New York Restrictions

New York, New York!

This is potentially A Really Big Deal, in that both the state of New York and the Supreme court (pardon the alliteration) have both determined that it is necessary to review the rights of a State to infringe upon the rights of American Citizens to freely exercise their Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to jump back into the national debate over gun rights after nearly a decade on the sidelines.
The justices agreed to consider a petition backed by gun owners’ groups asking them to strike down New York City’s strict rules for carrying legally owned guns outside the home.

?  Is it just me, or have the Supremes finally chosen the RIGHT issue to rule upon the 2nd Amendment?

"They" (New York Politicians) don't trust you to exercise your Second Amendment Rights ... safely.

The Captain's Journal: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Gun Rights Case Stemming From New York Restrictions: "I don’t want to hear another damn word about gun safety."

(You REALLY need to read the context provided by The Captain's Journal to understand the issue!)

Here's the crux of the NYC explanation for increased infringements on the 2nd Amendment:

“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against,” their brief to the court said. “Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.”

Their argument against Citizen Ownership of Firearms follows the same old mantra:  ("if we keep honest citizens from owning guns, criminals will be denied access to firearms which are used to commit crimes".)

This is an obvious fallacy ... criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun.  Honest Citizens are "The Only Ones" who are ham-stringed by laws which make it more difficult to acquire the means of self-defense.

But I've said this before.  Haven't I?

NY Assemblyman: " Limit gun owners to one gun, one bullet"

"That does not repeal the Second Amendment!    It just makes it work for everyone."

[Video] NY Assemblyman Thomas J Abinanti: Ban guns with military origins, register all guns. - The Gun Feed: [Video] 

Um ... no.
That doesn't work to reduce gun violence; it only serves to impose arbitrary restrictions on the law-abiding ... who aren't part of the problem, but are part of the solution.

"Whether it's guns on the street, or people with mental problems ... " does a good job of defining the two most likely sources of gun violence; but doesn't address the question of how he plans to make these progenitors of gun violence abide by gun-control laws.

I challenge you to put more money into mental health facilities, rather than cutting the services which are out there today.

Um ... yes.   

Nobody doesn't think this is important, but even this doesn't shield us from people who are just evil, or politically motivated.    Or are just all "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This any More!"   Against these classes, there is no defense except retaining our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities.

As for the mentally ill, Psychologists and other mental-health practitioners will be the first to state categorically that it's impossible to predict when someone will reach his tipping point and rampage.

Which rather obviates his original thesis, which is that gun control can limit rampage.  It can't.

The criminals, the crazies, they will find a way.

And then you're all on your own, cursing the New York Assemblyman who has a plethora of ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocents, but knows better than to suggest a way to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers.

OH!  And about that ... if he REALLY want's to minimize firearms violence, he should be campaigning to impose the maximum sentence against those who commit violent crimes while in possession of a firearm.

Crooks understand "added time in prison".

Registration = Confiscation

Joe presents a frightening (and real-life) scenario illustrating exactly the reasons why firearms owners are so adamantly opposed to Registration:

Miss a deadline, lose your gun rights forever | The View From North Central Idaho:

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The state of New York wants to .....

This (click on the link above) logically feeds back to Universal Background Checks, where both the buyer and the seller are required under force of law to provide information (to either a state or a federal "clearing house") about both the firearm and the buyer ... and incidentally, about the seller as well.

The New York "SAFE" Act requires a level of reporting all details of an otherwise-legal transaction to the level where it's difficult to believe that the laws might have any other goal than to quell an otherwise legitimate firearms transfer between private citizens.

That the failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations will result in penalties which are not only burdensome, but would deprive participants of their civil rights "forever" ... not to mention the confiscation of private property ... makes it apparent that the goal is not to regulate, but essentially to ban legal transfer of firearms between private citizens.

It's a "Witch Hunt", where civil rights are abrogated and the possibility probability of prosecution because of a simple  misunderstanding may cause the imposition of punishments which are too drastic to risk.

The Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit any level of government to threaten private citizens for exercising their rights.   While the state of New York may smugly continue to brow-beat its citizens, it is unbearable for the rest of us to watch The Lawyers work their sneaky wiles.

The consequences of such a law are that both buyers and sellers will be disinclined to submit to the law.  Honest people may lose their property and their freedom because they have not done anything wrong, in their opinion, than to oppose an unjust and burdensome law.

Any law which will not be obeyed is not a law, but a cause celebre.

It's a publicity stunt, and New York State should be ashamed of itself for imposing such a burden on its citizens.

