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.

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.

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.

Transcripts from Tyrants #5 - Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets

This is the fifth entry in my ongoing series of posts to transcribe and document part of the process that lead to the debacle in New York on the passage of the NY SAFE act.  An act that basically was the next step in dismantling the 2nd Amendment in New York state and tightening the noose of serfdom around the necks of innocents.

Video #5: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, couple of questions for you and sorry if they seem a little nitpicky or, uh,  detailed but, uh, we didn't get this bill til very late last night and that's what happens when things get rushed through around here so we're not, we're kinda still digesting some of this.  So, uh,  a couple of questions for you.

Um, on the magazines being dropped, uh, the magazine limit being dropped from 10 to 7.

Joe Lentol: Yes.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Simple question is "Why?".  Why are we limiting  law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves in a home invasion by 30 percent?

Joe Lentol: I think the short answer to that bill is that, uh, if you have a magazine with only 7 bullets, it will limit the amount of people you can unlawfully kill. 

Steven F. McLaughlin: Well that's true.  It also would limit the ability to defend yourself, would it not, from people that are invading your home?

Joe Lentol:  Change the clip. (laughter)

Steven F. McLaughlin: Change the clip.  (laughter)  I'm sure the people who are under invasion will be thrilled to hear that.  Change the clip.  We heard a senator say that the other day on the radio.  Change the, change the magazine or change the clip and call the police.  That'll work great in rural Albany county or up in the Adirondacks where your nearest police may be 60 miles away.  So I don't think they'll be too thrilled to hear that response.

But, uh, does, you know I heard you say earlier,  "A part of thing we like is that there's increased penalties for criminals to illegally use weapons".  The truth is we already have penalties for illegal use of weapons, do we not?

Joe Lentol:  Yes.

Steven F. McLaughlin: And criminals being what they are don't seem to care too much about any penalty, that's why they are, by definition, criminals.  So I'm just wondering why we think that this is, after 600 failed gun laws apparently in this state, why this is the magic elixir that is suddenly going to get criminals to pay attention to a law?  

Isn't it kind of a fallacy to think that, and aren't we just infringing upon law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms?   And I'm not sure of what part of will not be or cannot or shall not be infringed is, subject to debate, or difficult to understand?  But are we not just infringing on the law-abiding citizen?

Joe Lentol:  No we're not, I think.  I think you're mistaken in that this bill has a two-pronged approach.  It raises the penalties for criminals, you're right about that.  And it also tries, as best we can, as a state, because you know, this province should belong to the Federal government but like other places in our law, they haven't acted.  So we believe it's up to us to lead the way.  

You know, the border of Connecticut is only a few miles away from the state of New York.  And I don't want, I for one don't want to wait for a tragedy like Newtown before we take some action to prevent it.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Right.  And I don't really want to wait for a potential tragedy of a home being invaded and losing a family because they o..obeyed this law, and only had 7 bullets in a magazine, when there were 2 or 3 animals coming in to do them harm.  So it cuts both ways.  Make no mistake about that.  It cuts both ways.  And it mainly impacts the law-abiding citizen.


End Transcript

I have to wonder what makes Mr. Lentol think that a criminal, being what a criminal is, will, as Mr. McLaughlin pointed out, suddenly obey a law on a magazine restriction?  This is the disconnect I have in trying to discuss issues with friends.  They seem to operate under the delusion that a law is a preventive measure by way of the penalties it imposes.  That the evil person, the criminal, faced with the prospect of a large fine, and perhaps months, years or life in prison, will decide "You know, they've bumped this up from a misdemeanor to a class C felony.  If I shoot this person and kill them, that new law is really going to do me in!  Time to take up knitting.".

And, always, in the Name of the Children.  Couched in that generic phrase "take action to prevent it".  What action, Mr. Lentol?  What insight do you possess that makes you think this will do anything but criminalize and punish the innocent?  Not children but their parents.  The people who work, pay taxes in the state and are the ones, whether you believe it or not, who elect you to represent, not oppress, them!  Not strip away their rights and limit their choices because you and the Governor know what's best for them.

Mr. McLaughlin is right.  What will you do if some law-abiding citizen, being the law-abiding person that they are, obeys this law and has their family hurt or killed as a result? 

