The Shatman on gun control!
New York City Guns archive
Date : February 2011
The Shatman on gun control!
“MEN and women. Democrats and Republicans. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and moguls. A remarkable, if relatively small, cross-section of New Yorkers legally own handguns, according to public records obtained by The New York Times…”
“When it comes to legal gun possession, Staten Island is the most well-armed of the city’s five boroughs per capita, according to state data.
The numbers show roughly 6,400 Staten Island residents with gun permits, indicating that Staten Islanders are more than four times as likely to have a handgun permit as residents in the rest of the city…”
Google “Organizing for Action” (OFA), supposedly a non-partisan, grassroots group, and you get www.barackobama.com. Likewise, click on the preceding link, and it takes you to the Organizing for Action website. Despite OFA’s innocuous-sounding name, the Chicago-based group is an arm of the Obama political machine, the successor to a similar Obama store-front put together after his 2008 election, Organizing for America. Whatever the group’s name happens to be at a given moment, fulfilling the president’s goal of “fundamentally transforming America” remains its mission.
On Monday, Obama’s current operation sent an email to supporters urging them to hold events advocating gun control on December 14, the one-year anniversary of the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut.
Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg’s euphemistically-named group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, along with Moms Demand Action, are releasing a 60-second version and a 30-second version of a TV ad portraying a person approaching an elementary school with a duffel bag, as students observe a moment of silence for the victims who were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary. The obvious implication is that the gun control laws that one or both groups support could prevent the type of crime committed at Sandy Hook.
Concurrently, Vice-President Joe Biden sent an email encouraging organizers of the OFA events to center them on support for a “universal background checks” law that would prohibit private sales of firearms without a background check and for increasing penalties for illegal gun trafficking.
Dovetailing with the Bloomberg ads, Biden implied that imposing “universal checks” and increasing trafficking penalties would prevent terrible crimes like those committed at Sandy Hook; in the Aurora, Colorado, theater; in the Sikh temple in Oak Park, Wisconsin; and at Virginia Tech University.
Like so much of what underlies the gun prohibition movement, the premise behind Bloomberg’s ad and Biden’s message is simply not true. In each of the crimes the gun control supporters point to, the guns involved were bought legally, from a firearm dealer, with a background check. No trafficking was involved. And the guns used in the Sandy Hook murders were stolen from their lawful owner, who was also murdered by the perpetrator.
Obama and Biden are additionally claiming that Obama’s 23 executive actions, announced earlier this year, have helped “make sure our families and communities are safe.” But there’s no evidence to support that claim. Furthermore, even before the “actions” were announced, America’s murder rate had fallen to lower than any time since 1963, and its total violent crime rate had fallen to lower than any time since 1970.
Obama and Bloomberg are pulling out the stops, knowing that support for gun control–which rose in the days after Sandy Hook–is waning. Not only was the Obama gun control agenda defeated in the Senate last spring, a new CNN poll shows that support for gun control has dropped by six points since January, and a majority of Americans now oppose stricter gun laws.
For proponents of the Second Amendment, things are moving in the right direction. Yet the president, with the assistance of America’s most meddlesome billionaire, remains determined to push his gun control agenda and will exploit any occasion, no matter how crassly, to promote it. It’s going to be a long three years that will require your eternal vigilance and increased activism as we work to make Americans safer by ensuring enforcement of gun laws, by reforming our mental health system, by working to prevent the inevitable assaults on our liberty, and by electing pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to office in next year’s elections.
HARRIS COUNTY, Texas –- Deputies said a burglary suspect was shot dead by his own gun after dropping it while trying to escape the scene of an alleged crime early Thursday.
According to deputies with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, the shooting happened around 12:50 a.m. on Aldine Bender Road at Miranda Street.
Deputies said three men were breaking into a trailer home in the back of a business property when the male who lives there heard the glass breaking and got up to check out the situation.
The suspects took off running, and one of them dropped his gun. The male who lives on the property picked up the gun, and the other suspects opened fire on him, deputies said. The man returned fire, shooting one of the alleged crooks in the head.
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey today announced that West Virginia and 25 other states and one territory have filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing a federal government attempt to prosecute legal gun owners who wish to sell a weapon to another person who can legally own and purchase firearms.