Big Brother is Your Doctor

Over 85,000 Secret Reports Made by Doctors to NYS Police Without Patients Notice:

Webster, NY –-(Ammoland.com)- Civil rights attorney Paloma A. Capanna today released the statistics on the NYS Mental Hygiene Law  [section] 9.46 secret reporting from 2013-2016, showing more than 85,000 reports made from medical providers to the NYS Office of Mental Health and the NYS Department of Criminal Justice Services.

This is why you don't want to discuss firearms ownership with your doctor.

(For a while, it was against the law in some states for doctors to lecture you about The Evil Gun.  New judicial finds have invalidated that law because your doctor's First Amendment Rights include his/her right to tell you how to live your life based on philosophical differences.)

Yeah, we're getting cranky about "Doctors and Lawyers" again.   Can you believe we PAY them for their interference in our private lives?

Thank G*D for ObamaCare ... he'll look out for you!

[Snark Alert!]

NY Dems Oppose Gun Show; claim it "...would promote a culture of violence..."

Democratic Lawmakers Send Gun Show Ban Bill to Full Board | The Examiner News:

The Northeast Gun Show would take place on Jan. 21-22 at the White Plains venue but the Legislation, Labor/ Parks/Planning/Housing and Public Safety & Social Services committees are sending a measure to the full board for its next meeting this Monday, Jan. 9 that would prohibit gun shows at all county-owned property, including the County Center. The lawmakers argued that hosting the show would promote a culture of violence and the glorification of firearms on taxpayer-financed property. “I, as one legislator, recognize the right to the Second Amendment,” said Board Chairman Michael Kaplowitz (D-Somers). “I don’t read in there the right to have a gun show at the County Center.”

The Distinguished Board Chairman, Michael Kaplowitz (Democrat, as noted) is is full fig at the outrage of renting out a building which would bring additional funding into the county.

He would much rather the structure remain empty and useless, than to host a (gasp!) "Gun Show at the County Center"!

!!!!

Horror of horrors, he can't have that!
'Chairman Kaplowitz' (Democrat) has designated himself the keeper of morals for his County.

Which is apparently in the Great State of New York.

Near White Plains.

(No, I never heard of the county either, but I have heard of White Plains, NY.)

Better that all County Properties remain empty and unused than host a GUN SHOW! (which, even if his constituents choose not to attend, would still provide a rental profit on an otherwise empty structure on County Property)


Failing a degenerate Gun Show, here is a list of things to do while visiting Sunny White Plains, New York!

• You can go see a Stage Show at the Westchester Broadway Theater
• And ... um ... here are another 365 things to do in Westchester County
• Or you can go to the trial of a man who tried to stab a Westchester County Police Officer

Or you can go to a Gun Show.

Oh ... wait.  That's completely Off The Books now, isn't it.

Well, I heard a rumor that the Westchester Theater is running a series of movies starring Paul Newman  and Robert Redford.  I  think I've see that movie.   Twice.

Apparently, White Plains isn't "That Toddling Town"  As long as it has Board Chairman Michael Kaplowitz (D-Somers)  taking care of the moral character of HIS county, White Plains will always have something to talk about while they're plucking chickens, (Or having a quilting bee.)

Both of which are probably activities which Kaplowitz approves of.

PS:   Here's a picture of a gun.  Don't let Michael know you have it!

Fisking the NY Daily News ... it's too much fun

The New York Daily News has its panties in a bind, and the resultant whining BEGS to be made fun of.  Why?  Because they're idiots, devoid of sense, and SCREAMING to be spanked on their naked butt-cheeks!

Not for nothing did the National Rifle Association pump $38 million into electing Donald Trump President and another $24 million to secure the grip of Republicans in the Senate.  Within grasp now looms a trophy long sought: federal legislation that would, if passed by Congress, extend the right to carry a concealed firearm in any one state, no matter how minimal the licensing standards, to all 50.

Here's the original article.   It's a rare screed which takes too much space to display the ignorance of the author:

But I'll do it anyway: one of my favorite things (besides kittens and mittens) is disemboweling New York Editorials.    It's a cheap shot but I don't feel guilty about pointing out the logical fallacies of East Coast Liberals.

Let us proceed with the evisceration:

The statements of the author of the NYDN article are identified by color;

My statements are embedded in indented paragraphs and black bold.

The point is, the NRA calls for identical concealed-carry laws in all states, so that a person who can legally carry a concealed firearm in his/her home state is not subject to arrest or harassment in a neighboring (or any other) state.   The author objects on the grounds that state laws are, and should be, more stringent than federal laws.

Here is the screed, with my embedded arguments.


