• Category Archives Politics
  • NYCG Radio Episode #51 – 1/20/14 “Gov. CuHomo Speaks”

    New York City Guns Radio Episode
    #51

    IN THIS EPISODE: Citizen shows Bloomturd he is not ABOVE the Law! (Bloomie Busted as Hypocrite – AGAIN), Cops bloody old man — for jaywalking, Hell hath no fury like the north country scorned; Gov. CuHomo’s consolations may not be enough to overcome SAFE Act resentments, CuHomo: ‘Extreme conservatives … have no place in the state of New York’, Sean Hannity to Leave New York After Andrew Cuomo’s Anti-Conservative Rant, Glenn Beck to New York Gov. CuHomo: Are our tax dollars not welcome here?, NY Ammo Buyer Background Checks Are an EPIC FAIL – The “SAFE Act” Does Not Work!, Hundreds rally in opposition of SAFE Act after one year in effect, NRA News Video “Voters Stick to Their Guns: Another Bloomberg Mayor Ousted”, NYSRPA knocks Anti-Gun Rochester mayor for having armed bodyguards, Concealed Carry Licensee Gets Ungracious Reception by Police in “Charm City”, Klavan: The Trouble With Guns…, A gun designed for Indian women, Producer Harvey Weinstein warns Meryl Streep movie will make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’.
    WARNING! This Content Contains AWESOME VULGARITY


  • Glenn Beck to New York Gov. Cuomo: Are our tax dollars not welcome here?

    In an open letter, Mercury Radio founder and CEO Glenn Beck is asking New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo if his right-leaning company is still welcome in the state, after the Democrat said Friday that “extreme” conservatives have no place in New York.

    Citing a “schism” within the GOP, Mr. Cuomo said, “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

    Mr. Beck responded by asking the governor whether he believes there are “two classes of citizens.”


  • Sean Hannity to Leave New York After Andrew Cuomo’s Anti-Conservative Rant

    In a radio interview last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) made some disparaging comments about pro-life conservatives, stating they had “no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

    Those remarks drew the ire of conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, who on his Monday radio program declared he had enough and was abandoning his home state, where he hosts his widely syndicated radio show and his high-rated Fox News Channel television program.

    “Now I want to tell you something – I was born and raised in New York,” Hannity said. “I want you to know that and I can’t wait to get out of here. I really can’t. I don’t want to pay their 10-percent state tax anymore. I live in the second-highest property taxed county in the entire country in Nassau County. I can’t wait to sell my house to somebody who wants it. I can’t wait to pay no state income tax down in Florida or Texas. I haven’t decided yet, but I’m leaning Florida because I like the water and I like to fish.”

    Read More…


  • Citizen shows Bloomturd he is not ABOVE the Law! (Bloomie Busted as Hypocrite – AGAIN)

    A fed up Manhattan resident records Mayor Michael Bloomberg landing his personal helicopter in a heliport that is closed on weekends because of the air and noise pollution in direct violation of the law. This is the very same billionaire mayor that has been ticketing New Yorkers into poverty with smoking, parking, bicycle, dog walking, public trash can, seat belt, cell phone, beer, schools … you name it, this tyrant has a law and penalty for it.

    New Yorkers have been bombarded with tickets and summonses as this billionaire flies over our heads breaking laws himself that he will never have to answer for because he claims he is busy do the people’s work which actual consist of him flying his girlfriend and her dogs around in his half million dollar helicopter.

    This is one of Jim Hoffers best reports ever as he confronts the hypocrisy of this mayor that truly believes he is ABOVE the law. This is is a clear example of what a tyrant is, a man in a position of power that believes he is exempt from the rules and laws that the citizenry must obey.


  • NRA News Video “Voters Stick to Their Guns: Another Bloomberg Mayor Ousted”

    Butler, Pennsylvania has a new mayor. Incumbent Margaret Stock, a member of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was ousted in favor of retired police officer Tom Donaldson. Voters made it very clear that any threat to our firearm freedoms is a threat to our safety and who we are as Americans.


  • Klavan: The Trouble with Guns

    “A gun is just a tool. No better and no worse than any other tool, a shovel or an axe or a saddle or a stove or anything. Think of it always that way. A gun is as good — and as bad — as the man who carries it.” Shane, by Jack Schaefer, 1949.

