|
||
The NRA - At It Again
First the NRA attacked my common sense gun plan which would create an Interstate Compact to go after guns at their source and allow parents to give the police permission to search their homes and take away illegal guns, with no charges being filed for possession of the gun.
Then they tried to bury a common sense measure in the State Senate that would allow us to trace a gun used in a crime, even if the gun wasn't left at the scene.
And now, the current situation in the State Senate is working to their advantage, freezing the measure.
We can't let the NRA hijack a common sense gun control agenda. Please join me and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence in fighting back.
Richard Aborn is a former Manhattan prosecutor, former president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, and a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Our Lenient Judicial System- At It Again.
GAFFNEY, S.C. (July 7) -- People terrorized by a serial killer who shot five people to death in their small community were relieved after police said they killed the man responsible. But with his death, an answer to the bloody spree remains unknown.
Suspected killer Patrick Burris, 41, was a career criminal paroled just two months ago, authorities said. He was shot to death by officers investigating a burglary complaint at a home in Gastonia, N.C., 30 miles from where the killing spree started June 27.
Burris had a long rap sheet filled with convictions for larceny, forgery and breaking and entering in states across the Southeast, including Florida, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. He had been paroled from a North Carolina prison in April after serving almost eight years.
"Look at this," Lloyd said, waving a stapled copy of Burris' criminal record. "This is like 25 pages. At some point the criminal justice system is going to need to explain why this suspect was out on the street."
Mr. Aborn, when are you going to learn that keeping career criminals behind bars is the "common sense" our country needs.
Aborn would be more credible if he advocated keeping felons like Burris in PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG
Those Attorney Generals, at it again:
Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit claimed precedent bound it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.
California attorney general Edmund G. Brown Jr. is filing a separate brief arguing that the Supreme Court should take up NRA’s appeal and hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12654
Looks like Herr Aborn is out of touch with the majority of Attornies general--but then again the BC/VCP hacks have been out of touch for years
Second Try:
"Simply put, there is not one single, legitimate reason why assault weapons should be made available to the public. Coupled with their large volume clips capable of carrying numerous rounds of ammunition (described in one ad as "extreme firepower"), these weapons of war have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands and are used to assault our police officers by criminals bent on destruction. Congress, which shamelessly allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse in 2004, should redeem itself by renewing the ban now. "
Well, Mr. Aborn, I have asked the following question of many of your fellow anti-gun travelers and thus far, not one of them has had the guts to address my question directly. Let’s see if you have the integrity:
Two thugs, one armed with a ball bat & the other armed with a large hunting knife, have broken into our home and are advancing down the hall toward our bedroom? I’m out of town. 911 has been called and the police are only 10 minutes away. It’s just that the thugs are 10 SECONDS away! How many rounds of ammunition do you think my wife needs and would you allow my wife to have in the magazine of her pistol as she uses her other hand to shepherd our two grandchildren behind her body to defend them? 2? 6? 10? 15? 30?
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
And here is a follow-on:
How many rounds of ammunition do I need in my AR carbine as I defend my home & my family from the looting thugs coming out on the evening of the fourth day without power, stranded by flood waters and washed out roads in the aftermath of a category 3 hurricane, knowing that I cannot rely on an already weary and overburdened police force? How many rounds, Mr. Aborn?
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
Mr. A.
Your failure to respond to my questions 'says' quite a lot!
Old SF
If we can't ban guns, we should ban ammunition.
Which is effectively the same thing as banning arms and therefore just as unconstitutional.
typical 10 year old male logic--parsing the language to try to figure out how to do something that is flat out forbidden
Hmm. 'Common sense' measures?
What you're proposing is full gun registration. We've seen how well that worked out for legal firearm owners after the "Assault Weapon" bans were passed, didn't we?
You;re a candidate for district attorney yet you support letting criminals remain out on the streets.
And people wonder why 80-90% of crime is committed by people w/ criminal records.
BC hacks like Aborn, Helmke and Hennigan would be much more credible if they focused on criminals and worked to keep them in prison where they belong instead of complaining about the NRA (legislatures can count supporters--and NRA folks are much more numerous and vote much more regularly than the 20 people who get paid by the BC/VPC and the dozen or so supporters like Kelli and jsgaetano)
"...and allow parents to give the police permission to search their homes and take away illegal guns, with no charges being filed for possession of the gun. "
You mean the NRA opposes letting people get away with a crime? You don't say! If it's an "illegal gun", charges should be filed against the person who brought the gun into the home. That way we can get more than just an easily replaceable gun off the street. We can get both the gun and the criminal in one swipe.
"Then they tried to bury a common sense measure in the State Senate that would allow us to trace a gun used in a crime, even if the gun wasn't left at the scene."
Just call it what it is: Microstamping. A technology that is not only easily defeated, but can't even be reliably implemented due to the fact that anyone can go to a gun range, grab a handful of microstamped brass, and essentially spread it around the crime scene to throw off investigators. Not to mention the technology is useless in revolvers and shotguns.