The NRA’s dead aim - NY Daily News:

No matter how readily another state arms individuals already known to law enforcement as prone to violence, New York would have to allow its permit holders to carry a hidden pistol in public, overriding state law allowing gun permits only to those with the temperament and need for a firearm.

The Second Amendment applies to all peoples, all states, and carries the same weight as the right to have an abortion: whether you agree with it or not, it is the National Creed and it trumps (excuse the pun) State Laws.   If you're an adult, not a felon, and you are in control of your emotions (not a lunatic), your constitutional right to possess and carry a firearm is guaranteed.

 How the NRA's grades for pols shape U.S. gun policy So it would go for New Jersey, and Connecticut, and other states with stringent safety-focused prerequisites for carrying guns. Trump promised “national right to carry” as part of an absolutist Second Amendment agenda that would leave in place gargantuan loopholes in existing background checks for gun buyers, which allow anyone — convicted felons and the mentally ill among them — to purchase firearms on the internet or at gun shows without interference. 

This is a lie.
There are no "loopholes" in the Second Amendment.
 Convicted felons MAY have their 2nd Amendment rights reinstated after release, if they have not been convicted of violent felonies ... "Forgers" are not considered violent felons, for example.  Their 2nd Amendment rights MAY be reinstated upon application and case-by-case approval, but this is a federal issue and not affected by any National Rifle Association influence.

 Even someone on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can stroll into a gun store without impediment if his or her criminal and mental health records are clean. That’s a rare, perhaps the only, loophole Trump has hinted at a willingness to close.

You may have overlooked that constitutional thingie called "Due Process".
That means that nobody is subject to arbitrary evisceration of their Constitutional Rights.
So you may not agree with my politics, but you can't deprive me of my liberties without taking me to court and proving (to the satisfaction of a judge or jury, and while I'm protected by legal counsel) that I have forfeited my rights by my illegal actions.
People get on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List because of suspicion.   They are there because a governmental agency has deemed them worth of special attention.  If they were found to be guilty of  a crime, they would be arrested.  And Prosecuted.  

Short of that level of confidence, nobody loses their Constitutional Rights. 

Suspicion is an heinious thing, and if you use that as your guide to abbrogating the rights of others ... I think you are a stinker and should not be allowed to exercise your First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
How do you like them apples?

 Atop that tinderbox the President-elect girds to pile what amounts to carte blanche for gun owners registered in states with barely-there licensing hurdles to traipse armed through states with much stricter conditions for carrying firearms in public. Every now and then, a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law; pleas for leniency follow. The possibility of armed tourists and other visitors roaming streets where open- and concealed-carry is now heavily restricted is problematic enough, making cops’ jobs that much harder

Now you're just ranting ... and doing a darned poor job of it, too!
You talk about 'barely-there licensing hurdles', which I assume refers to the criteria to qualify for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) in the individual states.

I agree that we need to define reasonable criteria, but the national trend is that if you're not a convicted felon you haven't lost your Constitutional "Right To Keep And Bear Arms", so most states would issue a permit to a non-felon.   The local laws vary: as an example, some states restrict CHL owners from bearing arms in an environment where liquors are served as their primary income (bars, rather than restaurants)  But other states do not have this restriction, assuming that anyone who is sufficiently responsible to carry a handgun is sufficiently responsible to remain sober while doing so.
But your comments about a " .., a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law ..." is very much to the point!
Why should that passerby (someone who has a ticket on a plane from Maine to Texas, but the plane is rerouted through New Jersey and the cops arrest the flier because he has a firearm in his checked luggage) be persecuted because his firearms are legal in Maine and Texas, but not in New Jersey

But that’s not even the main threat national right-to-carry reciprocity, as it’s called, would unleash. Because many states with especially lenient laws, such as Florida and Utah, invite outsiders to obtain their firearms permits, the federal law would as much as demolish New York’s common-sense limits. Live in New York, get a Florida permit — and, via the internet, a gun. 

And now, besides being ill-informed, you're just wrong.
 Buying a gun over the internet is illegal.  just as having a handgun in certain areas is illegal.   You can make contact with someone who owns a gun and wants to sell it over the internet, but the actual transaction must be made through a licensed dealer, who is required to perform a  background check through the National Instant Check System before completing the transfer.  I know, because I sold a pistol to an internet contact last year and it was a legal transfer; like all responsible gun owners, I was aware of the legal requirements and abided by them.