I'm sure a New York husband will be thrilled, after emptying his gun into one invader attempting to defend his wife and daughter and then being caught by the other while "changing the clip" as Mr. Lentol puts it, to watch them rape her and then his daughter before his eyes, as animals are wont to do for sport, before slitting their throats and leaving his for last.  And then take his gun on their way out the door leaving a job well done for the arriving police called on 911 to admire.

And in your universe and that of Mr. Abinanti's, another legal, lawful gun owner will be responsible for letting a gun, perhaps a deadly "assault weapon" onto the streets.

But no one will demand this law be repealed to prevent such a tragedy except for men like Mr. McLaughlin.  Because such a scenario is the intention of the law.  And to blame the law-abiding for the scourge of violence committed these animals.

Just "change the clip", Mr. Lentol.  We'll remember that with the scorn you heap upon us.  I hope your constituents do too.  I hope they appreciate that if they only walk away with just scars and a bloody reminder that were unable to lawfully kill as many as necessary.  After all, how long before you make the killing of a criminal unlawful simply on the basis he or she wasn't offering sufficient harm and you used more than one bullet as Mr. Abinanti believes is enough?  That, of course, is the next step.  When we can read minds, we'll know how to deal with the criminals before they commit crimes and actually prevent them.

For now, I guess we'll just have to "change the clip" and hope for the best.

I'm not laughing, Mr. Lentol. I'm sure Mr. McLaughlin isn't either.

D.K.

Transcripts from Tyrants #4: Steven McLaughlin - The Reason for the NY Gun Law

This is the fourth in a series of posts documenting the passage of the NY SAFE act, crafted on an "emergency" basis and filled with long, thoughtful, rigorous "debate" before its late night, hour's warning passage.

Now I turn towards one of the good guys, in my opinion, to the Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin.  He is quite articulate in laying out what is wrong with this law and is opposed to its passage.  There are five videos total.  Like with the previous transcripts from the Honorable Thomas J. Abinanti, I will do the excerpted videos first followed by the complete video and transcript of his closing statement.

This is also a video where you get to hear some more statements from Joe Lentol, the chairman and sponsor of this law.

Video #4: Steven F. McLaughlin - The Reason for the NY Gun Law

Begin Transcript

Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, so far, there's earlier in the debate, 57 sections of law that were amended, right?  Plus various chapter, uh,  amendments.  So we've got some issues with this bill already which I think speaks to why we don't rush things or why we should not rush things.  Would you agree with that or not agree? I mean if, do you think this law as it is written right now is complete?

Joe Lentol: I agree that in a perfect world we should have extended hearings, and we should try to have as perfect a piece of legislation as can be had on the books.  I also believe that when we have a pile-up of events like what happened in Wisconsin and Aurora and then it strikes close to home in Newtown, Connecticut, that, uh, this cries out for action.  And if the Federal government is not going to do, as I said before, then the state of New York has to one again, like it has in the past, lead the way.

Steven F. McLaughlin: So but there is no indication that the Federal is not going to take action, they are in fact, on the verge of taking action shortly.  Was this not just a rush to get something done so that we could have bragging rights across the state because clearly there's a lot of problems with this bill that could have been taken care of before printing this a couple of hundred times, rolling it out to the population of New York under cover of darkness without the details being hashed out.  This is like half-cooking the meal and then everybody gets food poisoning from it because it's not done correctly.  There's a lot that could have been done.

Joe Lentol: The Governor is trying to save lives and I have to commend him for that.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Well let's talk about that.  Let's talk about saving lives.  As my colleague pointed out, 769 homicides, which have been dropping year after year after year.  Now I know next year when they drop again, people will talk about how this ban did it.  It won't have anything to do with it, hardly, because only 5 were caused by long guns.  Long guns.  Not assault rifles, may have been 5 at maximum, might have been 2, might have been 1, might have been none.  We don't know.  But it was 5. 

So if this is about saving lives, why aren't you going after handguns, which are by and large overwhelmingly the problem and overwhelmingly the weapon of choice among gang members?  Why not?  Doesn't that sort of lack a little bit of integrity to going after point f..., (Lentol interrupts) hold on...

Joe Lentol: We are going after handguns.  I, you know, we are going after handguns.  We've done that before and we're doing it again in this bill. 

Steven F. McLaughlin:  What handguns?