Microstamping did not go through even in Kali--and as a licensed armed guard (with requirements to qualify twice a year)--I sure as hell don't want gangbangers to have access to microstamped brass linked to any of my guns because if they scatter that brass around when I am alone at home or a job site--I am screwed (so is anyone else that they pull that stunt with)
"NRA at it again" , thanks NRA. There are enough laws on the books for gun control. Laws that are
not being enforced and you want to put more laws on the books. For what reason? If a rational person
looked at the amount of "guns" out there and the actual crimes committed by law - abiding citizens
you would find that there is no reason for more laws. Make the laws such that if someone commits
a crime with any sort of gun, then the time in jail goes up. Keep the criminal off the street and you will
see a lot of progress.
Lou
Actual crimes committed by law abiding citizens? WTF?
If you commit a crime how can you be considered law abiding?
Well said OdinsEye! The "assault weapons ban " of 1994 didn't actually ban the purchace or posession of anything, just the manufactuer and import of certain weapons and 30 round magazines, thus making everything just as available as it always was, only more expensive. The dem's beloved bill only changed the appearance of some rifles and the capacity of the magazine that could be sold with it.
As for the new buzz of "common sense gun laws" it's just sweeter icing for the same old cake! We already have common sence gun laws. Its already illegal for criminals to have guns. You have to do a background check for every firearm purchase.
New York should try a new approach to their violence problem- go with a florida style "shall issue" carry law. that requires the state to issue concealed weapon permits to anybody who asks for one- in the abscence of good cause to deny such a request- . New York (and everywhere else for that matter)should also keep violent criminals in prison for good.
Its easy for people to advocate gun control. Do you ever hear of anybody wanting to outlaw cars to curtail DUIs? Lets Close every bar and ban the sale of alcohol in resturants AND require automakers to have breathalyzer ignition locks standard on cars from now on!
Mr Aborn--if your proposals actually were common sense and reasonable--the NRA would not oppose them. Banning common semiauto carbines for cosmetic reason does not meet ANY STANDARD in terms of common sense, being reasonable, being constitutional or doing a freaking thing toward reducing crime--Heller make 99% of what you propose flat out unconstitutional/
Mr Aborn--if your proposals actually were common sense and reasonable--the NRA would not oppose them.
As if common sense has EVER been entertained by the NRA. If it had, this country's rate of death by firearms would be much lower. Common sense dictates that if you can go into a gun store and have to submit to rules and regulations before purchasing a firearm but you can go to a gun "show" and purchase one (or a dozen) without the rules and regulation part - you should fix the loop hole. Not the NRA. Their track record speaks for itself.
FFL holders have to do the same checks at gun shows that they do in their stores--so there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE-get your facts straight. Do not forget that there is an individual RKBA that Herr Aborn is ignoring
oh look....another drive by poster with his no facts....just emotion...
Gun shows are not magical places where laws are suspended, as some would have you believe.
Every law that applies outside of a gun show applies just the same inside.
All of the same rules and regulations still apply.
All of the same forms and background checks must be done.
"Simply put, there is not one single, legitimate reason why assault weapons should be made available to the public. Coupled with their large volume clips capable of carrying numerous rounds of ammunition (described in one ad as "extreme firepower"), these weapons of war have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands and are used to assault our police officers by criminals bent on destruction. Congress, which shamelessly allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse in 2004, should redeem itself by renewing the ban now. "
It's not the NRA, Mr. Aborn. It's your opinion of what is "common sense." Prioritizing the regulation guns instead of criminals shows you have none.
If the Bradybots are pissed because the NRA is going after their beloved but unconstitutional BS-- you can be sure that said proposals (like banning semiauto carbine in 223 Remington or 7.62X39 for cosmetic reasons) or going after dumbgun tech laws--you can be sure that said laws are not common sense, reasonable or constitutional. BC supporters do not understand the meaning of common sense or reasonable (prime example is Kelli's support for banning civilian ownership of bolt action milsurp rifles in standard hunting rounds like 3006)
"Common Sense Gun Laws(tm)" has become the new "For The Children(tm)." I'll admit, it's a catchy phrase. And if you spend the majority of your day packed tightly in the herd with your head down grazing, you just might buy into it.
"First the NRA attacked my common sense gun plan "
Because it was a not a good sense plan.
"Then they tried to bury a common sense measure in the State Senate that would allow us to trace a gun used in a crime, even if the gun wasn't left at the scene"
"Commen sense", along with "reasonable", are common euphemisms used by gun controllers to try to justify anything they want regardless of whether they actually make any sense (most of the time they don't) or are reasonable (most of the time they aren't).
...and "no they're not" is a common "argument" used by obsessive gun lovers.
So in your view--I guess the gun ban in DC that Richard Aborn and the BC supported and the Supreme Court clearly declared unconstitutional falls under Censornazi's "reasosnable gun laws"
Feel free to tro out a "common sense" proposal and we will discuss its pros and cons.
Perhaps because it is the truth.
Claiming that some destructive piece of legislation is "common sense" in order to make it palletable to the people (esp. to those who aren't going to take the time to actually read and understand it anyway) is simply underhanded politics.
Do you expect people to just sit back and allow over-reaching legislation to be passed that harms good citizens, but does nothing to hinder criminal? Is that really wise?
Maybe if a few of them got shot, they'd realized the folly of their ways.
Bullies always loose their guts when someone finally sticks it to them.
A great many of the NRA are combat vets and law enforcement officers.
Of course if you are advocating a campaign of violence against the NRA, then I will just have to report your post the the FBI for communicating a threat via electronic means accross state lines.
Oh, look. Big Brother's got a gun.
Do it!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
