Schneiderman’s public relations stunts
Eric Schniederman sent out a glowing presser yesterday touting the “new” procedures gun show operators will follow in the state:
“… “Gun violence is everyone’s concern, and I’m proud that we’ve worked with gun show operators to create simple procedures to ensure that deadly weapons don’t make it into the hands of felons, terrorists, the dangerously mentally ill, or anyone else who could not pass a background check,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “These procedures are unique to New York State and represent the first time law enforcement and gun show operators are working together to eliminate illegal gun sales. Since most people who operate and attend gun shows are law abiding citizens, my office has had nothing but positive responses to these new safety standards.” …”
Sounds serious doesn’t it? Serious, unless one bothers to actually find out what these new procedures mean. Schneiderman, of course, was counting on the media not to do that, which they didn’t, except for one inquisitive reporter for the NY Times who asked my opinion:
“… Jacob J. Rieper, the vice president of legislative and political affairs for the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, suggested the new changes were largely cosmetic. “The only new procedure in place at the last gun show I went to consisted of a single white piece of paper taped onto each dealer table that said a NICS check was required for sales,” Mr. Rieper said, referring to the background check. “That’s it. No doubt countless lives will be saved because of it.” …”
This isn’t Schniderman’s only recent PR stunt. He’s also written to the NFL commissioner to express his concern for gay football players.
An NRA-ACLU partnership
There is an excellent op-ed at FoxNews titled, “The five minute NRA speech that would change the gun control debate forever,” where the author suggests the NRA partner with the ACLU to find solutions to the mentally ill going on violent rampages.
NRA should seriously consider this. It would be a vast improvement from that godawful press conference they gave after Newtown.
Think of the children
Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal cares about the children:
I just intro’d bill to prevent kids under 12 from going to gun shows.Kudos to @agschneiderman for agreement on Model Gun Show Procedures.
— Linda B. Rosenthal(@LindaBRosenthal) March 14, 2013
She just doesn’t care enough about them to do something about the 1 in 3 students who don’t graduate from schools in her Manhattan district.
Bloomberg planned to exploit tradegy
Politicker reports that Mayor Mike planned ahead of time to exploit the next tradegy:
“When the smoke cleared at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in the wee hours of a Friday morning last July, 12 people were dead, 58 were injured and Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in New York, readying an assault of his own. The campaign that Mr. Bloomberg and his “gun team” came up with in the hours and days after Aurora involved carpet-bombing Washington with millions from the mayor’s immense fortune and a media blitz that would be deployed following the next massacre … The next time a tragedy like Aurora went down, he would be ready …”
This isn’t a surprise, but it does tell a lot about Bloomberg’s character. Instead of trying to figure out about how to best prevent such mass killings, his main concern was how to exploit them in order to advance his political agenda.
Fred Dicker slams Cuomo spokesman
Fred Dicker rips into Gov. Cuomo’s secretary Larry Schwartz on his radio program yesterday.
Error occurred when trying to fetch the file using wp_safe_remote_get(). A valid URL was not provided.
Trading votes?
Did Senator Tim Kennedy trade his antigun vote for promised economic support?
“… Kennedy said that he would never support an anti-gun bill, but, since then, he has done just that. After 30 minutes of discussion, Kennedy’s assistant admitted, “WNY is in need of economic assistance. That assistance needs to come from Albany and, sometimes, it is not possible to support all of the interests of all the constituents.” Does that mean that Second Amendment rights have been traded for local economic support? …”
Good question.
More attacks upon SAFE
More attacks upon the SAFE Act, legislatively and administratively.
First, the legislative attack, “Budget Resolution Takes Aim At New York’s SAFE Act“:
“Senate Republicans and their governing partners in the Independent Democratic Conference appear to be targeting New York’s new gun control measure with their one-house budget resolution … Specifically, the resolution would deny Gov. Cuomo’s proposal to provide $3.2 million in funding to the state police “for personal service and contractual services related to the implementation of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (NY SAFE).” The resolution also seeks to strip $32.7 million in capital funding related to the development of a pistol permit database by the State University of New York …”
The Left often uses this strategy to attack programs it doesn’t like. I’m not optimistic it will work here as I don’t think the Republicans have the balls to stand firm on the issue.
