Feinstein’s actions predictable

According to the Huffington Post, Diane Feinstein is trying to block the reciprocity bill:

“… Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a “race to the bottom” in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States … “Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) …”

She’s just trying to capitalize on the Martin-Zimmerman shooting.  I don’t see anything new here.

“… In putting a hold on both bills, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012,” and the “Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012,” Feinstein is denying them the easiest avenue of passage: unanimous consent.  The hold does not eliminate the possibility of passing the bills through regular order, with 60-vote requirements to start and end debate.  But it’s unclear whether enough support actually exists in the Senate …”

Again, this is nothing new.  I don’t think anybody expected the bill(s) to be brought up without a fight.  It is worth noting they acknowledge the vote count is uncertain, which is not what Chuck Schumer has said in the past.

Pledge drive

The Brady Bunch is trying to get Congressmembers to sign a pledge to keep guns away from “dangerous people.” They also have a petition set up where citizens can sign a pledge not to vote for any candidate who violates the Brady’s set of principles.

Here is MSNBC’s report on it:

I don’t understand why they are going with this approach. The antis have never, ever had any sort of grassroots support or even widespread public support so who exactly do they think is going to sign their pledge? I’m going to assume they’re really just trying to collect some personal information for fundraising purposes because there is no way they’d ever get a large enough number of valid signatures to make Congress take note.

Mark Levin on Bloomberg

Mark Levin on Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to exploit the Martin-Zimmerman shooting to advance his antigun agenda.

Error occurred when trying to fetch the file using wp_remote_get(). A valid URL was not provided.

Bloomberg despised by NRA members

The Daily News sent a reporter to the NRA meeting and discovers that people do not like Mayor Bloomberg:

“… Members of the National Rifle Association, attending their annual bullet bash in St. Louis, took aim at Hizzoner on Friday for his bold campaign against illegal guns.  They called him a bastard, told him to mind his business and challenged his credibility.  And those were just comments fit for print in the Daily News …”

Considering some of the garbage the DN has run in the past, they could have run uncensored commentary on the front page.  It’s not as if New Yorkers would be offended.

After about a 15-20 phone interview with the reporter, all they ran was this:

“… Jacob Rieper, of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said Bloomberg has “zero credibility” on the issue of gun laws …”

The Coalition of the Oppressed

NRANews interviews the usual suspects from NYSRPA, ANJRPC and GOAL.

Impending Bloomberg FAIL

Mayor Bloomberg is having a press conference shortly down in D.C. on his latest attack upon our civil rights:

“Bloomberg will join the Rev. Al Sharpton in Washington D.C. Wednesday to announce a national campaign to repeal the controversial laws, which in general hold that a person has no duty to retreat when attacked … “I’m going down to Washington to try to, with other groups, explain to the country why these laws are a terrible idea,” Bloomberg said …”

There’s not many people who are even more detestable than Mayor Mike, but Sharpton is one of them.

The chances of this going anywhere is zero.

Daily News lies: Bloomberg far outspends NRA

The Daily News is continuing their series of hit pieces with today’s article, “National Rifle Association doles out $217,000 in campaign cash to New York politicians over past 9 years“:

“… Since 2003, the NRA has reported giving New York legislators and political committees $217,400 — the organization’s largest outlay over that period … Almost half of the donations in New York came in 2010, after the legislative defeat of a microstamping bill, which would have required bullet casings to carry unique markings, campaign records show … The NRA then splashed $92,500 to the state Senate Republican Campaign Committee weeks before the 2010 elections, when the GOP won back control of the chamber after two years on the outside …”

That’s a lot of money.  Surely, they must be buying a lot of influence with it, right?

Let’s see how much money has Mayor Bloomberg been spreading around.  If you go here and type in his name you get:

  • $500,000 to the NYS Senate GOP on 10/12/06
  • $500,000 to the NYS Senate GOP on 2/22/08
  • $50,000 to the NYS Assembly GOP on 5/13/08
  • $50,000 to the Bronx County GOP on 5/15/09
  • $75,000 to the Kings County GOP on 9/19/09
  • $50,000 to the Queens County GOP on 4/27/09
  • $50,000 to the New York County GOP on 9/22/09
  • $50,000 to the Richmond County GOP on 9/14/10

And this is just a partial list of contributions he’s made in New York alone.  Bloomberg has far outspent NRA trying to get his way and it has not been working.  The DN can easily find this information in the exact same place as the campaign contributions NRA has made.  They just choose not to report on it.

Then they move on to lobbying data:

“… The NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — whose officials refused to comment for this story — have also spent a combined $159,000 in lobbying in New York since 2009 …”

Nice, but Bloomberg spent $325,895 during the same period.

Money can’t buy you love

Posted over at State of Politics:

“Hidden in the depths of NYPIRG’s report last week on the record-breaking $220 million spent on lobbying in 2011 is the following eyebrow-raising fact:   Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization founded and funded by Mayor Bloomberg, dropped a whopping $325,895 on lobbying in 2010, ranking it 73rd on the list of top spenders in that year.  But last year, the group spent absolutely nothing.  And, according to records on file with JCOPE, it’s on track to spend $0 this year, too …”

$325,895 is a lot of money.  I don’t get paid anything from the R&P, I volunteer my time.  In spite of this we’ve consistently beat him and even got a win with CoBIS this year.  Funny how things work out like that, isn’t it Mayor Mike?

Romney way ahead

Mitt Romney has a big lead in the state according to the latest polls:

“… Fifty-one percent of likely New York Republican voters said they plan on voting for Romney, the Siena College poll found.  Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, took home 18 percent, while Rep. Ron Paul garnered 11 percent.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trailed with 6 percent …”

No surprises here.

On a crusade

The Daily News is joining in on Mayor Mike’s antigun crusade with a couple more articles, “Shot NYPD cops luckier than police first realized — suspect Nakwon Foxworth had assault rifle” and “A bill only vigilantes could love“:

“… Mayor Bloomberg urged New Yorkers who want curbs on guns tightened to call Congress and rail about the 40% of gun sales that take place with no background check.  “If you want to stop the carnage, that’s the only way that I know to do that,” he said.  He said callers should tell their congressman or senator that, “It’s time for you to stop listening to the NRA and start doing something.” …”

What the DN never reports on is that even people from NYC aren’t listening to Bloomberg’s call for action.  I cannot ever recall a single politician from in/around the City ever referring to receiving a flood of constituent calls/letters asking them to take action on a gun control proposal.

“… First of all, New Yorkers already have a legal right to kill if doing so is necessary to defend themselves and others.  They also have a broad right to use deadly force against intruders in their own house or apartment.  But when it comes to public places, they also have a so-called “duty to retreat” — to try to run away from an attacker, if possible, before trying to kill him.  [Senator George] Maziarz’s bill starts by rolling back the “duty to retreat.”  Instead, if someone “reasonably believes” they’re about to be killed or beaten to a pulp, they don’t have to back down.  They’re free to blow their attacker away …”

Bill Hammond does not know what he’s talking about.  New Yorker’s have a broad right to use deadly force wherever and whenever they feel it is necessary to protect their own life.  It is not limited to one’s home and you are not obligated in the way Hammond thinks to retreat from attack.  State law says:

“§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.  1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person …  2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating …”

Those three words are important just like “may issue” is under § 400.00.  I previously asked NRA about this and the (paraphrased) response was New York already has some of the best self-defense laws.  It’s not a “Castle Doctrine” as the wording is different and there is no clause about lawsuits by criminals against their intended victims, but from a practical standpoint it’s not an issue.