And oh .. by the way?  New York's "Common-sense limits" are neither common nor sensible.  They are anti-constitutional, onerous, disruptive, and contrary to the interests of your average citizen.  You don't agree?  How many OTHER states impose those illegal infringements on their citizens?  How's that "No Guns" thingie working for your citizens who have no defense against the thugs who don't obey the laws?   And don't get me started talking about Chicago, and Maryland, with some of the most restrictive laws and the most unrestricted thugs!

Needless, heartless, pointless: Blood would spill, because the gun manufacturers bought friends in Congress and now in the White House, because no one had the spine to take a stand. 

The Senate must. 

You know, they said the same thing when Florida opened their doors to legal, responsible gun owners to carry a concealed weapon.
What really happened was ... nothing.  Except crime went down, because muggers were aware that their victims might be prepared to defend themselves.
Blood will run?
Hasn't happened yet.    Well, except for the blood of bandits who run unchecked when robbing businesses, and the mild-mannered customer in the corner blows their brains out before they can kill the clerk.  That happens.
It's the new Cost of Doing Business for Bad Guys.
I call that a good thing.

Cop Killer Jacket?

NYPD checking ammo after knife wielder’s jacket stops cops’ bullets | New York Post:
(May 19, 2016)

Four of the shots that cops fired at a madman waving a knife in Midtown failed to penetrate his jacket — which was not bulletproof — and the NYPD will now check the weapons for malfunction, law enforcement sources told The Post. “The bullets we have may be defective and that’s very disturbing,” one source said. “When we fire our weapons, we want to make damn sure that our bullets hit our target — neutralizing our target.”

That's odd, isn't it?  Maybe the NYPD should interview the 'madman' and get the name of his tailor?
That tailor could make a fortune!

Actually, Lucky Gunner ran a test last year, which they called "The Heavy Clothing Test".   They found that even light clothing might offer significant protection from pistol caliber bullets:

The heavy clothing test simulates a scenario in which the target is wearing four layers of clothing: two cotton shirts, fleece, and denim. The FBI uses this standard not because it’s common for people to actually wear that exact clothing, but because they are common clothing materials, and when combined they represent something close to a worst case scenario for a bullet.
Clothing can present a challenge for some hollow point loads because the opening in the bullet can become clogged with clothing material and fail to expand once it reaches living tissue. This failure to expand gives the bullet a lower probability of striking a vital area, and also leads to the potential for over-penetration. Expanding bullets lose velocity quickly and are more likely to stay inside the target, but a hollow point that fails to expand can maintain enough energy to exit the target and potentially harm bystanders.
We used the same type of fabric specified in the FBI heavy clothing test, which calls for the following:

1. cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch)

1. cotton shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch)

1. Malden Mills Polartec 200 fleece

1. cotton denim (approximately 14.4 ounces per yard, 50 threads per inch)

The four layers of fabric were stacked together and placed against the front of the gelatin block, secured with clothes pins to a bar suspended above the test block

What they discovered surprised them:  even a 'cotton t-shirt' offered some (and in some ways significant) resistance to penetration, especially by a hollow-point bullet.    Not that any of the ammunition tested failed to penetrate, but their tests showed that penetration of the body cavity, wound channels and expansion of the bullets were all affected by the cloth which which the 'target' (ballistic gel) was 'protected'.

Which is interesting, but still doesn't answer the question of WHY the NYPD's bullets did not (according to the article) even penetrate the clothing!

The cops are blaming "the bullets", by which one assumes they're talking about the ammunition, not necessarily the bullets themselves.  And they might have something there.

How often to they fire to qualify?  How often do they replace their ammuition .. you know, the stuff they actually load in their pistols?  

It's true that ammunition deteriorates over time; and gunpowder deteriorates quicker, if exposed to air and moisture.  

To suggest that these cops were carrying ammunition so old that even factory ammunition would lose effectiveness is ... well, mind-boggling.

I don't know what the NYPD Commissioner of Police is going to do about that, but he might take a few 'first steps' just in case:

(1)  Every cop on the force turns in his current ammunition ... or better yet, is required to shoot it on the practice range, and their scores are recorded;
(2) Every cop on the force is issued brand new ammunition;
(3) Every cop on the force is required to qualify twice a year, using his issued ammunition (ALL OF IT!) and is then issued new, fresh ammunition.
(4) The 'issued ammunition', as soon as it is purchased, is tested (random sample) for penetration of ballistic gel under various items of clothing, and also material such as cardboard, wallboard, and glass.

Because the cops on the beat might very well be correct .... there may be something wrong with their "bullets".   It may simply be that the ammunition is not expended in practice and has not been replaced in years.