“Our Office is proud to lead a bipartisan group of 27 states and territories in this brief to oppose the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to unilaterally create a federal restriction on firearm sales between law-abiding citizens,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “We believe that every legal gun owner in this state and nation should be interested in the outcome of this case.”
The case, Abramski v. United States of America, challenges whether federal law prohibits citizens who legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer with the intention of then selling that gun to another private citizen who also may legally own and purchase firearms. The Obama administration argues that the citizen who buys and then sells the gun is acting as a “straw purchaser,” which they claim is illegal under several federal statutes.
The States, however, argue that Congress has never passed a federal law that prohibits such purchases. At most, the laws relied on by the United States prohibit private citizens from selling guns to people who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as minors, convicted felons, or people who have been diagnosed as having mental illnesses. It is up to the States and their citizens to decide whether to implement additional regulations on private gun sales.
West Virginia is joined in this brief by attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
“This case is important to West Virginia citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment rights and sell firearms to other legal West Virginia gun owners,” Morrisey said. “The State of West Virginia does not discourage private gun sales, but the Department of Justice wants to ensnare innocent West Virginian gun owners in a web of criminal laws if they try to sell their guns. This federal overreach is a blatant attempt to overstep state regulations and Congress in order to steer more gun sales to federally licensed dealers, who then make federal records of every transaction.”
The states’ amicus brief is in support of a former Roanoke, Va., police officer, Bruce Abramski, who purchased a gun in 2009 using a law enforcement discount and sold it to his elderly uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania. Both Abramski and his uncle could legally own firearms and made the transaction in accordance with Pennsylvania gun laws, including a background check of the purchaser. However, federal authorities prosecuted Abramski on the grounds that he made false statements on the gun purchase form.
In January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Abramski’s conviction, saying that such “straw purchases” are illegal under federal law. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to review the conviction.
“Our Office is very concerned about the federal government’s targeting of law-abiding gun buyers,” Morrisey said. “The federal government is attempting to circumvent Congress and set aside state regulations that don’t prevent private gun sales, and instead make sure there is a federal record of every gun bought or sold in the United States. While no one wants guns to end up in the hands of a potential or real criminal, the administration’s interpretation oversteps the law and could make criminals out of innocent citizens.”
Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 22, 2014, with a decision to come by the end of the court’s session in June.
To read the amicus brief in PDF go to http://www.wvago.gov/pdf/12-1493tsacWestVirginia%20Abramski%20V%20US.pdf
Philipe Robinette, fled but in custody
(credit: Suffolk County Police Department)
Police told WCBS 880 reporter Sophia Hall that a gunman and two other suspects forced their way inside a two-story, yellow-colored home on Adams Street in East Islip around 2 a.m.
Once inside the home, the suspect armed with a .22 caliber rifle shot the family’s pit bull. A man who lives in the home, grabbed a shotgun and returned fire, police said.
One suspect, identified by police as Fred Flock, 27, of Coram, died on the back porch. Another suspect was wounded and hospitalized, police said. A third suspect, identified as Philipe Robinette, 27, of Aquebogue, fled the scene but was later caught by authorities.
“[Democrats] just spent all year trying to effectively destroy the gun lobby, so why in heaven’s name [should] we give them this Christmas present?” — GOA’s Michael Hammond on the plastic gun ban (ABC News, Dec. 3, 2013)
The U.S. House of Representatives did a very dangerous thing Tuesday — and, apparently, it did so with the consent of one gun organization.
By voice vote, the House slammed through a ten-year re-authorization of the poorly drafted 1988 plastic gun ban.
Lest anyone be confused about how the anti-gun Left views this, USA Today crowed, on the front page of Wednesday’s newspaper that the “HOUSE SAYS YES TO ONE GUN BILL — Plastic gun ban only firearm legislation to pass since November.”
Taken alone, this gives the Obama administration, if it chooses, another three years to use the 1988 law to ban large numbers of guns.
But there is an even bigger danger: Chuck Schumer held a press conference the same day to indicate that he will use the House-passed bill as a vehicle to pass even more gun control. We don’t expect to know Schumer’s bill number or language before he actually offers it, but it will purport to deal with guns from 3-D printers, while actually being much broader.