    No one could call me a gun nut. I go shooting with friends at most once or twice a year and, while I enjoy it, it doesn’t inspire the sort of obsession that grips me whenever I manage to get my hands on a fishing rod, which nowadays is less often. But as far as I’m concerned, the wisdom above from the best western novel I ever read (and reiterated in the famous 1953 film) doesn’t go far enough. A gun is not just a tool, it is the great democratic tool, the tool that put an end to knights in armor and gave (and gives) the little guy and gal a fighting chance against the powers that be.

    The left claims it is determined to violate, if not end, the Second Amendment’s guarantee to our right to bear arms in the name of safety. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ’Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein after she and Bill Clinton managed to enact an “assault weapon” ban in 1994.

    Read More…


  • NY Ammo Buyer Background Checks Are an EPIC FAIL – The “SAFE Act” Does Not Work!

    NY S.A.F.E. One Year Later

    Effective Yesterday Jan 15, 2013
    The law requires that the background checks on ammo buyers start on January 15, 2014, OR whenever the state police superintendent certifies that the relevant database is in place and operational.

    Please note the following:

    1) While ammunition sellers and retailers must register with the state by January 15, the database is not in place and is not operational. Ammunition background checks will not begin on January 15;

    2) The SAFE Act does not authorize any fee for the ammo background check. I have received numerous calls about a supposed $10 fee for the ammo background check. The state police would need clear authority in the law to impose a fee, and there is none in the law. I believe that some are confused by the fee that dealers can charge when they perform NICS checks for someone involved in a private sale. If a retailer or big box store clerk is telling you that his company is going to charge you a $10 state fee for ammo background checks, ask to see the letter from the state police;

    3) While the SAFE Act now prohibits free citizens from exercising their right to accept personal delivery of ammunition via the Internet, a vendor can ship your Internet purchase of ammunition to a licensed ammunition seller (gun dealer or FFL) where you take possession of it in person. This might happen, where for instance, a dealer might not keep ammo on hand in unusual or less common calibers;

    4) The prohibition on Internet sales, and the ammunition background check, do NOT apply to reloading components. You may still purchase powder, shot, wads, primers and hulls via your usual sources (but I respectfully suggest that you support your local corner gun dealer).

    Last year, the legislature reduced the applicable portion of budget funding for the ammunition background check database.
    Little funding is available to move forward on its development.
    To build a database that will check multiple sources simultaneously (mental health records, orders of protection, felony convictions, etc.) will take a period of time and substantial funding.
    It is hoped that either the courts will overturn by then or the legislature will come to it’s senses and repeal the NY SAFE Act

    Source: Senator James L Seward Distrct NY 51


  • Hundreds Rally in Opposition of SAFE Act After One Year in Effect

    A crowd of hundreds who gathered for a forum on New York’s SAFE Act on Saturday heard an encouraging update from the man leading the organization that’s challenging the constitutionality of the year old gun control legislation.

    Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, also a National Rifle Association board member, predicted the fight against what many called the “unSAFE” Act will land in U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Warren County Chapter of grass roots organization New York Revolution hosted the forum. Coordinator E. Jay Stokes brought in several speakers to discuss the anniversary of the law, which was signed Jan. 15, 2013.

    The forum was moved outside in the parking lot of the Waterhouse Restaurant in Lake Luzerne because of the anticipated turnout, which was a crowd of hundreds dressed in “Don’t Tread on Me” and Tea Party gear, donning buttons with a red line through Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s name and holding signs urging the repeal of the strictest gun-control measure in the nation.

    Cuomo ahs said the measure prevents mentally ill people from buying guns and increases penalties for people who use illegal guns.

    Speakers called for civil disobedience when it comes to the part of the law that requires the state’s definition of military-style assault rifles be registered by April 15. Failure to do could result in a misdemeanor charge.

    They said there are modifications that can be made, too, that will exempt weapons from requiring to be registered.

    Read More…


  • Commie Libs Outraged as New Gun Marketed in India as a “Rapist Antidote”

    Nirbheek, the gun for women

    India has launched a new handgun for women, named after a student who was gang-raped in Delhi in December 2012 and later died of her injuries. Officials say it will help women defend themselves, but critics say it’s an insult to the victim’s memory.

