She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
- Rudyard Kipling
I am both lacking babe and man, and I do stride to claim my rights.
With Smith & Wesson at my side.
God made Man and Woman. Samuel Colt made them equal. A fact I am grateful for.
D.K.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Nice Tyranny There, Governor!
Now we have Governor Cuomo in New York admitting that if the public had been allowed to review the measure that became the SAFE act, it would have never passed!
From the Times Union:
He flat out admits the reason the "message of necessity" was used was to take advantage of immediate, emotion-driven momentum to get things done and to prevent public review that might kill that momentum in the light of day and with the time to think.
This is unbelievable. And refreshing. It is rare to see someone don the mantle of dictator or tyrant so openly. Usually they couch such ambitions in terms of promises to make people safe, promises of free stuff, open and free elections that are anything but, that type of thing.
I do believe this is the form American tyranny takes. Can't be so overt as to directly threaten rights in the open. Just hijack the legislative process and write your own rules for it since you own it. Once you've done that, everything becomes a "message of necessity" and make sure the People can't mobilize against you.
I am quite sure right now Governor O'Malley in Maryland is taking notes on what such wonderful ideas these are! Why have people come to pesky hearings and make their displeasure known when you can simply ignore them and do what you want.
Nice tyranny you have there, Governor! I sure hope something happens to it. Like the Courts and elections to right this egregious wrong.
Sadly, we're seeing a preview of our future. Here's hoping it can be stopped. I like freedom and rights. I don't want to change that to "I liked the freedom and rights I used to have.".
D.K.
From the Times Union:
“I think we did a great thing,” Cuomo told the Times Union Editorial Board on Monday. “Nothing like that will ever happen without a message of necessity.”and
Unless you call the vote when you actually have the vote, it’s shifting sands … It will never happen if you put it on the desk for three days. Well, from a process standpoint, wouldn’t it be better if you could do it and put it on the desk for three days? Yes! Yes, I believe that, and that’s why I’ve done fewer than anyone. But if say we’re going to be slave to a process requirement and not get really big things done, then I disagree with you.Another article here.
He flat out admits the reason the "message of necessity" was used was to take advantage of immediate, emotion-driven momentum to get things done and to prevent public review that might kill that momentum in the light of day and with the time to think.
This is unbelievable. And refreshing. It is rare to see someone don the mantle of dictator or tyrant so openly. Usually they couch such ambitions in terms of promises to make people safe, promises of free stuff, open and free elections that are anything but, that type of thing.
I do believe this is the form American tyranny takes. Can't be so overt as to directly threaten rights in the open. Just hijack the legislative process and write your own rules for it since you own it. Once you've done that, everything becomes a "message of necessity" and make sure the People can't mobilize against you.
I am quite sure right now Governor O'Malley in Maryland is taking notes on what such wonderful ideas these are! Why have people come to pesky hearings and make their displeasure known when you can simply ignore them and do what you want.
Nice tyranny you have there, Governor! I sure hope something happens to it. Like the Courts and elections to right this egregious wrong.
Sadly, we're seeing a preview of our future. Here's hoping it can be stopped. I like freedom and rights. I don't want to change that to "I liked the freedom and rights I used to have.".
D.K.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Transcripts from Tyrants #8: Steven F. McLaughlin - Ammo Registration
We're coming over the hump in this ongoing series to transcribe the "lack of sacred honor" among those who supported the NY SAFE act and its champions in resisting it. Here is part eight in this ongoing series with another video of Steven F. McLaughlin discussing the ammunition registration requirements.
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ammo registration. Already hearing from local gun shop owners. One of 'em, one of whom I've already heard from is the biggest gun shop owner in this area. He's already said, he was on the radio today, I've already gotten word: he's not gonna comply. He will not do these private sale, uh, background checks. That's him. I don't know what's going to happen across the state. I suspect, that these men and women, that adhere to and honor the 2nd Amendment of these United States, will also choose not to comply.
Dick's Sporting Goods may decide not to do it and they're a huge gun seller. There may be a lot of retailers that say "We're not doing it. We're not going to maintain the records. We're not going to go through the background checks 'cause we disagree with them", for whatever reason, and I'm not even arguing that is right or wrong. I'm just saying a lot of them are going to have objection to that and for 10 lousy dollars, they're just simply not going to do it. What do we do then? How do private sales take place if, en-masse, nothing happens. If, if all over the state people refuse to comply with this. What's our, what's our plan then?
