Parment retiring

Bill Parment will not be running for re-election this year.  That means big game rifle hunting will likely be expanded to the county in the next year or so.

Loser Lazio

Rick Lazio has less than $700K in campaign account.  For a statewide candidate that’s pathetic.  On the positive side with no money he won’t be inundating the airwaves with annoying ads for the next couple of months until primary day.

Here is a good quote from Carl Paladino’s campaign which sums things up nicely:

“… “He can’t raise money, he has no message, his campaign is in disarray and it’s time for him to take a second look,” Paladino campaign manager Michael Caputo said of Lazio …”

All of which happens to be true.  Lazio is a joke and has been from the start.  There is no way the Republicans cannot have noticed this.  According to Fred Dicker they haven’t:

“… Many GOP insiders predict the hard-driving Paladino, who promises to spend $10 million of his own money and has strong ties to the highly motivated Tea Party movement, can beat Lazio in the primary …”

Andrew Cuomo is now even publicly entertaining the possibility Paladino will be his opponent as reporter Jimmy Vielkind notes over at CapCon:

“… “Jimmy, one of the opponents is a multi-millionaire who has said he can put his hand in his own pocket and spend millions of dollars,” Cuomo said … It’s interesting to me that Cuomo is now acknowledging Paladino may be his opponent in a general election …”

If they were smart, which is a very big if, the establishment Republicans would take a good hard look at the way Paladino is running his campaign.  Sure, he’s rough around the edges and no, he won’t appeal to all people, but at least he takes positions on issues and tries to organize people around them.  All Lazio seems to do is attack Cuomo.  I do not see him giving anybody a reason to vote for him.

Primaries

Carl Paladino gathered 28,000+ signatures which, assuming they withstand the inevitable court challenges, is enough to put him on the GOP primary ballot against Rick Lazio.  Lazio meanwhile is late in filing his July campaign disclosure report.  This race is starting to remind me of 1990 when the GOP put up Pierre Rinfret.

All five Democrat candidates for state AG have plenty of cash on hand which should ensure a nasty primary where they try to kill each other off.  If Eric Schneiderman goes down in the fight I’ll be happy.

Gun control donations

U.S. News & World Report had a posting on their site yesterday “Gun Rights Groups Out-Donate Gun Control Groups.”  Of note:

“… Individuals and PACs associated with gun control groups have given far less money this election, with $5,050 total. Over half of this money has come from one PAC–the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Voter Education FundKirsten Gillibrand has received the most gun control money, $3,300, followed by … Michael McMahon and Daniel Maffei … with $250 each …”

Add to this $250 from New Yorkers Against Gun Violence to Michelle Schimel last month.

If either of these groups had a real grassroots they would have been able to raise a whole lot more.  These are not large donations by New York standards.

Dennis Henigan on McDonald decision

Dennis Henigan is an insane man.  The Brady’s got their clock cleaned and no matter how they try to obfuscate the issue they lost big time.


A disaster for McCarthy, not us

Much teeth-gnashing from Carolyn McCarthy in the Times story, “Beyond Guns: N.R.A. Expands Agenda“:

“… “The last two years have been a disaster for us,” said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and a longtime advocate of increased gun control. “A lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.” …”

No, they are afraid of the voters who will come out and punish them if they support the antis agenda.

“… Ms. McCarthy said the group drew its power from its money — it has donated more than $17.5 million to federal candidates, mostly Republicans, since 1989, and spent millions more in lobbying — and the fear of political retribution …”

It’s not the money.  Never has been.  It’s the votes.  NRA has said in the past that around 25 million people consider themselves to be members even though actual dues paying membership is 4+ million.  I have an old media brochure I picked up at the ’08 NRA meeting which says “Polls show that between 10 and 15 percent of voters consider themselves an NRA member.” That is a substantial amount to bring to the table on election day.  The antis can’t claim anything remotely like this.

If their agenda was really that popular with mainstream America, the Brady Campaign would have as many members and supporters as NRA.  They don’t and it is reflected in Congress where McCarthy is pushed further and further out on the lunatic fringe.

Not a conservative issue

Some conservatives are upset over the possibility that the NRA may endorse Harry Reid for re-election.  Over at Red State Erick Erickson whines:

“…  these days I cringe when I see good conservatives with their lifetime member sticker from the NRA on the back of their cars …”

This may come as a shock to some, but the NRA is not a conservative group nor do conservatives own the gun rights issue.  This is especially true in New York where top ticket candidates Rick Lazio and Dan Donovan, both of whom have been endorsed by the state Conservative Party, are flaming antigunners.  I know Democrat party functionaries who are members of NRA and who support liberal candidates.  They are as much a part of the NRA family as the next guy and ought to be treated as such.