Nah .. I don't really believe that.  It takes a long time for sealed ammunition to deteriorate to the point where it won't penetrate a denim jacket!   And police are required to qualify with their issued sidearm annually; surely they use their issued ammunition, and are then issued fresh ammunition.

I'm not about to suggest that the cops gunfire didn't actually hit the target.  That assumes that the cops can't hit what they aim at .. and that would be just silly!

Everybody know, police are the only ones qualified to engage criminals in gunfights, because cops are so well trained and stuff.

.Civilians are the people we don't trust to handle a firearm in a gunfight.  (Except for Criminals, of course!   They always have the best guns, best gear, fresh ammo and they practice ALL THE TIME!)

Tempest in a Teapot Dome Scandal

Rangel: No Guns For Americans But I Need Police Protection [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller:

Like Maryland, California, and the District of Columbia, New York’s firearm permitting approval requires that applicants must provide good cause to carry a firearm. The laws surrounding New York City’s firearm issuing authority have been criticized in the past for favoring retired police officers or those with the right connections within the police department to get a concealed carry permit. The 37,000 issued licensees include prominent business leaders, elected officials, journalists, judges and attorneys. What about Rangel’s own constituents in his Harlem district? Should law-abiding residents who live there have concealed carry permits too? “I wouldn’t want them to have it. I know what you’re trying to say. Corruption is corruption, and it’s bad,” Rangel said. “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a Capitol Police officer, who stood at his post by the House Speaker’s Lobby.

There are TWO issues at stake in this New York controversy, and Representative Rangel knows it.

When asked by The Daily Caller his thoughts on the difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit in New York City and how rare it is for such permits to be issued by the NYPD, Rangel replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it.”

“We don’t need that many guns,” he continued. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”

The FIRST issue is that Rep Rangel does not trust his own constituents ... not a single one of them, whatever justification which they might present for his Almighty Justification.
"?
Can we say "Mister and Mrs America, turn them all in?"

Frankly, if I was one of Mrl. Rangel's constituents, I would be all about the "Anybody But Rangel" movement.

Issue 1.5 is: 
. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun...:"

Gee, Charly, where are you ... New Haven?  No, you're not. You're in New York, and you didn't know that people bribe cops to get guns?


The SECOND ISSUE is that Charly sincerely believes:
"Law Abiding Citizens Shouldn't Have To Carry A Gun"

Can't argue with that, except ... well, as long as there are muggers and murderers in the neighborhood, I think I would feel a lot better if I were "ALLOWED" to do so.   You know .. as a law-abiding citizen, and all that?
 But if you live 'there', and your representative is 'him', you're pretty much screwed; unless you want to get a gun 'anyhow' ... so badly that you (an otherwise honest citizen) is willing to risk Jail Time in order to find the means to defend himself and his family.

You think that's BAD, Charly?  Maybe you should put yourself in THEIR place!.

SO, if your constituents feel that they are at risk' and they can't get a gun legally ... they'll get a gun by 'other means'.    While you MAY think you're protecting them, by taking away their means to protect theselves, you are actually putting them at greater risk of predation from the guys who do NOT obey they law and are already armed.

.. does that make sense to you, Charley?

Great representation; deliberately making criminals from honest citizens.

Way to GO, CHARLY!!!!!

(You SO rock!  And don't mind that you won't let us defend ourselves against drug dealers, aggressive teens, and other folks who think we don't have the balls to defend ourselves: ... it's not important in the Liberal scheme of things!)

When asked by The Daily Caller his thoughts on the difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit in New York City and how rare it is for such permits to be issued by the NYPD, Rangel replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it.”

“We don’t need that many guns,” he continued. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”

The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery incident that took place in the United States from 1921 to 1922, during the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior 

As far as I know, it has absolutely nothing to do with Charly Rnagal or the Daily Caller.  Or Charleys' constituents, for all I know.l


But it does help to jazz up the headline.

"Special Circumstances"? Isn't living in NYC enough?

John Stossel Tried to Get a Gun Permit in New York — Here’s How That Turned out for Him:
Fox Business’s John Stossel tried to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun in New York. In a segment for his self-titled show, Stossel walks viewers through the steps that New York requires residents to go through for firearm permits, which can take as long as a year.

Apparently (see the video), the only 'Special Circumstances' which are considered is whether you're a "SPECIAL!" person.

I feel pretty special about living in the Wild Wild West, where I don't really "need" a carry license, and the local cops don't care ... they gave me one anyway.

John, why don't you move here and just 'phone in' your reports?

Bad Judgement or Poor Training?