So here’s what we are doing: We are asking our friends in the Senate to put a “hold” on any effort by Schumer to amend the House bill.
The Senate will only be in session four or five days next week before the House goes out for the year, and Schumer may not be able to get time on the Senate floor without “unanimous consent” from all senators.
So, by doing this, we would force Schumer to give up on his vehicle for banning printer-guns if he wanted any reauthorization of the 1988 bill. If Schumer remains adamant, there will be no re-authorization at all. Even if he capitulates, we’ll see what happens.
It’s not a perfect outcome. But we think it’s an outcome we can probably achieve.
ACTION: Click here to Contact your Senators. Ask them to oppose any effort by Senator Chuck Schumer to add gun control to the H.R. 3626, the plastic gun ban reauthorization which passed in the House.
In September, New York Police officers responded to an emotionally disturbed man causing a ruckus at a Times Square bus terminal by opening fire on him while they were surrounded by crowds and traffic. They missed him and hit two innocent bystanders (one of whom was in a walker).
Police said at the time they thought the man, Glenn Broadnax, was reaching for a gun, but he turned out to be unarmed. Even though Broadnax was not armed, an indictment unsealed Wednesday is charging him with assault for the injuries caused by police gunfire.
Born in the wake of this country’s worst school shooting, the long-gun registry has particular significance for Quebecers.
The anniversaries of Montreal’s École Polytechnique massacre — when a lone gunman killed 14 women on Dec. 6, 1989 — have often been marked by announcements both federal and provincial to toughen gun laws. The long-gun registry was announced around the five-year anniversary of the tragedy by Allan Rock, the federal justice minister at the time.
Now, 19 years after the registry was created and 24 years after Marc Lépine opened fire on female students with a legally obtained Ruger Mini-14, the registry has been eliminated in all provinces except Quebec.
The registry was brought in by the Liberal government in 1995, and voted into extinction in 2012 by a majority Conservative government by a 159-130 vote. Quebec has raised a legal challenge to the federal government’s plan to eliminate the registry, saying it has a right to the data so that it can start its own gun registry. A Supreme Court challenge is likely to be heard some time next year.
Despite overwhelming local support for gun control, Montreal is overrepresented compared with the rest of the country with respect to mass shootings. In 1992, Concordia associate professor Valery Fabrikant shot and killed four of his colleagues at the university’s Hall Building. In 2006, Kimveer Gill went on a rampage at Dawson College, killing one student and injuring 19 others before he killed himself.
Nicole Foran loved to travel. The idea of getting on a plane and going somewhere new always seemed like a good idea to her. She is a Nova Scotian, with equal roots in New Brunswick, and her life, as she knew it, in her 20s, was perfectly, wonderfully unremarkable.
April 19, 2009, started out as just a typical night for Ms. Foran, a flight attendant for the previous two years for CanJet, a charter airline that flies to Caribbean hotspots — Mexico, Jamaica and Cuba — out of Halifax Stanfield International Airport.
Flight 918 was on the tarmac at Sangster International Airport, in Montego Bay, Jamaica, taking on passengers for the short hop to Santa Clara, Cuba. She was making her rounds, handing out customs forms. At 10 p.m. a murmur rippled through the plane. A man was on board. He had a gun.
“In that moment you become a whole new person,” the now 31-year-old says from the airlines’ offices in Enfield, just outside of Halifax. “You shut down and your survival instinct kicks in, and my thought was — how do we get all these people off the plane — and how do we survive this?
New York City Mayor and gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg sure knows how to get his way.
This week the NFL, after featuring anti-gun ads during the last two Super Bowls, it decided that an ad offering the opposite point of view in the upcoming Super Bowl XLVIII on February 2 was just too much.
The NFL turned down an ad from a company called “Daniel Defense” which sells guns and outdoor gear that discussed “personal protection and fundamental rights.” It featured a former Marine talking his family’s safety, noting that he is ultimately responsible for their protection.
Unlike Bloomberg’s ads, the “Daniel Defense” ad never even mentions the word “gun,” just the concept of personal protection.
The very end of the initial version of the ad did show the company’s logo, a picture of a gun. But this wasn’t the stumbling block, as the company told the NFL that it would happily to remove the logo and replace it with a picture of an American flag.
Still the NFL found that unacceptable.