Joe Lentol: We've made it a C violent felony to have a handgun in the state of New York.  

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Illegally.

Joe Lentol: Illegally.  

Steven F. McLaughlin:  Yeah.

Joe Lentol: Isn't that what you're talking about?

Steven F. McLaughlin: So you think that the criminals are going to pay attention to that now it's a class C felony?

Joe Lentol: So what do you wanna do? You wanna make it...

Steven F. McLaughlin: I, I'm simply saying that you're making the point that you wanna save lives and if you were truly interested in doing that, you'd be having an argument about banning all weapons, number one, which I don't agree with, but you'd be having that argument...

Joe Lentol: (laughter)

Steven F. McLaughlin: That would, yeah,  that would, that would be an actually valid argument to have that we should ban all weapons, be a complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, but apparently that's trivial any more.  

But what I'm saying here is, it, it lacks a little bit, or it smacks a little bit of grandstanding to say that we're gonna to go after these assault weapons, which cause statistically across the nation and it's the same holds true in New York, assault weapons are used in one-fifth, point two percent of all violent crimes and in about 1 percent of all gun crimes.  1 to 7 percent of all homicides in the US are caused by assault weapons.  So don't kid yourself that we're going after the real issue here because we're not.  (shrugs).

Joe Lentol: There's nobody grandstanding here especially not the Governor.  Um, you know, I agree with you.  I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm gonna surprise you.  I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment.  I believe that, uh, in the Constitution.  I also believe in the preamble that I won't read.  But more importantly, we have to remember the Constitution was amended back when they used muskets.  Ok?  With one shot being able to be fired by a musket and then you had to reload.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Yup.

Joe Lentol:  Remember that?

Steven F. McLaughlin: I absolutely do.  Do you know why?

Joe Lentol:  Remember that because...

Steven F. McLaughlin: Because that was the state-of-the-art weapon of the day, Joe.

Joe Lentol:  That's right.  Our Constitution has to expand.

Steven F. McLaughlin: Gotcha.

Joe Lentol:  As the times call for it.

Steven F. McLaughlin: So the Constitution was also rented, written and distributed on a printing press so are we saying we should limit the freedom of speech, because you know, the Internet and text messaging and everything else, that's just not what they intended.

Joe Lentol:  Supreme Court of the United States renders decisions every day that interprets the Constitution and expands its applicability to, to today's times. 

Steven F. McLaughlin: Oh, you're right and they've ruled three times now, that the right of the people to defend themselves cannot be infringed.  Which I believe is exactly what we're doing.  I believe this is just arbitrary...

Joe Lentol:  There's  (inaudible) in the 2nd Amendment

Steven F. McLaughlin: Why did we not come up with a 5 round limit or a 2 or a 1.  Why 7?  What's the magic number there at 7?

Joe Lentol:  The Governor proposed 7, we thought it was reasonable and so did the Senate.

Steven F. McLaughlin:  I'll be back.

End Transcript

The contrast between Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Abinanti to be quite striking.  I prefer Mr. McLaughlin's speaking style. I also find Mr. Lentol's body language and demeanor to be condescending, like having to deal with this issues is a foregone conclusion and pesky questions such as raised by Mr. McLaughlin need to just go away.

Mr. McLaughlin gets in some good points and I find Mr. Lentol's tone with him to be offensive.  As the Governor's spokesman apparently, Mr. Lentol sees no limit on restricting the 2nd Amendment since apparently that particular amendment needs to have a limited interpretation to deal with modern times but the 1st Amendment is perfectly fine to expand beyond the printing press. 

This is the problem I find with a liberal reading of our rights.  Depending on what you believe in, you favor expansion on one side and contraction on the other.  This isn't political thermodynamics here.  These are our rights.  How can I have an expansive reading the 1st Amendment in keeping with technical advances, keep the 2nd Amendment mired in the 18th century because clearly it was too dangerous to allow modern applicability and find for a right to abortion, which while I gratefully  agree with it, exists in the shadows and penumbras of the Constitutional text and requires special insight to divine.  And yet we protect that unwritten right more than for someone like me to protect myself from harm.  All because men like Joe Lentol feel 7 rounds is perfectly adequate.

Oh well, at least he's not Thomas J. Abinanti, who feels one shot is perfectly fine.

Here's hoping you don't miss.

D.K.