Joe Lentol: Well, first of all, uh, licensed dealers may not want to participate in a gun show and that's their right. But this bill incentivizes them to do so by allowing them to charge a fee.
Steven F. McLaughlin: 10 dollars.
Joe Lentol: And there are some licensed dealers that will want to get that fee, and they can probably get a lot of fees at a gun show. So, so they'll be willing to participate. As far as the, uh, ammunition is concerned when you talked about the licensed dealers, again, I have to repeat myself: I believe that those folks are lawful citizens and they will comply with the law.
Steven F. McLaughlin: I'm not saying they will not, I'm not saying they won't comply. I'm just saying they may choose not to participate. But I think you misunderstood my question. In a private sale, as is not between family members, when I want to sell my gun to another assembly member. Uh, that would require a NICS check. Correct?
Joe Lentol: Right. Just like a gun show sale. It would be the same requirement.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Yes. Correct. But, we're not at a gun show. I want to sell it. I then need a NICS check and I cannot find a dealer, anywhere, to do it. None of the gun shops will do it, the major retailers have decided not to do it. It's not a gun show thing, it's just you're gonna bring a stop, virtually, to a lot of private sales that way, I think if they choose not to comply. Not that they're flaunting the law, they're choosing to not to participate. And we can't force them, can we?
Joe Lentol: No. We can't. No...
Steven F. McLaughlin: Is there any provision in there...
Joe Lentol: We can't force it...
We can probably rest assured there will be, uh, voluntary compliance because there is a fee involved and I suspect there are a lot of gun dealers who are gonna want that fee.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ya, I don't think they're clamoring for 10 bucks, Joe. With all the record keeping requirements that they're under right now. They're selling guns and ammo like it's going out of style. This 10 dollars doesn't matter to these guys.
Joe Lentol: I know if I was a dealer and it brings a customer into the shop that I'd wanna do that.
Steven F. McLaughlin: We'll see. I mean we will see what happens. I may be wrong but it's not what I'm hearing so far. Um...
End Transcript
Here we see an example of economic incentive in the mind of a liberal. The belief of, you dangle a carrot of a small fee through statutory force against the populace to pay it, that these businessmen and women will throw their doors wide open and stick their money-grubbing paws out for a ten-spot with glee with all the hapless sheep the State has herded their way.
Right....
I agree with Mr. McLaughlin. If the cost of the fee is greater than the record keeping costs, and if anyone who's been to a gun store will likely agree this is the case, it doesn't matter how many transfers they do, it will be a loss for them every time.
And a loss for the citizens of New York unable to even dispose of their property due to fee caps set in place by the State in total ignorance of economics.
And I believe that is exactly the purpose. To force these guys to disappears into more fee competitive states or to lock them in closets and safes, gather dust and become paperweights for their owners. To them, a gun locked away and unsold is a gun not "on the street".
I suspect Mr. Lentol has probably never run a small business on thin margins under huge regulatory burdens like a gun shop or a marina. Then maybe he might not be so eager to put words in their owners mouths.
D.K.
Video #8: Steven F. McLaughlin - Ammo Registration
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ammo registration. Already hearing from local gun shop owners. One of 'em, one of whom I've already heard from is the biggest gun shop owner in this area. He's already said, he was on the radio today, I've already gotten word: he's not gonna comply. He will not do these private sale, uh, background checks. That's him. I don't know what's going to happen across the state. I suspect, that these men and women, that adhere to and honor the 2nd Amendment of these United States, will also choose not to comply.
Dick's Sporting Goods may decide not to do it and they're a huge gun seller. There may be a lot of retailers that say "We're not doing it. We're not going to maintain the records. We're not going to go through the background checks 'cause we disagree with them", for whatever reason, and I'm not even arguing that is right or wrong. I'm just saying a lot of them are going to have objection to that and for 10 lousy dollars, they're just simply not going to do it. What do we do then? How do private sales take place if, en-masse, nothing happens. If, if all over the state people refuse to comply with this. What's our, what's our plan then?
Joe Lentol: Well, first of all, uh, licensed dealers may not want to participate in a gun show and that's their right. But this bill incentivizes them to do so by allowing them to charge a fee.
Steven F. McLaughlin: 10 dollars.
Joe Lentol: And there are some licensed dealers that will want to get that fee, and they can probably get a lot of fees at a gun show. So, so they'll be willing to participate. As far as the, uh, ammunition is concerned when you talked about the licensed dealers, again, I have to repeat myself: I believe that those folks are lawful citizens and they will comply with the law.
