What Happens When Legislation Is Rushed Through

By now most people know what happens when legislation is rushed through because we have the glaring example of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it and things come to light each day. Hell, Obama said there was nothing in Obamacare to prevent doctors from asking about guns in the home but he must not have read the thing because there is (page 2308). A section dedicated to the rights of gun owners prevents such questions and prevents establishing databases.

The state of New York enacted even tougher gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The legislation was rushed through as New York Governor Cum-o waived requirements (calling it an emergency) so it could pass and be signed quickly. The first problem is that there was no emergency that required waiving the three day legislation requirement (there were no school shooting rampages in New York) and it is obvious this was done for political reasons. Cum-o wanted to get it passed before opposing views could be presented and he wanted to sign it quickly to avoid a rush on gun purchases.

This is all about controlling people and not addressing the issue of criminals using guns illegally to do things that are against the law. Keep in mind that every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime he is already breaking a bunch of laws. The reality is that liberals want to take guns away so they can impose tyranny on the country. Unarmed people are slaves and the Democrat Party is the party of slave owners.

The problem NY faces is that the legislation was rammed through so quickly that there was no exemption on the size of magazines police officers can use. This means that police officers will be in violation of the law.

I am not opposed to that as I do not believe that the police should be allowed to have higher capacity magazines than law abiding citizens. In fact, since we all know that these laws only affect the law abiding, the criminals will be the only ones with higher capacity magazines. This is something that has not escaped the notice of the police in NY:

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals” WABC

This statement is a direct admission that the new law will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from keeping higher capacity magazines. It is an admission that the law will only affect the law abiding. It is an admission that the goal is to disarm the law abiding and an admission that criminals do NOT obey the law.

How many NY police leaders stood with Cum-o and agreed with him? How many are OK with law abiding citizens being shackled while criminals are left untouched? How many realize that the law they want an exemption to will affect people the way they want to avoid?

This law should not be amended unless the amendment is to repeal it. The police in New York should suffer the same fate as those they are supposed to serve. There is no reason for the police to have more ammo than the average citizen when we all know the criminals will always have more and that the police will arrive afterthe crime has been committed.

MOLON LABE

Related Items:
Obama regime does not have time to enforce current law
Will the GOP cave on Second Amendment?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

How Will More Gun Laws Help?

This nation has tens of thousands of guns laws on the books and those laws have made no difference in gun crimes. Unless, of course, those laws are ones that allow freer expression of Second Amendment rights. Places with laws allowing carry of firearms have lower crime. Places like Chicago and DC, where the gun laws are the strictest, have out of control crime.

After the Aurora CO theater shootings the liberals were screaming for more gun laws. Mind you, these well intentioned liberals only want common sense gun laws and not anything that would infringe on your rights (nod, nod, wink, wink).

Faced with the reality that the theater was a no gun zone which means that a rule was in place to keep guns out, the liberals had to think of some other reason to enact these sensible laws. The shooter did not follow the rule about taking a gun in the theater (but everyone else did much to their detriment) so banning guns won’t fly. Hmm, the guy bought thousands of rounds over the internet so maybe we need to ban that. Upchuck Schumer of New York is trying that but it must be a bad idea because it was slipped into another bill. The guy used fewer than one hundred rounds so it matters not how many he bought over the Internet, he could have bought a hundred at a Wal Mart on the way to the theater.

Wait now, the libs are pointing out that the shooter had a mental health issue and that a more extensive background check could solve the problem.

Hell, the recent shooting at the Sikh Temple involved a whack job skinhead so a better background check might have kept him in check as well.

Really? Let us see. There is a report that the psychiatrist treating the Aurora shooter reported him to campus police.

There is a report that federal law enforcement had the Sikh shooter on its radar but did not deem him a threat.

So what we have are two police agencies that were aware of the potential for disaster from two people who ended up being mass murderers and those police agencies did absolutely nothing to prevent the massacres from happening.

How in the name of all that is good would a more stringent background check have prevented any of this if the police already knew about the potential problems but did not act?

In fact, the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords had been in trouble with the law and was known to have issues but the law enforcement agency in the area swept that away because his mother worked there.

So tell me again how more government involvement will curb the killings?

It won’t. The government has been more and more involved in the effort to disarm us for a long time and in all the places where government has successfully infringed on our rights the number of gun crimes has gone up. The aforementioned Chicago and DC are prime examples. New York is another.

Guns are banned in Chicago and severely restricted in DC and New York (ironically, Chuck Schumer has a carry permit for New York) and look at the carnage. Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan.

We do not need more gun laws. We need the laws we have enforced and we need those entrusted to uphold the law to act when they have credible reports that someone is evil.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline