A few weeks back I suggested Mitt Romney should avoid talking about gun issues.
He didn’t listen:
“… At a town hall here, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, in response to a question about gun control, “I have guns myself.” “I believe in the Second Amendment, I’ll protect the second amendment, I have guns myself,” Romney said today at the town hall meeting at Capital University. “Not going to tell you where they are. Don’t have them on myself either, alright.” …”
Senator Jose Peralta sent a letter to Gov. Cuomo asking that he including microstamping in the state budget.
I call BS on that:
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association would like to correct the gross misstatements made by Senator Jose Peralta in his letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding his proposed firearms microstamping bill S-675B.
First, there is not a single independent study demonstrating the technology actually works. Several studies, including those done by the Suffolk County Crime Lab in Hauppauge and the University of California, Davis, conclude the technology does not work. Sen. Peralta has no basis for claiming “microstamped characters have been shown to transfer perfectly up to 95% of the time.”
Second, Sen. Peralta’s bill explicitly states that “microstamp-ready” firearms must put unique codes on spent cartridge cases on at least two places. The one and only way to comply with this would be a total redesign of all pistols made over the past 120 years, assuming that is even possible as the only place to make the second marking is inside the chamber when the round is fired making it difficult, if not impossible, for a gun to function properly. Sen. Peralta’s statement that “microstamping may cost as little as $0.50 per gun” is equivalent to saying that pigs could fly if only they’d grow wings.
The microstamping proposal has been becoming increasingly unpopular in Albany over the years as evidenced by the decreasing number of legislators supporting it. People know it’s a fraud. Sen. Peralta is trying to pass a bill that cannot be complied with in order to effect a total prohibition on all new pistols sold in the state. He just does not have to courage to come right out and say that.
UPDATE: The Times Union noticed that people are posting their opinions on microstamping to his Facebook page and he responded with this:
A file won’t defeat microstamping technology. It might, however, render the gun inoperable.
There are two places where microstamps will be put on semi-automatic guns. The firing pin and the breech face. The microstamp itself is not visible to the naked eye. So, first of all, you need a microscope to see it on the firing pin. And even if you were able to do that, trying to file off or file down the microstamp would destroy the firing pin and the gun would be inoperable. The microstamp on the breech face is entirely within the structure of the gun and cannot be accessed without taking the gun apart. Again it would render the gun inoperable.
According to the Press & Sun-Bulletin, New York could be relevant in the GOP primary despite it’s late date:
“… Despite New York’s position at the end of the primary schedule, April 24, New York’s GOP chairs are beginning to think the state’s 95 delegates could mean a lot to candidates … The state’s impact on the race will vary depending on the outcomes of several primaries that are scheduled before it … There will be 15 more primaries or caucuses before New York gets to vote, including Texas, which holds the second-highest number of delegates, 155, and whose primary is tentatively scheduled for April 3. California has the most delegates at stake, with 172, and its primary is June 5. New York has the third most … most GOP leaders think the primary will factor into deciding the party’s candidate, if only because of a change in the system from previous elections. For this year’s primary, New York will no longer be a “winner-take-all” state. Delegates will now be apportioned among candidates on the ballot based on the voting results …”
I haven’t seen any polls yet, but I’d give Mitt Romney the edge in the state by a considerable margin.
The antigunners allies at ThinkProgress and Media Matters are claiming that the NRA’s endorsements don’t mean that much:
“… The organization’s stamp of approval, it is believed, not only sends a clear message to Americans who own guns, but brings with it indispensable grassroots organizing muscle that can make all the difference in House and Senate races … Many interest groups endorse candidates, but it is fair to say that few find their endorsements as eagerly sought as the National Rifle Association. And there may be a few races here or there in which an NRA endorsement has a meaningful impact on an election’s outcome. But it seems clear that those cases are few and far between …”
The antis are really getting desperate if they’re peddling this. If gun owner endorsements didn’t matter candidates would not seek them out. In just the past couple of weeks I’ve gotten:
- 3 fundraising invitations from incumbent state legislators
- 1 invitation to a re-election campaign kickoff for an incumbent state legislator
- 1 fundraising invitation from a Congressional candidate
- 1 request for a candidate questionnaire from a state legislative candidate
- 1 request for an endorsement from an incumbent county office holder
This is probably more love than the sum total all of the antigun groups nationwide have gotten from ’12 candidates thus far. The antis aren’t even talking about elections anymore. They’re in hysterics over the abject failure of their Starbucks boycott. This is why their legislative agenda is failing. Politicians don’t see the antis as being willing or able to back up their positions at election time.
The latest from Mayor Mike:
“… “The rate of suicide in New York City is almost half of what it is in the country on average,” he said. “And most of that comes from the difficulty in getting a gun … we have reduced the number of guns in the city, and I’ll tell you where it shows up. Health Department put out the suicide statistics yesterday. It turns out that an awful lot of people, when they want to kill themselves, reach for a gun,” continued the mayor. “And if they can’t get that gun, the thought goes away and they don’t kill themselves.” …”
As usual Bloomberg blames guns and ignores everything else:
“… It took only a moment for Andre Carrasco to get out of his car and jump to his death from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge last month. He was the second suicide on the bridge in a month’s time, and his niece wants the city to put up fences along the iconic span, to slow down anyone who might be next …”
Here is the press release announcing Governor Cuomo’s new “Comprehensive Initiative to Reduce Gun Violence.” It is significant for what is does and what it does not.
What it does is waste a bunch of money on vague, touchy-feely “community-based programs” along with starting a “state-wide advertising campaign focused on reducing gun violence.”
What it does not do is call for more gun control laws. Michelle Schimel has been asking Cuomo to put microstamping legislation in the state budget. Carolyn McCarthy asked him to come out in opposition to H.R. 822. He blew both of them off. That is not an insignificant thing. NYAGV cannot be happy with him.
Some advice for the antis, “Bloomberg: Gun Control Advocates Should Adopt NRA’s Political Tactics“:
“… “What you’ve got to do is take a look at your Congressman, your Senator, and say ‘Where are you? I’m not going to worry about everybody else. I’m going to work for your opponent unless you do what’s right to protect my kids and the cops on the corner who are putting their lives on the line to protect me,” Mr. Bloomberg responded when Mr. Gambling asked how voters are supposed to make a difference in such a complicated legislative body … Mr. Bloomberg then made the case that Washington legislators should face scrutiny no matter how bad their opponents are on gun control issues. “I’ll deal with your opponent when I get that man or woman when he gets into office,” he advocated voters tell their representatives …”
Good advice except for one, tiny problem: antigunners do not have a voting constituency. The organizations which represent them are largely just front groups for professional politicians and activists which are funded by large foundations including Joyce and Tides. They can’t turn out people to vote because they aren’t membership-based; they’re mostly astroturf.
The gun control groups don’t even talk much about impacting elections anymore. CSGV especially seems to be trying to morph into some sort of weird, peace, love, higher consciousness something-or-other. Whatever they’re going for it isn’t political. All of them seem in disarray as their money has been drying up in the aftermath of Heller and McDonald. The only one who is really getting involved with elections is Bloomberg himself and he’s making private donations out of pocket.
Mitt Romney has posted a position statement on guns.
He’s not putting anything on the table for gun rights activists. It’s just words with no substance. It won’t make him any new friends, but probably won’t make him any new enemies either.