Posts Tagged ‘New York’

The MAIG E-mails

Posted: January 9, 2014 by ShortTimer in Elitism, Government, Guns, Leftists, Second Amendment, Tyranny
Tags:

From Sebastian and Bitter at PAGunBlog:

You can see the full list of e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch between MAIG leadership. Bitter linked to earlier today. It’s rather long, but 90% of it is uninteresting. But it does offer a view into the world of our opponents in the first few weeks after Sandy Hook. Some takeaways, some of which are different than the Blaze article:

  • They still don’t really know who their enemy is. Reading their e-mails, they are a very much top-down movement. They coordinate to a much much greater degree than we do. While they were coordinating our opposition from the top, we were all watching a grassroots movement self-mobilize, and just trying to help spread the word and contribute any way we could.
  • They really do believe their own BS about the NRA representing the gun industry. A lot of them wisely realized that assault weapons were a bridge too far, but assumed it was because it threatened industry profits rather than the fact that gun and magazine bans really really piss off our grassroots. Colorado’s recalls I think helped drive that message home.

-

  • The NFL and most of the sports teams are our enemies.
  • The media coordinates with the anti-gunners. For instance, on page 518, it’s mentioned that certain cartoonists are onboard with gun control.
  • This is a movement of political elites and celebrities, and not of ordinary people. We knew that, of course, but it’s always good to see that confirmed behind the scenes. From the looks of it, MAIG only really writes checks to consultants, media groups, lobbyists, PR flacks and polling firms.

There’s quite a bit of data, and there’s a lot of documentation to go through.

Important to note that there are a lot of these elitist enemies of freedom led by former NYC Dictator Bloomberg; and they are people who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing by crushing you; and who are genuinely clueless that it’s you – the individual citizen – who’s resisting them.  They don’t understand that individual citizens resist them, they do not understand your point of view, and they do not care, because they feel they know what’s best – and they will impose their beliefs on you through force.

The white racist murderer whose name you’re thinking of is Roderick Scott.  He gunned down poor innocent black child Chris Cervini.

Scott claimed self-defense.

A Greece man charged with shooting a 17-year-old to death testified at his own trial Tuesday.

Roderick Scott told the court he shot Christopher Cervini in self-defense.

Scott is charged with manslaughter in the April 4 shooting across the street from his home on Baneberry Way in Greece.

Scott told the court he confronted Cervini and other person as they broke into a neighbor’s car. The other person ran away, but Scott said Cervini ran at him.

Scott already had his gun drawn. He said he told Cervini to stop, but the teen kept coming, so he shot him twice.

Of course, unlike the Zimmerman trial, this one was hushed up, because there are hundreds of black children killed by white racist gun owners every day.  This is Scott’s crazy ass cracka story:

Scott said on April 4, he was sleeping on the couch, because he and his girlfriend had a disagreement. In the early morning he awoke and heard voices. He looked out the front door to see what was going on outside.

He testified he saw three individuals who were in his driveway, saw them walk out and cross the street, then walk up to a neighbor’s vehicle, pulling on the latch and handles of the neighbor’s truck. He then went upstairs, told his girlfriend Tracy that someone was breaking into a vehicle, and told her to call 911. He grabbed his pistol, for which he has a permit, “to protect myself” then went outside.

Scott said his intent was “to stop or detain the criminals,” not to shoot anyone. He walked down the driveway and over to 39 Baneberry Way. He saw one person standing on a sidewalk, and some rummaging going on inside a vehicle, which had the dome light on.

At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. “I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,” Scott said.

He walked toward the individual, who started to walk away toward Manitou Road. He did not tell that individual to stop. It’s believed that individual was Brian Hopkins.

At this point, Scott was a foot or so off the sidewalk, and he saw someone rustling around inside the vehicle at 39 Baneberry. He testified he clearly saw two individuals. He drew his pistol and assumed the a shooter’s stance. “I didn’t know what I was up against, or if they were armed,” Scott said.