Steven F. McLaughlin: I'm not saying they will not, I'm not saying they won't comply. I'm just saying they may choose not to participate. But I think you misunderstood my question. In a private sale, as is not between family members, when I want to sell my gun to another assembly member. Uh, that would require a NICS check. Correct?
Joe Lentol: Right. Just like a gun show sale. It would be the same requirement.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Yes. Correct. But, we're not at a gun show. I want to sell it. I then need a NICS check and I cannot find a dealer, anywhere, to do it. None of the gun shops will do it, the major retailers have decided not to do it. It's not a gun show thing, it's just you're gonna bring a stop, virtually, to a lot of private sales that way, I think if they choose not to comply. Not that they're flaunting the law, they're choosing to not to participate. And we can't force them, can we?
Joe Lentol: No. We can't. No...
Steven F. McLaughlin: Is there any provision in there...
Joe Lentol: We can't force it...
We can probably rest assured there will be, uh, voluntary compliance because there is a fee involved and I suspect there are a lot of gun dealers who are gonna want that fee.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ya, I don't think they're clamoring for 10 bucks, Joe. With all the record keeping requirements that they're under right now. They're selling guns and ammo like it's going out of style. This 10 dollars doesn't matter to these guys.
Joe Lentol: I know if I was a dealer and it brings a customer into the shop that I'd wanna do that.
Steven F. McLaughlin: We'll see. I mean we will see what happens. I may be wrong but it's not what I'm hearing so far. Um...
End Transcript
Here we see an example of economic incentive in the mind of a liberal. The belief of, you dangle a carrot of a small fee through statutory force against the populace to pay it, that these businessmen and women will throw their doors wide open and stick their money-grubbing paws out for a ten-spot with glee with all the hapless sheep the State has herded their way.
Right....
I agree with Mr. McLaughlin. If the cost of the fee is greater than the record keeping costs, and if anyone who's been to a gun store will likely agree this is the case, it doesn't matter how many transfers they do, it will be a loss for them every time.
And a loss for the citizens of New York unable to even dispose of their property due to fee caps set in place by the State in total ignorance of economics.
And I believe that is exactly the purpose. To force these guys to disappears into more fee competitive states or to lock them in closets and safes, gather dust and become paperweights for their owners. To them, a gun locked away and unsold is a gun not "on the street".
I suspect Mr. Lentol has probably never run a small business on thin margins under huge regulatory burdens like a gun shop or a marina. Then maybe he might not be so eager to put words in their owners mouths.
D.K.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Transcripts from Tyrants #7: Steven F. McLaughlin - Proof They Want to Confiscate Guns
This is the seventh entry in this series on the NY SAFE act and the "debate" that leading up to it. This entry is the one that made the rounds on the Internet described the final intention behind the passage of such laws.
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: And Joe, I have in my hands here, uh, something that we received from the Senate, which is rejected Democrat proposals, uh, in this gun bill. And I don't if you've seen this or if you know these are there or not.
Joe Lentol: No. But we don't have our own list of rejected proposals that the Senate rejected. I don't have anything to show you.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ok. Alright. Then I won't address it then if you haven't seen it. I'll leave that one alone. Uh, ok. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. And, uh, Mr. Speaker on the bill.
Joe Lentol: And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to, uh, dampen the enthusiasm to compromise.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons. It absolutely has the ability to dampen a compromise. Mr. Speaker on the bill.
End Transcript
Here we see a rare glimpse of honesty in the true intent behind gun control from gun rights opponents. "Dampen the enthusiasm to compromise" will go down as one the great understatements in the history of New York gun control. Do people like Mr. Lentol honestly believe anyone is going to not fight such proposal tooth and nail after statements like that?
Here we see, again as we have so many times, the anti-rights meaning of compromise: "we won't take as much as we want...this time". If confiscation is your starting position is there truly any compromise from your opponent? Is it any wonder that as these proposals continue to be floated that the intensity of resistance to them only grows and for good reason?
Compromise is defined as both sides walking away from an outcome angry. Anti-gun people don't seem to understand that.
The time for giving is over. Hold fast.
D.K.
Video #7:Steve F. McLaughlin - Intent to Confiscate
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: And Joe, I have in my hands here, uh, something that we received from the Senate, which is rejected Democrat proposals, uh, in this gun bill. And I don't if you've seen this or if you know these are there or not.
