This is not surprising newsÂ for those of us who do not expect the courts to do much in terms of helping uphold a robust Second Amendment right. According to Judge William Skretny, a George H.W. Appointee, the states get to determine what is and what isn’t useful for self-defense:
Unlike handgun bans elsewhere, which affect weapons commonly used for self-defense, wrote Judge Skretny, New Yorkâ€™s law â€œapplies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense; it does not totally disarm New Yorkâ€™s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense.â€
So can we ban any subset of handguns, like semi-automatics, and that’s just fine by the Second Amendment? But we do get a consolation prize:
Judge Skretny struck down a provision of the law, however, that limits a gun-owner from loading more than seven rounds in a gun at a time, calling it â€œlargely an arbitrary restriction that impermissibly infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.â€
It’s all arbitrary. There’s no public safety issue. They are just trying to ban what they can get away with. If the Second Amendment can’t save NY from SAFE, it might as well not even exist in the Bill of Rights.
Mike Bloomberg’s fortune went from 4 billion to 27 billion while he was in office. Bloomberg is wealthy enough that he doesn’t have to ever worry about getting his hands dirty with his own security. He can afford all the private security money can buy. It’s a shame he doesn’t understand how wrong it is to interfere with the personal security of the 99% who can’t afford personal bodyguards.
h/t to Cam Edwards of NRA News for the story.
I’m surprised by a lot of comments on Bitter’s post about advertising we noticed advertising guns as “man toys.” A lot of people seem to believe we’re trying to join the Political Correctness gestapo, or something like that. There’s a world of difference between railing against any gender-specific advertising, and suggesting that maybe we ought to re-think some forms of gender specific advertising that damage the cause. We were engaging in the latter.
I’m convinced that one of our biggest factors that is helping us win both culturally and politically is because we’ve managed to narrow the gender gap on guns ever so slightly, but it is still too large. Here are some facts to consider when deciding whether classifying guns as “man toys” is beneficial or detrimental to the cause of gun rights:
So given that, is it really a good idea for people in the gun business to engage in advertising that alienates women along a heavily traveled highway? I think the answer is an emphatic “no.” I’m surprised there are so many people who disagree.
Joan Peterson doesn’t seem to having a very happy holiday season, because so many of us bought guns for Christmas gifts. I sincerely hope we will continue to disappoint her. This latest hysteria is over a picture of a newborn posed with guns.Â She asks:
Why take photos like this? Why do some gun owners think that guns and kids go together and then put them together in a photo that goes viral on social media? We have enough examples of children shot in “accidental” and intentional shootings.
Why take photos like this? Â The reason, dear Joan, he took that photo was to get a rise out of hysterical ninnies like you. Mission accomplished! I am not a fan of the baby’s hand being placed so close to the muzzle of the firearm, but I’m not naive enough to believe the baby is in any real danger. Don’t be surprised when you stick your nose in other people’s business they don’t decide to rhetorically punch it every once in a while.
Also notice that Joan believes all those firearms shown in that photo are dreaded “assault weapons.” Thanks for proving our point that “assault weapons” are any guns that scare you, which is all guns, apparently. It helps in understand the real agenda here.
I found this AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle a highly amusing read because it’s clear the reporter is simply horrified that a gun-related company expanding in a college town hasn’t faced mass protests from the “social justice”-minded students.
The statement from the head of the college’s Center for Religion, Spirituality and Social Justice that students are more interested in addressing issues like poverty and hunger than restricting people’s Second Amendment rights seems to leave the reporter baffled. The claim from the single gun control group contacted for comment that Brownell’s “is not a fit” because there is a college nearby that is known for a decent education is never challenged on how it’s not a fit if there wasn’t any opposition from the campus to this expansion. It’s just repeated as thought it was a fact.
The entire article centers around the baffling idea that there are people in Iowa who would be considered liberals, but who aren’t making gun control an absolute top priority. It’s a priority for the media, so clearly it should be a priority for these liberals…
We have fortunately arrived home. Unfortunately, I must have picked up someone’s flu along the way. I guess the real difficulty of holiday season travel is that everyone has to go home, no matter how sick they are. I didn’t think to get some of that hand gel until the fever started. But so far it’s mild, knock on wood. I’ll bet gas pumps are a pretty significant disease vector this time of year. But through the haze of a cocktail of drugs, here’s the news:
Stop, fondle, go. TSA: Teaching kids it’s OK to let strangers touch you.