He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him.

He assumed the boy may have been armed.

“I felt if he got to me he would try to kill me or hurt me,” Scott testified.

Scott was found not guilty.

Just one thing.  This is Roderick Scott:

roderick scott in court 1

But that’s only because while he was a black man, he only shot this poor black child who no one cared about:

chris cervini 1

Justice can never be done when crazy ass crackas like Roderick Scott walk free while honor student black children like Chris Cervini are shot down in cold blood, murdered only for the crime of defending themselves against racist white men like Roderick Scott who walk around their neighborhoods gunning down black children like Chris Cervini and claiming self-defense.

The law must change!  Justice for black child Chris Cervini!  Roderick Scott needs to go to jail and be tried for hate crimes like the white racist murderer he is.

-

Sarcasm over, this is actually in the story:

Cervini’s family members say justice wasn’t served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he’d never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.

“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

“How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, ‘Please don’t kill me. I’m just a kid,’ and he just kept on shooting him.”

Cervini charged screaming at Scott in the middle of the night while Cervini and his two friends were stealing from people’s cars.

Could Scott have called the cops and waited for them to show up an hour after Cervini and his thug friends left?  Sure.

Does Scott have a right to protect his property?  Damn right he does.

Does Scott have a right to defend his neighbor’s property?  Yup.  Sounds like a good neighbor to me.

Does Cervini have a right to charge Scott in the middle of the night screaming, while in the middle of committing a theft?  That’s at least menacing, and probably assault – even before he touches Scott.

Does Scott have a right to blast an attacker in the middle of the night in self defense, even though that threat turns out to be a thieving white kid?  Damn right.

Do I care that Cervini was white and Scott was black?  Nope.  The only reason it matters is to prove a contrast to the racist left’s accusations against Zimmerman.   It proves again, with colors reversed, the very concept of self-defense that allowed Scott to defend himself against what would’ve been not one but three white attackers.  Cervini’s friends would’ve come to his aid and the story would’ve been “three white teens engaged in car theft kill black resident”.

-

Right now, with Eric Holder and leaders of the NAACP calling for a destruction of self-defense laws, they’re asking to put the law on Cervini’s side.  They’re asking to put the law on the side of three white kids burglarizing a black man’s neighborhood, and terrorizing him when he comes out to defend his property.

They’ve ignored the facts of the Zimmerman case and glorified Martin as a saint and martyr for the cause of civil rights, when his actions – assaulting Zimmerman, actually proved Zimmerman’s superficial assessment of him as a “f*cking punk”.  Martin’s assault led to Zimmerman’s response, just like Cervini’s assault led to Scott’s response.

Had Cervini tackled and beat Scott to death, the headlines would’ve screamed for the blood of Cervini and his white friends.  Had Zimmerman been pounded into the pavement, Trayvon Martin would be paraded around as a thug who bashed the brains out of a Hispanic Peruvian-descended man who mentored black children, took a black girl to prom, saved a black man from assault in the past, and was thanked for it by having his skull smashed into the pavement – a neighborhood watchman whose only crime was looking out for his neighbors.  The headlines would scream “Teenage Thug Kills Pillar of Hispanic Community”.  Every day on Univision would show Zimmerman’s blood in the streets, and La Raza would be marching demanding justice.

-

Now Eric Holder has set up a tip line to go after Zimmerman.

The DOJ has declared war on pobre Jorge.

Sounds kind of like the witch hunt that imprisoned John McNeil, huh?  (Note that link is from the NAACP.)

john mcneil georgia

John McNeil served 6 years after he had to shoot a white man with a box cutter threatening him and his son on his property.

Last fall, a judge ruled that he deserved a new trial because his original attorney did not inform jurors they could acquit him if he shot in defense of his home or his son. Stand Your Ground can apply to the defense of someone else as well as himself.

Sadly, he pled guilty to manslaughter to get out of jail, which is nonsense, because he should be a free man completely.