Second, the administrative attack, “VA won’t abide by reporting provisions of SAFE“:
“The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs said it will not comply with New York State’s new law requiring mental health providers to report potentially dangerous individuals to state authorities … Mark Ballesteros, spokesperson for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said that the U.S. Constitution forces his agency to follow federal law, not New York’s new rules. “Federal laws safeguarding the confidentiality of veterans’ treatment records do not authorize VA mental-health professionals to comply with this NY State law,” he said in an emailed statement …”
This is what happens when the authors of the bill (Cuomo’s office) don’t bother to do due diligence on the issue. There is a reason for the requirement that bills “age” before they can be voted on, a requirement Cuomo got around by (mis)using a “message of necessity.”
Media tries spinning Cuomo’s approval drop
The media is trying to spin Gov. Cuomo’s plunge in the polls:
“Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s job approval has fallen to 54 percent – the lowest point since he took office in 2011 – but broad support for his agenda remains among New Yorkers, a Siena College poll released this morning found … If anything, the poll affirms that Cuomo spent considerable political capital on forcing the gun control law through the Legislature …”
How could his gun control agenda have “broad support” if his approval rating dropped 20 points since December?
“… Support remains for the SAFE Act, which was passed in January and updated the state’s assault weapons ban and limited the number of rounds in a magazine from 10 to seven. The law has become a flashpoint for gun-rights advocates across the country … The measure has been the subject of several pro-gun rights rallies at the Capitol and a handful of Republican lawmakers in the Senate are pushing for “repeal and replacement” of the law’s key provisions. Also, a steady stream of local governments – all of them upstate – have passed resolutions calling for Albany to ditch, or at least rework, the new gun law. Despite all this upheaval, the SAFE Act remains popular with New Yorkers, according to Siena’s numbers. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed say they back the law, down from 65 percent last month. Repeal of the law is opposed by a margin of 56 percent to 40 percent …”
Just about every county from Rockland north has either passed a resolution condemning SAFE or has one pending so where are they getting these numbers from? If you look at the two gun questions Siena asked neither of them accurately describes what the law actually does:
Q.17 New York’s Governor and Legislature recently enacted the toughest gun control law in the country. Do you support or oppose the state’s new gun law?
Q.18 Some have said that the state’s new gun law was passed in haste, without enough time for careful review or to gage whether or not there was public support for the new law. They point to the fact that the Governor and Legislature have already admitted that corrections to the new law need to be enacted. Supporters say the law was long overdue and was needed. Which of the following two statements comes closest to your opinion: The law was rushed through without adequately considering public opinion and the effect the law would have, OR the law was needed and while passed quickly was the right thing to do.
This poll is garbage and the media is doing their best to pooh-pooh the issue as if it doesn’t matter.
Moonbattery on the march
Some exceptional antigun craziness on display this past week.
Diane Feinstein thinks it is legal to hunt people:
“… “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons,” Feinstein said. “The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices — those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines …”
Diane, where exactly is it legal to hunt people and what is the bag limit?
Russell Simmons thinks it’s wrong for NRA to hire black people:
“… Just recently, the NRA has placed their bulls-eye on the heart of Black America with their new advertisement starring some black guy with a Yankees hat! … I find the message of this new video by the NRA deeply troubling, where the guy in the Yankees hat is advocating that our people arm themselves and fight the government (all under the banner of the NRA). Quite hypocritical of them, as during the Civil Rights movement, when the government was overtly oppressing our people, the NRA was quick to pressure legislatures across the country to get the guns out of the hands of the Black militants who were ready to fight back …”
Russ, ever hear of the Deacons of Defense or their affiliation with the NRA?
Gabby Giffords’ husband purchases a gun they are trying to prohibit:
“… Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws … In February, Kelly told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that lawmakers need to address “assault weapons.” He said the purpose of an “assault weapon” is “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” and he lamented that such products were “too readily available.” …”
Mark, you’re illustrating something, but not it is what you think.