Joe Lentol: No. But we don't have our own list of rejected proposals that the Senate rejected. I don't have anything to show you.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Ok. Alright. Then I won't address it then if you haven't seen it. I'll leave that one alone. Uh, ok. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. And, uh, Mr. Speaker on the bill.
Joe Lentol: And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to, uh, dampen the enthusiasm to compromise.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons. It absolutely has the ability to dampen a compromise. Mr. Speaker on the bill.
End Transcript
Here we see a rare glimpse of honesty in the true intent behind gun control from gun rights opponents. "Dampen the enthusiasm to compromise" will go down as one the great understatements in the history of New York gun control. Do people like Mr. Lentol honestly believe anyone is going to not fight such proposal tooth and nail after statements like that?
Here we see, again as we have so many times, the anti-rights meaning of compromise: "we won't take as much as we want...this time". If confiscation is your starting position is there truly any compromise from your opponent? Is it any wonder that as these proposals continue to be floated that the intensity of resistance to them only grows and for good reason?
Compromise is defined as both sides walking away from an outcome angry. Anti-gun people don't seem to understand that.
The time for giving is over. Hold fast.
D.K.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Hypocrisy Burns: California Schools Buy AR-15s for Student Defense
I thought having firearms on school grounds affected the learning environment, contributed to school shootings and "assault weapons" have no place near school grounds or yours/my hands? And that the NRA stating having armed individuals to defend students was the worst sort of nuttery this side of a Salem witch trial?
Apparently not in California.
An excerpt:
In response to a wave of gun crime across the country, particularly in Newtown, Conn., the police department for a California school district just outside Los Angeles has purchased 14 AR-15 rifles in efforts to protect its students.
Apparently not in California.
An excerpt:
In response to a wave of gun crime across the country, particularly in Newtown, Conn., the police department for a California school district just outside Los Angeles has purchased 14 AR-15 rifles in efforts to protect its students.
- Guns will be on school grounds to protect students.
- They will be available for "officials" to use. School resource officer? Teachers, perhaps?
- They said "AR-15s" and not "assault weapons". Apparently "official" use turns off their inherent evilness that the rest of use see.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Guns are the Redheaded Stepchildren
Going to take a quick break here between the transcripts of the NY SAFE act to expand on a thought I had previously.
My premise is this:
I believe guns are the only legal consumer product where their misuse by a minority results in restrictions on the lawful majority. Every. Single. Time.
Isn't that perverse? Really think about that for a minute.
If a person goes to a bar, gets drunk and is driving home in a <insert car brand here>, crosses the median and smashes into a family driving home and kills them all, we don't ban <insert car brand here> type cars because they were used to kill by a criminal.
If a person goes to a drug store, buys a pack of condoms, goes out and rapes a woman wearing one so as to not leave DNA behind, we don't ban the use of condoms by those who don't want a baby or a disease because they were used to rape by a criminal.
If a person goes to a liquor store, buys a bottle of booze, goes home, gets drunk and beats their spouse to a pulp, we don't hold the liquor store responsible and sue the maker of the brand of alcohol because of drunkeness and lack of impulse control by a criminal.
I could go on and I think you get the point. But not so with guns! If we applied the demands and punishments, and they are punishments against a culture that doesn't conform to a certain ideal of society, we would have the following:
All in the name of crime prevention, saving the children and a common sense, reasonable next, often good first, step that isn't perfect but given enough steps, it will be.
Admittedly, some products have become restricted as a result of misuse by criminals. Most notably Sudafed and other cold medicines since they can be used to make crystal meth. But, but, we don't restrict you from purchasing it other than limiting quantity at any given time. Nothing stopping you from going around town. You still have to present identification.
So I guess my outlandish list isn't so outlandish, after all. Perhaps over time, people will simply accept this as the price of "freedom" and feel good that they've prevented <insert future tragedy here>.
Some freedom.
D.K.
My premise is this:
I believe guns are the only legal consumer product where their misuse by a minority results in restrictions on the lawful majority. Every. Single. Time.
Isn't that perverse? Really think about that for a minute.
If a person goes to a bar, gets drunk and is driving home in a <insert car brand here>, crosses the median and smashes into a family driving home and kills them all, we don't ban <insert car brand here> type cars because they were used to kill by a criminal.
If a person goes to a drug store, buys a pack of condoms, goes out and rapes a woman wearing one so as to not leave DNA behind, we don't ban the use of condoms by those who don't want a baby or a disease because they were used to rape by a criminal.