-

The left’s take on the McNeil case wasn’t that justice wasn’t served, it’s that justice was just wrong, and that self defense needs to go away completely.

Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins agrees and has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Georgia’s stand your ground law because the law is not applied equally to African-Americans. He accuses the courts of accepting “the race of a victim as evidence to establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide.”

That wasn’t fighting for McNeil’s freedom, it’s fighting against the codification of natural law that should’ve left him free.  Had leftist tyranny-supporter Hutchins instead pushed for McNeil’s defense, he wouldn’t have pled guilty to manslaughter, he would be a free man.

But of course, it’s about destruction of the natural right of self defense, not about justice.  It’s not about protecting the individual black man, it’s about “racial justice” and leftist power and reducing the individual to a ward of the state.  It’s about making individuals into masses who have a duty to retreat, into cowards who are legally obliged to not stand up for themselves.  It lets their betters, who create this great new society, decide who is good and who is bad.

Ultimately, the question of self defense in many of these cases is a deeper ideological worldview expressing itself as a hatred for individual freedom.  I’d say “as always”, but… well… okay, it’s as always.

Update: This examiner link confuses a quote with commentary:

The teen’s father described his son as a “gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble,” as reported by the internet news portal YNN Rochester (of New York) on Dec. 18, 2009, as well as the right-of-center news portal The Patriot Perspective on July 17, 2013.

I quote the story – as seen above.  Try CTRL+F and type in the word “gentle”.  I don’t describe the thieving white kid as a “gentle child”.  When not sarcastically mimicking the media’s coverage of the Zimmerman trial by taking the same tone where races were reversed and describing him as a “black child” and Scott as a “racist white man”, I describe the kid as what he was found in court to be – the attacker of Roderick Scott.

Ace Of Spades hit this the other night (and it’s been sitting in my browser since):

Is Michael Bloomberg Using City Resources For His “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” Group?

I really hate doing the question headline, but this definitely needs answering. I started poking around last night.

At first I pinged mayorsagainstillegalguns.org and found that it was resolving at a New York City government IP address.

He’s got some data in a screenshot that tech-savvy folks will be able to read more clearly, but basically, NYC runs MAIG.

It turns out I didn’t even have to look that closely, because the mayorsagainstillegalguns.org domain is registered to the city of New York. As you can see there, the registrant name is “NYC DoITT”, which is the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications.

Thing is, this is a tax exempt lobbying group that’s being run by the city, which means it’s quite contrary to the law.

The Weekly Standard picked it up – and it hit Drudge today.  They did find some new info that actually makes it seem worse.

In a phone call with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Mayor Bloomberg’s press secretary Marc La Vorgna confirmed the City of New York’s involvement with the domain’s purchase and hosting.

When asked whether the purchase and subsequent hosting of the domain by New York City’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications was accidental or intentional, La Vorgna replied that the purchase had “definitely been vetted.”

La Vorgna continued, saying that Mayor Bloomberg’s push for changes to federal firearms law was part of the “federal agenda for New York City” and compared it to other efforts Bloomberg, as mayor, has undertaken—like the effort he and other mayors are involved in to limit the use of food stamps in purchasing sugary drinks.

There’s a lot of hemming and hawing afterwards, but basically, Bloomberg has merged his dictatorial interests with NYC, and the two are one and the same, regardless of legality, and no one will stop him if it’s illegal, everyone will make excuses, and his scheming and power plays will continue.

Bloomberg and NYC are the same, and the “federal agenda for NYC” is to functionally destroy the Second Amendment.  Well, all right then.  At least they’re getting more open about it.

Graphic below.

From Breitbart:

At a June 18 gun control rally in New Hampshire sponsored by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, the name of Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was read aloud as a recent victim of gun violence.

Remember?  This guy:

tamerlan tsarnaev welfare

Throughout the rally, organizers read a list of names of people who had been killed with guns since the Dec. 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

When they read Tsarnaev’s name, pro-gun supporters who were at the rally to counter Bloomberg’s group began shouting, “He’s a terrorist,” according to a report by Tim Buckland of the New Hampshire Union-Leader.