    In his large office on Kanpur’s Kalpi Road, Abdul Hameed, the general manager of the state-run Indian Ordnance Factory, shows me Nirbheek, the factory’s tiniest gun.

    “It’s small, it’s lightweight, it weighs only 500g [1.1lb], and it can easily fit into a lady’s purse.”

    Hameed speaks enthusiastically about the .32-calibre revolver, praising the “special titanium alloy body, the pleasing-to-the-eye wooden handle”.

    “The six-shot gun is easy to handle and it can hit its target accurately up to 15m [50ft],” he explains, pointing out the word “Nirbheek” engraved on the barrel.

    Although men can buy the gun too, Nirbheek is being pitched as India’s “first gun for women” and to make it more attractive to them, it comes packaged in a deep maroon jewellery case.

    “Indian women like their ornaments,” Hameed says.

    Read More…


  • Concealed Carry Licensee Gets Ungracious Reception by Police in “Charm City”

    As anybody who is a member of NRA knows, we support the dedicated men and women of law enforcement who put themselves in harm’s way for the benefit of us all. We understand that most law enforcement officers take their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States seriously. We also understand that untold thousands of reassuring interactions occur between citizens and law enforcement officers every day.

    What we don’t understand are reports like this one arising from an incident in Baltimore, Maryland.

    The Tampa Bay Tribune recounts the disturbing story of a man who found himself on the receiving end of some aggressive and heavy-handed police tactics, apparently for nothing more than being under suspicion of owning a firearm.

    According to the article, John Filippidis, business owner and family man, was traveling in his 2012 Ford Expedition back to Florida from Woodridge, N.J, where the family had attended a wedding and celebrated Christmas with relatives. With him were his wife and their three teenage children. Filippidis, the article notes, has a Florida concealed carry license. Nevertheless, it also states he had acquainted himself with the rules of interstate travel with firearms, understood the complications that can arise, and had decided to leave his gun at home in Florida.

    That would seem to be enough to ensure a family vacation could proceed without unpleasant interactions over legally owned firearms, even in the increasingly hostile territory for gun owners that begins at the Maryland state line and proceeds north up the Atlantic Coast to Massachusetts. Unfortunately for the Filippidis family, these precautions were not enough.

    The article continues to recount that on New Year’s Eve, after the family passed through the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Maryland, they noticed an unmarked police car flanking them, pulling ahead of them, and finally falling in behind them. This continued for over 10 minutes, although Filippidis said he was not speeding and other traffic was “whizzing past.” Eventually, the officer activated the emergency lights on the car and initiated a traffic stop. Filippidis noted he was actually somewhat relieved at that point, as he would at least be able to get the interaction behind them.

    Filippidis told the Tribune the officer asked for his license and registration, returned to his cruiser for about 10 minutes, and then, taking a position of cover between the two vehicles, ordered Filippidis out of his car and told him to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer said to Filippidis. “Where is it?” Filippidis told him the gun was at home in his safe. The officer told him not to move.

    With Filippidis separated from the rest of his family, the officer then focused his interrogation on Filippidis’s wife, asking her where the gun was. She first told the officer that she did not know, but then, wanting to be helpful, suggested it could be in the glove box or console. “I’m scared of it,” she told the officer. “I don’t want anything to do with it.”

    According to article, the officer again confronted Filippidis, calling him a “liar” and insisting his family said he had the gun. Filippidis continued to protest he didn’t have it. The officer summoned back-up and told Filippidis the matter could be resolved if he would just tell him where the gun was.

    Three marked police cars arrived on the scene. Filippidis’s wife and children were patted down by the officers. The family members were separated and put into the back seats of the different police cars. Their belongings–luggage, presents, laundry bags–were lined up on the shoulder of I-95 in view of passing motorists. For perhaps two hours, the police combed Filippidis’s vehicle. No firearm was found. Finally, they issued Filippidis a written “warning” and released him and his family to continue their journey.

    Certain aspects of the incident are not clear from the Tribune‘s account. The article does not specify for what alleged offense the warning was issued, nor on what asserted basis the traffic stop was initiated. More to the point, it does not explain what led to the confrontation over Filippidis’s gun, which was stowed in a safe at his Florida home, hundreds of miles from the scene. The article indicates Filippidis received “apologies” from the captain of the officer who initiated the stop, as well as a captain in the department’s internal affairs bureau. It also indicates that the agency, the Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MTAP), is withholding comment pending its own investigation of the matter.