If a person goes to a liquor store, buys a bottle of booze, goes home, gets drunk and beats their spouse to a pulp, we don't hold the liquor store responsible and sue the maker of the brand of alcohol because of drunkeness and lack of impulse control by a criminal.
I could go on and I think you get the point. But not so with guns! If we applied the demands and punishments, and they are punishments against a culture that doesn't conform to a certain ideal of society, we would have the following:
- Condom registration to track potential rapists.
- Liquor purchasing limits and stockpiling limits to ensure abuse or damage can be limited.
- Car operator licensing and testing to ensure safe operation. Whoops, have that one! How is that working out?
- Breathalyzer locks on cars to make sure people don't drive drunk.
- Mandated tobacco safety and danger courses including viewing an autopsy of a dead smoker so the dangers of tobacco are understood.
- Female dress codes so as not to provide temptation to those who might assault or rape them. After all, it is often said it is the gun's fault a criminal acted so it heinously must be the woman's fault a man lost control of his penis. Oh, wait, that one is being done in certain countries around the world because of that exact concern! Heaven forbid a man catches sight of a woman's ankle flesh. Who knows what might happen?
- A procreation permit before a couple can get pregnant to ensure they are of sound mind, gotten references that they would be good parents and gone through a State-approved parenting course.
- A fee and a waiting period before you can publish an article in the newspaper.
- An excise tax on computers to compensate libelled speech victims and pay for the harm they have suffered.
All in the name of crime prevention, saving the children and a common sense, reasonable next, often good first, step that isn't perfect but given enough steps, it will be.
Admittedly, some products have become restricted as a result of misuse by criminals. Most notably Sudafed and other cold medicines since they can be used to make crystal meth. But, but, we don't restrict you from purchasing it other than limiting quantity at any given time. Nothing stopping you from going around town. You still have to present identification.
So I guess my outlandish list isn't so outlandish, after all. Perhaps over time, people will simply accept this as the price of "freedom" and feel good that they've prevented <insert future tragedy here>.
Some freedom.
D.K.
Transcripts from Tyrants #6: Steven F. McLaughlin - On Collection of Gun Owner Data
This is my sixth entry in my ongoing attempt to document the shenanigans that occurred in New York in the "emergency" passage of their guns laws meant from prevent another Newtown.
This was all passed with the most thoughtful and reasoned of "debate". Well, reasoned from the side of people like the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin below.
Video #6: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin on Collecting Gun Owner Data
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, let me ask you a question about Federal law. In the ObamaCare legislation, there is a provision in there, it is Senate amendment 3276 section 2716 part C. Some people say it was put in there as a, uh, to quiet down the NRA but nevertheless, it is in there. And it says that the government cannot collect quote "Any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition". So by enacting this law, are we not then violating what is now Federal law?
Joe Lentol: I don't know. I think that relates to health care. I don't think it has anything to do with this.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely relates to gun control legislation because it says you cannot collect any information. Nothing to do with health care. Nothing. So...
Joe Lentol: You say that it outlaws our total licensing scheme if you wanted to, uh, (unintelligible)
Steven F. McLaughlin: No I can't say that because the law, this amendment is very specific in what it says. It says that the government cannot collect any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. It's very clear. So I'm just...
Joe Lentol: It is clear. It is clear that the Federal government doesn't choose to do that but it doesn't say anything about the states.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I'm just saying. So it's o.., you're saying to me, I didn't go to law school, but you're saying to me it's ok that New York state wilfully violate Federal law. Wilfully violate ObamaCare. Cause that's what's were doing.
Joe Lentol: I'm in favor of state's rights.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Doesn't answer the question, Joe. But, you're so, there's no legal, there's no legal answer to that just that you're in favor of state's rights? So, that's, that's ok with you, that we're ignoring that aspect of ObamaCare?
Joe Lentol: We're not ignoring it. It's just they haven't, uh, they haven't prevented us from taking that kind of action
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I suspect they will when that situation does arise.
Joe Lentol: There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the state to take different action that the Federal government. They've not, they've not prevented us from doing that by taking that power away from us.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely correct. We are allowed to take different action. I don't believe we're allowed to violate Federal law. But we'll see. Uh...
End Transcript
While I admire Mr. McLaughlin's attempt here to inform the NY assembly that their continued attempts at registration of guns and gun owners may violate Federal law, I believe his is incorrect. Based on my understanding, Mr. Lentol is correct that the law in ObamaCare relates to prohibiting medical professions from asking about or compiling records on gun ownership. And from all indications, it was put in there at the behest of the NRA due to publicized attempts by doctors to ask children about their parent's gun ownership or refuse patients if they refused to answer.