For those who need a reminder, this is what Bloomberg’s poor little victim of gun violence did:

boston marathon bombing 5

-

Also note this was Bloomberg’s professional paid-for protestors who travel the country in search of ways to disarm, weaken, and control you.  Basically the same thing Tamerlan Tsarnaev wanted, but at least he was honest about his hate for America.

Pro-gun attendees said the buses of the rally organizers had Texas license plates, and rally organizers refused to talk to talk to the media. Gun rights supporter Tony Mayfield was in attendance and said: “This is joke. We have, for all intents and purposes, a corporation from out of town doing this little publicity stunt here.”

According to the Union-Leader, there was violence at the rally. Two persons–including a police officer–were assaulted and one person was arrested.

A spokesperson for Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s (R-NH) said that “well-heeled out-state-groups have gone on the attack against the [Senator].”

Bloomberg and all the other anti-gun, anti-rights, anti-freedom wannabe dictators in the Ruling Class are absolute scum.  Bloomberg is a guy who just had his minions go out to intimidate different states around the country in order that he, a billionaire who rides in a caravan with guards armed with full-auto weapons, can force you to be defenseless.  He agrees with the Tsarnaevs that you should be dominated and defenseless, he’s just got different tools to those ends, and believes he should be your master.

Update: Allahpundit at HotAir finds it baffling.

It came from Slate, which “of course” would put a terrorist down as a poor, innocent victim of gun violence who was really and honor student trying to fix up his life.

Yesterday, at an event organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Concord, N.H., a list of names of “victims of gun violence” was read aloud. Today, one name stands out: that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect killed during a shootout with police. The MAIG list came from Slate‘s interactive, “How Many People Have Been Killed By Guns Since Newtown?” The Atlantic Wire and others are asking: Should Tsarnaev’s name be on that interactive?

Of course it should. The interactive is not a list of “victims” of gun violence—in fact, the interactive never uses that word, for this very reason. It is a pure accounting of deaths, provided, as our original partner in the project @GunDeaths notes, “regardless of cause and without comment.”

Thing is, it’s being used as a stat for gun control activists – that’s why they’re keeping track.  Lefty Slate is perfectly happy to pad their rolls of poor innocent victims, regardless of what they’re claiming now, in order to make gun violence look worse; when in reality, terrorist killed by guns (or knives, JDAMs, SUVs, rattlesnakes, orbital plasma cannons, falls, self-detonation, mad cow, or anything else) are all good things.

Update 2: Allahpundit at HotAir notes that maniac cop Chris Dorner was also on the list.

the list from which the activists were reading — which was compiled by Slate and includes more than 6,000 names — contained at least 10 murder suspects, including the alleged cop killer Christopher Dorner, who was the subject of a massive, high-profile manhunt in February, and apparently killed himself in a cabin after a gun fight with police.

Why would you keep a comprehensive list of people killed in shootings after Newtown if you’re not interested in building sympathy for them as victims? The point of the list is, or should be, to drive home the tragedy of so many innocent lives taken. If you’re going to toss non-innocents like Tsarnaev, Dorner, et al. in there, you might as well ask the Pentagon for an estimate of Al Qaeda fighters shot on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan and toss them in too. They’re all casualties of the demon device known as firearms, aren’t they? Come to think of it, didn’t Hitler shoot himself?

It’s an … interesting political project that has room for Tamerlan Tsarnaev on its roll call of the fallen but not the people he murdered because of a difference in the precise means of lethal force used.

Again, as above, Slate says “of course it should” include them.