The NRA is a single issue advocacy group.  Like it or not Harry Reid has been generally supportive of gun rights during his tenure in the Senate.  I would not personally endorse him as I think he’s going to lose badly, but if NRA does go with him as a Patron Life Member I’m not going to get bent out of shape over it.

McCarthy pushing lost & stolen bill

In an attempt to appear at least somewhat relevant and justify her re-election bid, Carolyn McCarthy plans to introduced a bill requiring reporting lost and stolen handguns to the police.  According to her press release:

“… Straw purchasers often rely on the “I lost it and forgot to report it,” loophole to get off the hook. Lost or stolen handgun reporting would help seal that hole – with zero impact on responsible, law-abiding owners …”

This is part of the new strategy the antis have been formenting for some time, shifting to gun owner liability and lead/environmental issues.

If a persons gun is stolen, how exactly would her proposal make it easier for police to track down the criminal, prosecute them and return the gun to its rightful owner?  Answer: It doesn’t.

“… When police discover a handgun at a crime scene, it is usually possible to trace it back to an original purchaser …”

By her own admission, all police can do it track it back to the original purchaser.  Since Pataki’s 5-point plan New York has had a 24-hour reporting requirement and I have never once heard of it being used against someone for illegally buying firearms for a prohibited person.  Plus it is a crime to file a phony police report so a straw buyer can already be charged if they report the guns they bought were stolen.  Her bill does nothing more than create a new victimless  paperwork crime specifically targeted at someone who was the victim of a real crime by a real criminal.

Discussing microstamping

The sponsor of the Oneida microstamping resolution Councilman Michael Kaiser wrote a letter to the Oneida Daily Dispatch, “Micro-stamping issue should be discussed“:

“… A few weeks ago I received a mailing from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that advocates measures that they feel will help reduce crimes involving firearms. The mailing was seeking support for NYS Senate Bill S6005, a bill requiring micro-stamping capability on all semi-automatic handguns in New York State by 2012. I believe the other councilors and the mayor received this mailing as well …”

I knew Bloomberg was behind this.

“… I wasn’t familiar with the issue …”

This was his first mistake.

“… and wanted to learn more, so the first thing I did was read the bill … The bill is only four pages long and pretty straight forward …”

It is 4 pages long and pretty straight forward if you understand firearms technology and the mentality of the politicians pushing the bill.  This is the second mistake.  Did you notice it refers to making imprints on two places on each shell casing?  One can assume the firing pin would make the first impression.  Where’s the second one?  The bill doesn’t say.  The antis in the legislature think it would be done inside the chamber when the round is fired.  Seriously.

“… I did a little more research to try to understand the arguments supporting and opposing the bill by individuals and organizations on both sides …”

Google is your friend.  A search for “firearms” and “microstamping” would have brought up enough information to show the unproven science behind the technology and that the bill amounts to a defacto ban on new handgun sales in New York.

“… When the Oneida Common Council agenda was made public and the resolution item was listed, I began to receive e-mails and phone calls regarding the issue. I believe the other councilors and the mayor received them as well …”

Yep, that was me.

“… Most of the e-mails and phone calls were opposed to the resolution. I wasn’t surprised at the responses as I know people feel strongly about this issue …”

Third mistake, bringing up an issue you know is going to piss people off.  Not surprisingly it did.

“… Caitlin Traynor of the Oneida Daily Dispatch wrote an article on July 6th regarding the action, or lack of action, taken by the council at our last meeting on this issue. Caitlin wrote “Inaction by the Common Council sent a message in itself that city leaders do not support microstamp ammunition legislation.”  I disagree with Caitlin, who is a fine writer and reporter, on this point. I think the message from the council was “we don’t want to talk about this.” …”

I think the message was “we’re smart enough not to get involved in this.”

“… One councilor who told me in the morning that he would be voting for the resolution apparently changed his mind by the time of our 6 p.m. meeting …”

Good move.

“… Although I understand the politics involved, I’m disappointed that we didn’t get to discuss this issue, but I won’t be deterred from bringing issues of public policy to the council that I think are important and worthy of discussion …”

Assuming this is true, then he made the fourth mistake by making a conscious decision to insert himself into a political fight outside the domain of the Common Council.  This issue will come up again when he is up for re-election next year.