That being said, I find Mr. Lentol's respect for state's rights to be a weak argument. "State's rights" is often invoked to allow a state a path to interpret and violate the Constitution as they see fit when the Federal view is one they disagree with. Fascinatingly, most states that have strong abortion rights also tend towards strong gun control. It's almost like they want to kill on both ends of the life spectrum.
It's unfortunate that there's been no attempts to hold state's feet to the fire on 18 USC 926(a):
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Emphasis mine.
I would argue that any and all licensing or registration schemes are illegal as Federal law is binding on the States. Too bad no one has saw fit to press that argument forward.
After all, we don't require you to get a license before an abortion, go through a background check before you publish online or pay a fee to vote. All were found to be violations of the Constitution. I hope in time such schemes in New York and other states will fall for the same reasons.
Tomorrow I will get to the final set of videos for Mr. McLaughlin. That puts this halfway complete.
Thank you for reading!
D.K.
This was all passed with the most thoughtful and reasoned of "debate". Well, reasoned from the side of people like the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin below.
Video #6: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin on Collecting Gun Owner Data
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, let me ask you a question about Federal law. In the ObamaCare legislation, there is a provision in there, it is Senate amendment 3276 section 2716 part C. Some people say it was put in there as a, uh, to quiet down the NRA but nevertheless, it is in there. And it says that the government cannot collect quote "Any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition". So by enacting this law, are we not then violating what is now Federal law?
Joe Lentol: I don't know. I think that relates to health care. I don't think it has anything to do with this.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely relates to gun control legislation because it says you cannot collect any information. Nothing to do with health care. Nothing. So...
Joe Lentol: You say that it outlaws our total licensing scheme if you wanted to, uh, (unintelligible)
Steven F. McLaughlin: No I can't say that because the law, this amendment is very specific in what it says. It says that the government cannot collect any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. It's very clear. So I'm just...
Joe Lentol: It is clear. It is clear that the Federal government doesn't choose to do that but it doesn't say anything about the states.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I'm just saying. So it's o.., you're saying to me, I didn't go to law school, but you're saying to me it's ok that New York state wilfully violate Federal law. Wilfully violate ObamaCare. Cause that's what's were doing.
Joe Lentol: I'm in favor of state's rights.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Doesn't answer the question, Joe. But, you're so, there's no legal, there's no legal answer to that just that you're in favor of state's rights? So, that's, that's ok with you, that we're ignoring that aspect of ObamaCare?
Joe Lentol: We're not ignoring it. It's just they haven't, uh, they haven't prevented us from taking that kind of action
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well I suspect they will when that situation does arise.
Joe Lentol: There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the state to take different action that the Federal government. They've not, they've not prevented us from doing that by taking that power away from us.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Absolutely correct. We are allowed to take different action. I don't believe we're allowed to violate Federal law. But we'll see. Uh...
End Transcript
While I admire Mr. McLaughlin's attempt here to inform the NY assembly that their continued attempts at registration of guns and gun owners may violate Federal law, I believe his is incorrect. Based on my understanding, Mr. Lentol is correct that the law in ObamaCare relates to prohibiting medical professions from asking about or compiling records on gun ownership. And from all indications, it was put in there at the behest of the NRA due to publicized attempts by doctors to ask children about their parent's gun ownership or refuse patients if they refused to answer.
That being said, I find Mr. Lentol's respect for state's rights to be a weak argument. "State's rights" is often invoked to allow a state a path to interpret and violate the Constitution as they see fit when the Federal view is one they disagree with. Fascinatingly, most states that have strong abortion rights also tend towards strong gun control. It's almost like they want to kill on both ends of the life spectrum.
It's unfortunate that there's been no attempts to hold state's feet to the fire on 18 USC 926(a):
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Emphasis mine.
I would argue that any and all licensing or registration schemes are illegal as Federal law is binding on the States. Too bad no one has saw fit to press that argument forward.
After all, we don't require you to get a license before an abortion, go through a background check before you publish online or pay a fee to vote. All were found to be violations of the Constitution. I hope in time such schemes in New York and other states will fall for the same reasons.
Tomorrow I will get to the final set of videos for Mr. McLaughlin. That puts this halfway complete.
Thank you for reading!
D.K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)