To briefly hit on this, I remember either Evan Sayet mentioning it when talking about leftists some time after his great “How Modern Liberals Think” speech, or someone discussing it, and noting that much of the root of the modern leftist thought comes out of World War I, when the left decided that conflict was to be avoided at all costs; much like discrimination is to be avoided – regardless of whether it’s just making good decisions on the available information.  Avoiding conflict is so important that the tools of conflict – even if used for defense – are considered horrible.  So the individual who owns guns for self-defense and will use them if threatened (but only if threatened), is viewed as someone who has justified violence (because self defense is a basic right of all beings).  To the brain-dead indoctrinated left, there is no difference between self-defense and terrorism, and all violence is evil (except grievance-based violence or their own violence to gain power, of course) – and this means that Tsarnaev and Dorner are “victims” of a “gun culture”.

Much like Dorner’s manifesto, they can engage in violence or support aggressors against peaceful people and simply ignore the mad inconsistency – because if the peaceful people aren’t defenseless victims, they probably deserved it somehow.  And if they are defenseless victims of the wrong political ideology, they deserved it for their thoughts.

Never go there.

From the smugly sanctimonious “you’re an idiot because even someone from Mars knows the Second Amendment means nothing here, pissant” NYT:

A subset of visitors to New York City looks, on the surface, just like the rest. Some are high profile, like the boxer this year, and the football player, and the Tea Party leader from California. They are joined by the anonymous: the military wife from Minnesota, and the hazardous waste expert. There was a minister, and a surgeon, and someone in pest control.

What sets them apart is what each brings along on a visit to the city. A handgun. The guns are legally owned, with the home state permits all in order. The visitors have locked the gun in a box and checked it at the local airport, as they were told to do by the airline. But for these visitors, the trip to New York will almost certainly end in handcuffs and felony weapons charges, and their flights home will leave without them.

Short short version: everything’s illegal, you will go to jail you provincial serf.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Jack Ryan said visitors should know better. “New York gun laws are not exactly a secret,” he said. “If you were on Mars and you wanted to know who had strict gun laws, I think most people would know they’re pretty strict.”

“Pretty strict” and “absolute prohibition” are two different things.  New York is a Constitution-free zone.

And remember, they want to bring their absolute prohibition to your neighborhood, too.

-

I’m cheering for the coyotes.

wiley coyote pet eating

From Firearms Talk:

Citing their belief that the flag is the symbol of the Tea Party, the city council of New Rochelle voted 5-2 to order the familiar rattlesnake banner removed and banned from all city property. Specifically the town’s historic Armory, where the Gadsden flag was raised and lowered by local veterans under the US and State flags, was ordered to strike the suddenly offensive symbol.

The City Manager Chuck Strome had originally ordered it taken down and then reversed his decision after the United Veterans Memorial and Patriotic Association of New Rochelle protested. After this Pyrrhic victory, the matter was addressed by the City Council who decided to ban it once more.

gadsden flag for the childrenAnd FOX:

According to the Washington Examiner, the council objected to the flag because they said Parente is a member of the Tea Party and wants to display the flag to push a political agenda.

Parente said no one in the veterans group is a Tea Party member.

Irrelevant to the leftists.  The Tea Party must be destroyed, and all symbols that resist leftists’ Greater Good Government must be destroyed.  Historical symbols of resistance to tyranny, even if used in a manner unrelated to the Tea Party, must be destroyed.

From NY Post:

Mayor Bloomberg went on a spitting-mad rant against a city cab-fleet boss who won a court victory over Hizzoner’s planned “Taxi of Tomorrow” — vowing to “destroy your f–king industry” when he leaves office, The Post has learned.

A fuming Bloomberg made the threat against Taxi Club Management CEO Gene Freidman at Madison Square Garden’s private 1879 Club during last Thursday’s Knick playoff game, a witness said yesterday.

“It was like Gene had kidnapped his child. He used the f-word twice,” the witness said.

Freidman confirmed the blow-up to The Post, and said Bloomberg’s tirade included the warning that, “After January, I am going to destroy all you f–king guys.”

That’s bad news for Bloomberg’s political enemies, who could all become targets once the revenge-minded billionaire has nothing but time on his hands.

