s a good constitutional question here.

  3. Where are the women’s groups, where are the anti-gunner’s outrage?

    Unless, these groups are supportive of you only if you are a victim. If a victim touched the “evil gun,” they are more then happy to see her get fried.

    New York really is going back to the evil, dark Sullivan days.

  4. This definitely raises some serious Constitutional questions.

    That aside, though, what about “community property?” As in, they’re married, so what’s his is hers and vice versa? Because they have a valid marriage, wouldn’t that make the gun “belong” to both of them?

    @ St Marks: Quite correct. The women’s groups receive funding to help victims. If a woman decides to not be a victim, they won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. If there are no victims, their groups loses their relevance. The cynical side of me says that for all their good deeds toward victims (and don’t get me wrong, they are considerable), these organizations need a steady stream of victims to help, just to keep functioning.

    Kind of like how the anti-rights crowd needs crime, criminals, and crises to push their agenda. Without them, their relevance shrinks to zero.

Comments are closed.