Poorly-trained NYPD officer Peter Liang will not see any prison time for a negligent discharge of his duty pistol that killed an innocent bystander.

Judge's decision: Both.

But I would like to see the NYPD Training Officer's annual review.

I'm not believing this, any of it.

Stairwell shooting cop trained to have gun drawn: fellow officers | New York Post:
(January 29. 2016) (posted February 04)

Two cops, including one who worked the same beat as rookie Officer Peter Liang — now on trial for fatally shooting an unarmed man in a Brooklyn housing project — said Thursday they were taught to have their guns out at times for fear of possible “ambush.” 

Okay, I believe that ...

Defense attorneys have argued the gun was faulty, saying in opening statements that Liang’s finger was alongside the trigger — not on it — following police protocol. 

... but I do NOT believe that!

But Detective Marc Acevedo told jurors Liang’s gun was on the high end of the NYPD’s acceptable range for trigger-pull — the force required to fire the weapon. The Glock needs 11¹/₂ pounds of pressure to fire, out of a range of 9 to 12 pounds.

AND if that statement was intended to support Liang's testimony, it's the second miss-fire in this whole sad New York Tale.

The gun did not just 'go off'.  There was no malfunction of the Glock; there WAS a malfunction of the Liang.   Why don't the cops just admit that the kid fucked up, and take it from that point?  It's a high stress situation, and it seems obvious to the casual observer (who was not there) that the cops were jumpy and when the guy suddenly appeared at the head of the stairs the cop plugged him.

Deliberately.

Well, he probably wasn't intending to do that, but when you have a 11+ pound trigger-pull, that Glock isn't going to shoot unless you really, really mean it!   And Liang really, really meant to pull that trigger.

I shoot pistols in competition that have a 3# or an 8# trigger pull weight, and there's a huge amount of difference between the two.  But an 11# trigger pull?

Has anyone asked WHY the NYPD mandates a "9 to 12 pounds" trigger pull weight?

It's because in times of stress, people tend to grip the pistol really hard, and if your finger is on the trigger that can translate to a jerk of the trigger finger.

This 2010 Las Vegas Negligent Discharge (ND) video  illustrates the problem: *



* (yes, you've seen this video here before; it's one of my favorites)

Fortunately, the Las Vegas ND only frightened a couple of people to the point where they wanted a costume change, right now.

But the New York situation was a whole different, and more fatal, scenario.  Obviously in New York the officer was pointing his pistol at the man looming above him (which is a 'dominating' position, and generally tends to make people feel more ... defensive) or else his round wouldn't have HIT HIM!

Not a strike against the officer; that's where the gun is suppose to be pointed.

Still, when testimony suggests that the officer's finger was NOT on the trigger; that the pistol 'may have' bumped the wall of the stairwell, which 'may have' been a contributory factory ... I'm dubious.

When they (NYPD) assert that the ND was due to a malfunction of the gun, I'm calling
TOTAL BULLSHIT and DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THIS LIE???

Even I, who don't like Glocks, am not ready to swallow that spew of bovine excreta.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Election 2016: Dem Pols Vie for #1 Gun-Grabber Honors

Following Hillary Clinton's "Australian Solution" speech, not one but TWO Democrats have gone on record as being aggressively "Pro Gun Control".

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.

An Open Letter to mario Cuomo, governor of the Great State of New York

Cuomo talks gun control after lawyer shot before parade - NY Daily News:

The governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, speaks to us.

“We passed the toughest gun control law in the the nation, called the SAFE Act and I am proud of it. Anyone who doesn't believe we need to do something about gun control is delusional. We can protect the Second Amendment and legitimate gun owners, but we also need to protect people. How many young innocent people need to die before this nation comes to its senses? And this is a terrible terrible painful loss, and all unnecessary."

Dear Mario;

What are you, crazy?

Governor Cuomo, maybe you and your fellow NY Politicos are looking at the Yak through the Ass, instead of in the eyes.

You think that the way to prevent gun violence is to keep your citizens from the rightful heritage of the Second Amendment, which acknowledges all rational, law-abiding citizens to be armed.

Instead, you have continued the New York Madness which insists that honest, rational, law-abiding citizens to be disarmed.

What, are you crazy?  Nobody thinks that disarming honest citizens reduces crime;  it's the criminals that have the guns.  You know, the ones who don't obey the law?

Why the hell are you continuing this numb-nutz fantasy that disarming honest people has any societal benefit except that it turns good folks into victims?

Which states have the most crime?  New York and California, right?

Which states have the most stringent gun-control laws?  New York and California, right?

Which states have the most out-of-touch governors?