-

“He turns to me, and said, ‘Come January 1st, when I am out of office, I am going to destroy your f–king industry.’

Yahoo Finance looked at the logistics of it:

There aren’t a lot of people who can credibly threaten to upend an entire microeconomy. The mayor is a billionaire, though, and he might just have the wherewithal to make it happen. So how might he go about it?

-

…the laws that have allowed cabbies to block Mayor Bloomberg’s top-down technocratic paternalism while in office are the same ones that keep Uber from disrupting the the hired car sector from below. So if Bloomberg is serious about this smashing-the-yellow-cab-monopoly thing—and please, let him be—what does he have that Uber doesn’t? The answer is the distinguishing feature of his entire political career, from the shift in party allegiance that marked his first mayoral run to his quixotic campaign to enact gun safety rules: His firm belief that money well-deployed can buy any political outcome. And, of course, that $27 billion.

A heavily regulated marketplace creates high barriers to entry, but sufficient capital can break through them. Uber has raised $50 million since 2010, and while it doesn’t release revenue figures, it’s clearly in a precarious position when it comes to fighting regulatory lawsuits and city rule-makers. But a Bloomberg-funded trade group, with publicists, lobbyists and lawyers could open the legal doors, while Uber and the like force mobile efficiencies into the sector.

And then the market will provide all the destruction a megalomaniacal billionaire could want.

Keep in mind once again, this is the same megalomaniacal billionaire paternalist dictator tyrant who’s after your rights as a citizen, whether it be to enjoy a Big Gulp soda or to own tools of self defense.  He will use the force of government against you because he can bend government to his desires – a government of, by and for Bloomberg to crush the little people like you.

He will erect barriers to entry and regulatory barriers to destroy companies that he dislikes, and he will lobby for and buy politicians to inflict any of his whims on anyone, anywhere, as we’ve already seen in Colorado.

He is on a mission to “f***ing destroy” you, too.

While we’ve all been following the IRS targeting conservative groups, it’s easy to miss the inexorable push for citizen disarmament by anti-rights billionaire zealots like Michael Bloomberg.  Currently, Bloomberg’s going after the Senators who voted against the Senate gun ban a few weeks back.  He’s been targeting Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group is following through with its pledge to air ads against Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, whom Democrats see as one of their most vulnerable incumbents in a tough 2014 climate.

A source tracking media spending told POLITICO the group has bought $350,000 worth of broadcast and cable airtime starting Friday and running through June 6, a crushing amount in a state where ad time is fairly cheap.

Meanwhile, back in the Empire state, there’s a group of sheriffs opposing the Orwellian-named NY SAFE act that makes pretty much all modern firearms illegal and punishable by feeding offenders to the lions.

County sheriffs have asked to join the federal lawsuit challenging New York’s tough new gun restrictions, calling some provisions vague and impossible to enforce fairly.

The New York State Sheriffs’ Association and five individual sheriffs are asking U.S. District Judge William Skretny to add their position to the record. They support gun rights advocates seeking to block enforcement of new bullet limits for magazines and the tighter definition of assault weapons.

The sheriffs agree with the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association that the law, passed after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, is unconstitutional because it will prevent citizens from keeping commonly used firearms for home defense.

“The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens, and identified that the right of self-defense is ‘core’ protected conduct that is at its zenith in the home,” the sheriffs’ brief said. “At a minimum, laws that criminalize the most common rifle in America today – a rifle that is often selected precisely for its self-defense capabilities – impinge upon that core right. The same is true of laws banning standard-capacity magazines.”

For a brief recap on why the “common use” argument is ultimately anti-rights nonsense, see here.  Then again, these sheriffs are trying to avert worse laws, so they’re willing to take back what they can get.

The sheriffs argued that several provisions are also “fatally vague,” measures that “law enforcement officers are inherently unable to fairly and uniformly enforce.” They urged the court to clarify “laws that will inevitably require enforcement, via confiscation, incarceration, or both, against otherwise law-abiding individuals attempting to exercise fundamental rights.”

