Apparently, they are the first to firmly grasp the horns of the anti-gun Bull. While Democrats have avoided Gun Control since what's-his-name (you do remember The Loser Al Gore?) lost his presidential bid when even his home state of Tennessee voted against him, apparently Hillary has made it popular again.
No more is Gun Control the Kiss of Death for politicians. Maybe.
Fighting it out for the honor of being the leader in anti-gun legislation leading up to the 2016 election year are Charles Schumer and Martin O'Mally.
These guys are nucking futs! But their politics SOUND good, if you don't look too closely at what they actually say.
Gun Grabber #2: Charles Schumer -You may remember him as a past favorite of gun control-istas.
This Democratic Senior Senator from New York State has featured in the Gun Grabber Lexicon by his earlier legislation to circumvent the Second Amendment.
Here's what Chuck is doing this week:
Chuck Schumer Holds US Soldiers Hostage to Gun Controls Congress Hasn't Passed - Breitbart:
(November 03, 2015)
In a letter dated October 23, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked Secretary of the Army John McHugh to refuse to purchase firearms for soldiers from gun manufacturers who are not actively working on “smart guns” or complying with gun controls that Congress hasn’t even passed.From Breitbart (see link above the quote):
To understand the gravity of what Schumer is doing it must be noted that the Army, at this moment, is seeking a gun company to supply nearly $600 million worth of handguns for soldiers. This is a large procurement–with a large paycheck–which Schumer wants McHugh to dangle in front of gun manufacturers but refuse to award to any save those that comply with Schumer’s gun control agenda.In other words, Chuck wants to introduce "Political Correctness" into the process of military arms purchasing, to the detriment of the Military Readiness Stance of the United States.
Curiously, this Senior Senator from The Gun Free Zone State (see "Safe Act") is more concerned with looking good on paper than he is with fighting terrorism and protecting the freedom of Americans from enemies foreign and domestic.
New York's State Motto "Excelsior" (Latin: "Ever Upward") has two alternate English meanings:
- It may identify a material used in padding packages for shipping; a valueless, light-weight product which may be sacrificed to protect something more valuable to be shipped;
- In Printing, it is "a 3-point type: a size smaller than brilliant".
New York doesn't need to change its state motto, as long as Chuckie is on board. Low value, less than brilliant: 'nuff said.
Gun Grabber #2: Martin O'Malley -Martin O'Malley is a Democratic governor of Maryland, who is running for president of the united states of america. (Title in small letters, no caps, as O'Malley is a small-caps candidate).
If you look at the map, you could use a nine-iron to chip a Baltimore Hooker from Maryland to Washington DC. That seems to be Marty's goal, except his political goals may be higher ... and he is the hooker for the Gun Control Community.
Again from Breitbart:
Martin O'Malley Pledges 7 'Unilateral Executive' Gun Controls if Elected - Breitbart:
On November 3, Democrat presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley pledged seven “unilateral executive” gun controls he will enact if elected president. According to WMUR 9, O’Malley unveiled the gun controls in Keene, New Hampshire, at the“Gun Safety Actions Not Words Town Hall.” There he took the same approach Hillary Clinton has taken by promising executive action on gun control, but he far exceeded her in the amount of new gun laws he plans to implement with or without Congressional approval. For example, O’Malley’s seven gun controls are actually seven groups of gun controls which he plains to implement unilaterally.
- Require all firearms to have "hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced; Micro-Stamping of Ammunition fired from all firearms; Magazine Disconnect Mechanisms and "... other next-generation safety improvements.”
- Reject the "Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act", a federal law which protects firearms manufacturers against lawsuits for abuse of their products by retail customers
- Enabling, expanding and "strictly enforcing" existing laws banning gun ownership "for domestic abusers and stalkers, to disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence. Supposedly, this would include partners against whom a restraining order has been published ... which order requires no judicial action or review before being served.
- Banning "Cop Killer" Ammunition .. which is not defined, but we can only assumes includes the .30-30 caliber, 5.56mm, and other rifle caliber ammunition which may or may not defeat Level 1 ballistic armor.
- (quoted in full) *A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute. *(I have no idea what this means!)
- " [Require] the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes." Are these 'federal rules' published somewhere? And do they apply to people who live alone and have not children or other dependents in residence?
- (Please put down your coffee cup; do not snorkel on your keyboard!) "Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns."
As for that last one:
I'm not sure why, but that sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't there some kind of law, federal regulation, or ordnance which requires licensed dealers to adhere to existing BATF rules?
And what's this thing about ".. ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories... "
Can cops, or feds, FORCE people to sell their "inventory" if they revoke the dealer license?
And if the dealer license is revoked, how can de-frocked dealers "liquidate their inventory" before they become "unlicensed sellers"?????