California, right?  (Can't be New York, 'cause you're him and we all know you're freaking perfect!)

So I gotta ask you, when your anti-gun laws keep honest people from being able to defend theselves, who profits?  Not the honest people;

No no no, it's the criminals.

Criminals don't obey the law.  It's that thing they do, y'know?

Honest people obey the law.

So when you make laws that keep people from having guns to .. like .. "defend themselves"?  Who profits?  Not the honest people.  The CROOKS LOVE IT!

This isn't Rocket Science. This is Plain Dealing 101.  Whatever you make illegal, the crooks are going to love it!  Remember Prohibition?

Your gun control laws have had two effects:

1. you have created a market for under-the-covers guns
2. you have ensured that crooks can intimidate unarmed citizens

I know that you didn't start this whole 'Gun Control" crappola, but you sure as HELL have promulgated it.

So whaddya say, Mario?  Maybe you should give the Little Guy a break?  

The myth of the hero cop

The myth of the hero cop: Police unions have spread a dangerous message about America’s law enforcement officers.:

It’s hard to prosecute cops. There are two main reasons for this: The first is the special deference that jurors, judges, and prosecutors show officers thanks to the widespread perception that they are heroic public figures valiantly trying to protect us. The second is the bevy of special laws around the country that are designed to shield police officers from the very tactics the police regularly use on ordinary suspects.

Thank you, David Feige of Slate, for your in-depth review of all the reasons why (in your mind) police are not subject to the same scrutiny as 'common citizens' are ... because of "special laws .. to shield police ... "

One thing:  yes, there are "Bad Cops", and as we are all human I'm pretty sure that most cops are flawed.

So .. three questions:

One:  Do you have a gun to protect yourself?  Or do you rely on 911 in case you are assaulted?
Two: Have you ever been mugged?
Three: have you ever been arrested?

The thing is, you appear to reside in New York City.
And .. the bromide is:

A Liberal is someone who has been arrested.
A Conservative is someone who has been mugged.

So, although you have not offered any "full disclosure", we're assuming that you were arrested for drug charges?  Marijuana?  Or a more mind-altering substance?  (I'm guessing something more powerful than Weed .. cops generally trend to ignore Grass arrests, because there are too many of them among the Liberal Community to do anything more constructive than issue a 'ticket', which can incur nothing more onerous than a fine.  Which would explain the grudge you obviously have against police officers.)

Getting back to Question 1:  I'm guessing that you rely on the police to protect you.  Which they cannot do, of course, because those "highly paid" public servants have too many clueless citizens to
"Protect and Serve".

So, you don't have a gun.  Well, of course you don't.  You live in New York City, the town that FORCES you to rely on local police to protect you.  But you don't appreciate that, because you know that there are 10,000  (plus)  police who are paid FAR too much money for giving you very limited protection.

Please note that the reason why you cannot have a gun to protect yourself is because your liberal friends made it illegal.  Not the cops; your Liberal Friends.

Clue-bat notice:  The police aren't there to protect you.  They are there to solve crimes, and arrest miscreants.  Perhaps you are uncomfortable with that situation.  I don't blame you.  If I relied on the cops to protect me, I would be similarly disappointed that they are NOT liable for failure to protect you from assault.  Or robbery, or anything else.  Is that the reason you're so down on cops, Binky?

Given the restraints on cops, it's no wonder that you are disillusioned.  That's okay .. it's not their fault.  Your Liberal Representatives have made sure that you can't sue cops when they can't protect you.   Someone seems to think that personal protection is YOUR job, not the cops.

Let's get to the part where you claim that the police are corrupt and .. what was your term?

Unfairly protected

Oh, yeah; we just covered that.  You think they are "unfairly protected"; but the fact is that if you are mugged, the cops don't much care.  The same if someone steals the radio out of your car (which you don't OWN, because you know it's too dangerous and too expensive to own a car in NYC because .. theft) the cops have no way to deal with minor thievery.  Beat Cops take reports, and pass them on.  Beat Cops are also the first responders, and when it's the murder of an infant in her crib (for example), they have to go home and tell their wife that it was 'just another  day on The Job", and hope they don't keep her awake when they can't sleep that night because of the images that they can't wipe out of their memory .. which lasts for decades.

Yep.  It's an easy job, and they are certainly overpaid.

You complain that:  " ...  the average beat cop costs the taxpayers more than $150,000 per year."
Sounds like pretty good bread.  So, why didn't you apply to the police department, go through the training regimen, and become a cop?  By your perception, it's an easy job with little or no risk, and the pay is great!