Kind of a surprise to hear that written by NY sheriffs, but still it’s good to hear.

-

Sheriffs in Colorado are doing the same:

Colorado sheriffs upset with gun restrictions adopted in the aftermath of last year’s mass shootings filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the regulations as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado’s 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.

The sheriffs say the new state laws violate Second Amendment protections that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.

Another good start at pushing back against this unconstitutional tyrannical nonsense.

There are still some recall petitions ongoing in Colorado against anti-rights Democrat dictators who suppress any opposition, but it’s not looking rosy.

From HotAir:

We’ve heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is “coming to take your guns” is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.

Following the passage of “The SAFE Act” in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed to collect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.

They’re Already Taking Away Guns From People For Having ONCE Been Prescribed ANTI-ANXIETY MEDICINE.

You’re not paranoid, they really are out to get you.

Jazz’s update, from commenter dugan:

From the comments. An excellent question. Number one question for those who favor “universal background checks” – how do you enforce them?

In other words, how will authorities know if an individual who possesses a firearm submitted to a background check?

If they can answer this question without needing to resort to a database, or a registry, then I am all ears.

The anti-rights tyrants already answered this question – registration:

Schumer has insisted on record-keeping for all private gun sales, saying the files are needed to keep the system effective.

I read this article over at Yahoo, lamenting that there are so many states pushing against gun control, and saw some odd states lumped in with Imperial New York:

Despite a major push from the White House, more states have cut back on gun regulations rather than pass gun-control reforms in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Five states—New York, Colorado, Mississippi, Utah and Wyoming—have enacted seven new laws tightening restrictions on guns since Dec. 14, when a gunman shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning the weapon on himself. A sixth state, Connecticut, passed the toughest gun laws in the nation this week, banning some types of semi-automatic weapons and requiring all gun buyers to undergo background checks before purchases. (Gov. Dan Malloy is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday.)

New York passed the NY FU2A Act, Colorado passed the FU Magpul Act, Misssissippi… passed what exactly?  Utah passed what?  And Wyoming, which is pushing bills that would make enforcing unconstitutional gun laws a felony passed an anti-gun law?  WTF?

The reporter just went to this WSJ graphic and looked at the “strengthened vs weakened” and put those states in the anti-gun category without reading them:

Wyoming – WY H 216 – Would allow a judge to carry a weapon in his courtroom and prohibit someone else from carrying a weapon in his or her courtroom.

New York is going after gun owners, banning magazines, banning everything that exists, cranking out propaganda and pushing for total confiscation, screaming that anyone who opposes them is paranoid – all the while going out to utterly eliminate the Second Amendment.

By contrast, Wyoming said “yeah, a judge can carry a gun and can tell others they don’t need a gun in court”.

One of these things is not like the others.

Mississippi’s new law S2647  allows for petitioning by those deemed mentally unfit to restore their gun rights, and allows for some mental health reporting to NICS.  Utah’s H 50 allows for restraining orders against people dating to include the same restrictions on arms as a married restraining order; and H 121 allows a gun owner to give their guns to the state for 60 days for actual safe-keeping if they feel someone they live with is a threat.  It’s the state actually supporting gun rights by giving gun owners another option.  And Arkansas’ H1503 mirrors federal law with regards to the 4473 and the actual purchaser/unlawful procurement.

HotAir has a few notes on this story (but doesn’t dissect the “anti-gun” bills that arent), and includes a little political analyzing by Charles Krauthammer.  For those who’ve forgotten Charles Krauthammer’s opinion on guns, I suggest you read his column “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet“:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first — and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end — is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

It’s important to remember that Krauthammer thinks “it is simply crazy” that you don’t trust your personal safety to the authorities, and that you don’t “follow the way of other democracies and disarm”.  It’s best for you.  He’s part of the DC Ruling Class, and he knows what’s best for you.