    Florida’s concealed carry law states: “The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall maintain an automated listing of licenseholders and pertinent information, and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times to all law enforcement agencies through the Florida Crime Information Center.” Maryland also has very strict laws governing the carrying or transportation of firearms, rarely issues concealed carry licenses under its discretionary “need-based” licensing regime, and does not recognize any out-of-state carry licenses. It has also aggressively pursued gun control recently, resulting in a sweeping law that includes gun bans, licensing, and registration. This, in turn, has sparked multiple lawsuits, some of which have already been settled (see ILA’s January 2014 Legal Update for more information).

    How these factors may have interacted in this incident is unclear, but at the very least, the Tribune‘s report raises serious questions about how records indicating a person is a gun owner might lead to unwarranted suspicion and discrimination, even in the absence of wrongdoing.

    As for John Filippidis, he remains shaken, humiliated, and unsure about whether he even wants to keep his concealed carry license. “I’ve never been in any kind of trouble,” he told the Tribune. “[The officer] wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen?”

    We’re wondering that, too, and we will certainly be interested in any explanation that might arise from MTAP’s investigation into the matter.

    In the meantime, the Tribune‘s article appears to be a cautionary tale as to why gun owners should be highly suspect of “universal background checks” and other initiatives that promise to create records of their ownership or involvement with firearms, however innocent or legal. As ideological and political attacks on Second Amendment rights continue, even great caution and compliance with the law will not necessarily spare gun owners grief for exercising their rights.


  • CuHomo: Pro Gun, Pro Family Conservatives Have “No Place in New York State”

    CuomoUrinalSticker

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo says the current “schism” in the state Republican party is a smaller version of the split causing so much damage in Washington, D.C., and that “conservative Republicans … have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

    In conversation with Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom” Friday morning, Cuomo said:

    You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

    … You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

    If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

    The governor’s suggestion that, for example, those who hold anti-abortion views have no place in the state prompted Dennis Poust, spokesman for the state Catholic Conference, to observe on Twitter, “My governor thinks there’s no place in NY for people like me. Can I get a state grant to relocate?” (And where to — New Hampshire, maybe?)

    Read More…


  • Harvey Weinstein and Meryl Streep – New Movie to Make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’

    Movie producer Harvey Weinstein announced for the first time on Howard Stern’s radio show that he is making a full feature drama to try to destroy the National Rifle Association.

    Mr. Stern asked Mr. Weinstein on Wednesday whether he owned a gun. The Hollywood heavyweight replied that he did not and never would. “I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it,” the producer said. “I think the NRA is a disaster area.”

    Mr. Weinstein then revealed his secret project about the gun rights group. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,” he said. “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”


  • NYSRPA Exposes Anti-Gun Rochester, NY Mayor for Having Armed Bodyguards (Bloomturd II)

    Lovely Warren

    Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren’s decision to surround herself with an
    armed security detail 24/7 demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the
    citizen disarmament movement.

    As a long time supporter of gun control dating back to her time in
    the Rochester City Council, last year she spoke out in favor of New
    York’s so-called SAFE Act stating:

    “The New York SAFE Act brings a sense of comfort to many families
    across this state. Those families, like mine, have said not here, not anymore.”

    Read More…


  • Chicago’s Firearm Transfer Ban Falls to Second Amendment Ruling

    Things are looking up for gun owners in Illinois. On Monday, as some 4,500 concealed carry applications flooded the state’s online portal on its first full day of operation, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the Northern District of Illinois issued a significant opinion that invalidated Chicago’s ban on firearm sales and transfers within the city. The suit was brought by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers and three individuals, with the backing of NRA.

    The Chicago transfer ban was part of a series of ordinances the city hastily enacted after its total ban on handgun possession was invalidated by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2010 opinion in McDonald v. Chicago. Chicago’s crusade to be the nation’s most oppressive jurisdiction for gun owners has yielded other important victories for the Second Amendment. These included the Seventh Circuit’s holding in 2011’s Ezell v. Chicago that Chicago’s ban on discharge (notwithstanding its requirement that residents obtain live-fire training as a condition of owning a gun in the city) was unconstitutional. Other aspects of the city’s wide-ranging gun control regime have been whittled down in response to litigation and the broad preemption provisions of Illinois’ recently-enacted Firearm Concealed Carry Act (the result of yet another successful Second Amendment case in the Seventh Circuit, 2011’s Shepard v. Madigan). The transfer ban remained, however, a symbol of the same political denial and impudence that have ironically helped move the Second Amendment needle in the right direction through litigation time and again.