NYSRPA update on SAFE Act lawsuit. If charging a 20 dollar tax on every purchase of ammunition is constitutional, the Second Amendment might as well not even be in the Bill of Rights. This is not about stopping criminals. It’s about discouraging citizens from exercising their rights.
Who needs more than seven or ten rounds for their firearm?
Isn’t bargaining one of the stages of grief? This is a good sign their movement is on the ropes. They know they can’t shove it down our throats, so they want to negotiate. No. I’ll get all those things they are offering without having to bargain for it.
People are less supportive of universal background checks when the implications are explained.
Hickenlooper has a modest 2014 agenda. Of course he does. He has to convince the rubes he’s really a moderate.
Interesting case on whether gun ownership can trigger a no-knock raid for a non-violent offense. I’d generally prefer to see no-knock raids reserved only for hardened, violent criminals.
I find it funny that you can’t drive 10 miles in the Nashville area without passing a billboard for some kind of gun shop or seeing a gun shop from the road.
Even if many of them are very simple with their graphics and their messages, it’s entertaining. It certainly reflects that the gun culture is healthy even in an urban area.
However, there’s one that drives me up the wall in all of the years I’ve been driving through from the East Coast to Nashville area. It’s Outdoor Junction at exit 290 off I-40. In all of the years they have been advertising on billboards along I-40, they have only catered to men. They bill themselves as a place to buy “Men’s Toys” with a picture of a handgun. It would be one thing if, somewhere in their advertising corridor, they included a billboard catering to women. They don’t. They have multiple billboards to promote how they appear to only sell things to men. I can tell you right now that I would never be willing to walk in because their advertising sends a message that they simply don’t even acknowledge women as customers shopping for themselves as opposed to shopping for their men.
When I see some stores so obviously go out of their way to embrace the shooting culture as being only meant for men, it makes me wonder how long places like this will manage to hang on and stay alive in the evolving community. I’d be curious to know if those of you in other parts of the country see these kinds of gun shops that go out of their way to frame their products as only appropriate for men sticking around. Do they manage to pull of a bustling business in spite of ignoring outreach to the largest growing portion of the gun owning community?
Some folks in CT are gluttons for punishment:
“If they were trying to make them illegal, I’d have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me,” said Charles Gillette, who was registering magazines.
Ask some folks in New York City what happens when they “know where they are.”Â If they can find a pretext they will be back. You can take that to the bank.
“I understand why they’re doing it, but I don’t think it’s constitutional,” said Scott Boccio, who was registering guns.
I can understand why they are doing it too, and the link above is the problem with that why. Maybe some folks in Connecticut might offer up a sacrificial shooter, knowing full well at the next available pretext, you’d have to turn it in. If you were doing that, you’re not going to blab to a reporter about the 5 or so ARs you’re not registering. But I’m not too keen on the “thank you sir, may I have another,” tone of some of the folks in this article.
“Unless you change everything, and make it England and take everything away, I don’t see how they’re going to stop it,” Boccio said.
Yes, they know that. And they thank you for taking part in this first phase of their scheme. It’s important to have a plan if something like this comes to your front door. I would strongly discourage commenters from speaking about their plans here (or anywhere, really), but it’s a good idea to have one.
Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas!
UPDATE: Link has been updated. It would seem Dick Black actually voted for the law, and was raising concerns about false accusations.
Just remember when you lament that we don’t get Republicans willing to stand up for say, repealing the Hughes Amendment or weakening the National Firearms Act, that they absolutely are willing to go waaaay out on a limb for the only people in the right coalition that are as good at organizing and manipulating government as the progressive left. Gun owners are a force because we are capable of delivering some epic punishment when politicians displease us. We are good at the stick, but not so much the carrot. The religious-right is far better at the carrot than the stick. In some ways the carrot works better. The stick will make them leave you alone. The carrot will actually get them to dance for you.
Apparently they’ll dance even if it means losing. One can argue that the “War on Women” is overblown and unfair, and maybe Dick Black was only raising a point about evidentiary standards. But the reason that attacks like this work is because voters buy into it. Why? That’s the question the Republican coalition needs to keep asking itself.