Apparently, a group in Fairfax County held an event that they called the "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" the other day, in which they raffled off a pair of expensive weapons to raise money for the gun stores that are being sued by New York's mayor for the illegal sales of handguns that were used in crimes in NYC. Now, I don't really like New Yorkers, especially outside of New York City (they tend to spend a lot of time bitching about how the hardware store in THEIR neighborhood stays open till 4am, and what the hell is wrong with this town that there isn't such a store HERE), but if a gun store in VA is illegally selling weapons that are subsequently used to commit crimes in NY, and VA doesn't appear too concerned, isn't Bloomberg's concern justified? Because, you know, guns are great and all, but this is a country that places a certain amount of emphasis on the rule of law, generally. So if someone is habitually breaking the law, and doing so in a way that brings a lot of negative attention to gun enthusiasts (by killing and robbing people with illegally purchased guns), wouldn't you think those gun enthusiasts would be the first to advocate for the shuttering of the offending store?
Or is that too reasonable? Totally. Let's all react like 12-year-olds who got their videogames turned off and have a "gun giveaway."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Except, maybe the Mayor of New York City should stop breaking the law bringing business's of another state to justice:
"
The federal government will not file criminal charges against any of the 15 out-of-state gun dealers accused by Mayor Bloomberg in a federal lawsuit of selling guns illegally, the Daily News has learned.
In a stern rebuke to the city's high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face "potential legal liabilities" if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.
Bloomberg announced the filing of a federal lawsuit last May against 15 gun dealers, who he lambasted as the "worst of the worst." The city later filed a similar lawsuit against another 12 dealers.
In both cases, the city sent private investigators to gun dealers and secretly videotaped them making what Bloomberg called illegal "straw purchases."
A "straw purchase" refers to when an individual talks with a store clerk about purchasing a gun, but then gets another person to fill out the required federal forms and undergo the mandatory background check.
According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys' offices have determined the city's findings against the 15 dealers "do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution."
Also:
"The dealers would have the defense that they didn't realize that the gun was going to the person who didn't sign the forms, but the buyers have no such defense -- they knew exactly that that was the plan. So there's no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I'd assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both."
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/02/us_attorneys_sl.php
So the reasonable presupposition of criminal intent is NOT, in fact, justification for pre-emptive action outside one's own specific legal jurisdiction? Even with concrete evidence that a foreign actor is providing weapons illegally to malicious forces who then transport that weaponry into another jurisdiction for the express purpose of committing crimes, the weapon-provider is immune from prosecution by the offended party, and must be dealt with by local or federal forces?
This raises serious questions about the legality of the American invasion of Iraq, to be sure. Wait till Mr. Cheney hears of this, he'll set the ATF straight on the matter, I have no doubt.
Well, other than the specific roles defined in America over jurisdiction, if it is Bloomberg's intent to go after VA gun dealers selling guns illegally because they are threatening New Yorkers safety specifically; let me lead you to the contextual part of the argument. The second amendment. Our right to bear arms. It's constitutional even though laws have since been passed that try to outlaw it. These laws are bad as there has been no amendment made to the second amendment outlawing our right to bear arms.
The second amendment specifically provides for regulation of those armaments: ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") This is a regulation issue. Furthermore, the right to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the US Constitution, is quite clearly tied directly and exclusively to the defense of the state, not to personal recreational use. Lastly, convicted felons lose certain rights and privileges granted through the inherent social contract of our form of government; among these are the rights to freedom, suffrage, and armament. In order to enforce these prohibitions, laws have been passed concerning the purchasing of firearms. Those laws are being broken, so they are the issue here.
Not that any of this is directly relevant to the 12-year-old mentality of the "gun giveaway," which was my original point.
Well, now you're arguing that the first part of the sentence "A well regulated militia" and the third part of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are tied by "regulate." I don't think they are, so I will argue with your regulation issue. Ireland banned guns. They are not allowed on the Island. County Limerick has been nick-names "stab city" because it has the most violent deaths (as of 2001) due to stabbings. But they haven't started registering knives yet.
But granted, your issue was with the "gun-giveaway." The purpose of what you consider an immature event was to send a message that these people are for the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. Bloomburg's record shows he's more nanny-state and anti-freedom of guns. People would argue that the rules for selling guns now are too strict to begin with, and it's not like there isn't a black market already for criminals getting guns. The only reason there is a black market is because there are restrictions.
The right to keep and bear arms is entirely dependent on the notion that a well-regulated militia is essential to the freedom of the State (the benefit of freedom being implied). Therefore the right to keep and bear arms is subject to membership or affiliation with a well-regulated militia. Our current situation would indicate that many people regard themselves to be militiae of one. Ergo, in order to comply with the language of the second amendment, they must submit to regulation. The use of the construction "well-regulated" clearly signifies that the intent of the author was not lax or casual regulation, but vigorous and comprehensive regulation.
Your position is not supported by the text, no matter how vocal your (12-year-old) compatriots are. Condolences.
glf, this post speaks directly to me. one time my mom shut off my nintendo right as i was on the last level of mega man 4. i got so mad, i gathered up all my guns, went outside, and handed them out to passersby on the sidewalk in front of my house.
jk, i never had a nintendo.
well played, sir. my initial thought after reading this article in the post was also of children:
"i'm not touching you! does this bug you? I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!"
Wrong, well regulation is specifically for militias as it could be regarded as some sort of mutiny or secession or treason. The right to own a gun to defend your home and family is defined as your own. Hence the DC anti-gun law that just got overturned for private citizens owning guns in their own house. The right to citizens self defense is not to be regulated, just like the government is no longer allowed to take your gun away from you in a time of emergency like New Orleans during Huricane Katrina
Oh well, it looks like strict constructionism just went out the window. Aren't there any core conservative principles left at all?
Post a Comment