Could it be because you just don't have the guts to put your life on the line for your fellow New Yorkers? Or you don't care to deal with the 'seamy underside of New York" on a daily basis?

Strange .. you don't seem to consider that it's a risky business, underpaid and under-financed, and the only way cops can make a decent living it to volunteer for overtime hours.  Often this is just standing in the rain for hours on end, directing traffic.  But sometimes that's actually facing people who are violent, insane, vengeful and .. oh, did we discuss that POLICE ARE TARGETS FOR BAD MEN?

But you're pretty well focused on that $150,000 per year paycheck ....
... even though you don't seem to have considered the horrible working conditions they regularly endure to feed their family.  And BTW .. $150,000 year is pretty much what sanitation workers in major cities draw.  They all get The Big Bucks because nobody would take that nasty-ass job if they didn't get compensated in proportion to the unsavory nature of the job they accept.

The reason for the one hundred fifty dollar paycheck (which requires a TON of overtime in the cesspool which is a major city) is that it's a crappy world, and these folks are on the front line .. they see the disincorporated body of the 29-year-old executive who just jumped from the 80th floor of his executive condominium, and they go scour the block to pick up the pieces.  

Then the detectives wander by, take reports, and go back to talk to the Captain.

And then some asshole like you writes an article complaining about cops who are not heroic at all.

You are SUCH a jerk.  If you spent one day doing what these stolid men and women do EVERY DAY, you would puke your guts out and spend the next week in bed.  With the covers over your head.

And you would hate yourself.   Rightfully.

Baltimore’s streets are quiet again. Baltimore’s state’s attorney Marilyn J. Mosby moved quickly in securing indictments against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, and her decisive action has calmed the city for now. But getting a grand jury to indict police officers is a lot easier than getting convictions at trial. That’s because like any prosecutor trying to hold cops accountable, Mosby will be working on an uneven playing field. To prove her case, she won’t just need sufficient evidence. She will also have to overcome a number of deep-seated structural impediments to convicting police officers of crimes—no matter how guilty they are. 

No matter how guilty they are.  Do you hear yourself?  No trial, and you have already proclaimed them GUILTY, because .. because you can.

Asshole.

NYC: Why should you need a firearm?

Judge nixes New York City gun permit for firearms dealer | Fox News:
(May 24, 2015)

A judge won’t let a traveling firearms dealer carry a concealed weapon in New York City to protect himself and his wares from “criminals and terrorists.” Cavalier Knight applied for a gun permit from the New York City Police Department in 2014. He went to court when the application was denied. He claimed the NYPD violated his Second Amendment rights. But in a decision posted Friday, a judge rejected that claim while upholding New York’s tough gun control law, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

The judge's decision was based on the premise that it was "pure speculation" that he might be subject to attack, and;

1. why should he be any more at risk than others in his business, who haven't asked for similar 'rights', and;
2. he has been selling guns for years and he has not been attacked yet, so why should he now be concerned?

Am I missing something here?

Just like a bad neighbor, Microstamping is still there

"Microstamping" is a technique which will invariably, under all circumstances, positively stamp information about the gun which fired a specific cartridge (supposedly recovered at a Crime Scene) and thus lead the police to solve the crime.

The only problem is .. it doesn't work.

Other than that, it's perfect!

Can't "ban" guns? Let's mandate INSURANCE - and tax it!

In 1993, NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed a graduated Federal tax ranging from 55% to 10,000% on ammunition.  This wasn't a fiscal measure; it was a punitative imposition on the Second Amendment.  Did it 'infringe' on your right to own a firearm?  No, it did not; only on your ability to buy ammunition.

It's a funny thing, how when the government becomes involved in the private lives of its citizens, the first thing that happens is that they RESTRICT your rights.  Have you noticed that all laws either deny your right to do something, or the government benefits financially from your exercise of your rights?  There's a reason, and it's not what you might immediately assume:

It's not about violence.  It's about money, control, and the growth of government.

Here is a good CURRENT example of that abuse of power:  proposed by a purported Gun Owner.

Let's remove all 'restrictions' from guns; but let's make gun owners buy "insurance" depending on how powerful the gun is, how many bullets it can hold, and a bunch of other things that maybe we haven't thought of yet.  Make gun owners pay through the nose for their noxious toys, and use the money to fund 'free' Mental Health.

Not a direct quote, but rather the gist of a June 14, 2014 editorial opinion article from a small-town newspaper in (surprise!) New York.  (See a quote and citation at the bottom of this page).   He wants gun owners to pay a mandatory 'insurance' for all guns and all magazines that he or she owns.  Presumably, with annual premiums