    The ordinance at issue flatly stated: “no firearm may be sold, acquired or otherwise transferred within the city, except through inheritance of the firearm.” Chicago attempted to justify the ordinance by, among other things, pointing out that residents could obtain firearms outside the city’s borders. The city also insisted that the ordinance increased the “transaction costs” of the firearms trade, making the acquisition of firearms by criminals more expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous (because they would have to travel through high-crime areas infested by rival gangs to buy guns). Chicago additionally claimed gun stores “are dangerous in and of themselves and cannot be safely regulated.”

    The court called Chicago’s argument that it could ban firearm sales, as long as guns were available elsewhere, “profoundly mistaken.” “Second Amendment rights,” Judge Chang wrote, “must be guaranteed within a specified geographic unit–be it city or state.”

    The court also determined that the restriction had to pass a high level of scrutiny (although not quite “strict scrutiny”), because the type of regulation at issue was unknown to the framers of the Second Amendment and because it broadly prohibited even law-abiding Chicagoans from exercising an essential component of the rights protected by the Second Amendment–the acquisition of firearms. Regarding Chicago’s purported justification of increasing transaction costs, the court noted that the evidence showed few criminals actually purchase firearms directly from legitimate dealers. Thus, “residents who seek to legally buy a gun bear more of the share of the added transaction costs in time, effort, and danger than gang members or would-be criminals ….” The city, the court wrote, “cannot justify its ban on legitimate gun sales and transfers with overinclusive means that impact more law-abiding citizens than criminals.”

    Examining another Chicago claim that the ban helped maintain the city’s “low household gun-ownership rate,” the court opined: “It is … doubtful that minimizing household gun ownership is, after Heller and McDonald, even a valid basis for gun regulation: possession of a gun for self-defense in the home is the core right protected by the Second Amendment, so trying to minimize the exercise of that right cannot be a valid basis for the sales-and-transfer ban.”

    Demonstrating the importance of proper scrutiny, the case was distinguishable from other recent opinions applying only “intermediate scrutiny” (for example, the recent opinion largely upholding New York’s SAFE Act) by its insistence that the city do more than just produce “expert” opinions claiming the restrictions could inhibit crime. Rather, the court refused to ignore the effects the restrictions also had on law-abiding residents and legitimate activity. According to Judge Chang: “If the City is concerned about reducing criminal access to firearms, either through legitimate retail transactions or via thefts from gun stores, it may enact more appropriately tailored measures.”

    Because Chicago does not otherwise regulate firearm sales, the court, on its own initiative, stayed the effect of its judgment so the city could decide whether to appeal the case or pursue legislative remedies through more narrowly-tailored regulation. The city was given until January 13 to request an additional stay.

    Besides paving the way for lawful firearms commerce in Chicago, Judge Chang’s decision also shows the possibilities of a court taking the Second Amendment seriously. We will closely follow this case and continue to keep you informed of significant developments.


  • CuHomo’s Consolations May Not be Enough to Overcome SAFE Act Resentments

    In January 2013, the state Legislature passed a series of strict gun
    control laws known as the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms
    Enforcement Act, spurred on by Gov. Cuomo’s desire to make New York
    the first state in the nation to pass such a measure after the Sandy
    Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

    To say that the law met with criticism in the north country would be
    a major understatement. Unlike any other legislation in recent
    memory, it galvanized residents across the region into action. With
    bus tours, informal gatherings and county legislature meetings, they
    met in opposition to the law, which they said unfairly restricted
    their Second Amendment rights.

    Opponents of the law pledged to vote against Gov. Cuomo during his
    re-election bid and against any politician who voted for the SAFE Act.

    And no amount of tax-cutting or economic proposals are going to
    change the minds of those voters when they enter the booth in
    November, Mr. Chartock said.

    The most politically salient point in upstate New York?

    “It’s guns number one, not taxes,” Mr. Chartock said.

     

    Read More…