Skip to content

Proposed NY Law Denies Gun Permit Due to Debt, bad driving. and more on our 2nd amendment rights (or lack thereof)

December 1, 2010

Proposed NY Law Denies Gun Permit Due to Debt

Thursday, 28 Oct 2010 02:56 PM

By John Lott

New York City will ban those in debt or with a bad driver’s record from owning a gun

What would New York City residents say about limiting voting to those who have paid all their bills and who have good driving records?

After all, do you want irresponsible people voting?

A proposed law would discriminate even more against poor people being able to defend themselves. At the very least, this law should show those voters that those who oppose gun ownership haven’t gone away.

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.

Section 3-03 Grounds for Denial of Permit reads, “(h) The applicant has a poor driving history, has multiple driver license suspensions or has been declared a scofflaw by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.”

New York City: Halloran eyes gun licensing rule change

Lone Libertarian City Councilmember Dan Halloran is outraged by a proposed rule amendment to the city’s gun licensure regulations that would allow the NYPD to revoke or deny a firearm license to applicants. “The NYPD’s rule amendment would allow the city to deny a gun license to almost any law abiding New Yorker, and for downright silly reasons,” said Halloran.

Read About It: The Queens Courier (N.Y.)

Bad driver? In debt? Proposed NYC law would ban you from owning a gun

Who’s “Unreasonable?” With His Radical Gun Regs Imminent in NYC, Bloomberg Says “NRA.”
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court indicated that a limited number of gun control restrictions are permissible under the Second Amendment — provisions such as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

What the Election Means for Gun Control

From, 02 Nov 2010 03:28 PM

By John Lott

From the Daily Beast (somehow this gets classified as news on Yahoo): “Many of the tea party candidates, who portray themselves as focused on economic issues like excessive government bailouts and lower taxes, have a radical gun agenda. They seek an extreme roll back of the nation’s gun laws.”

What are these guys missing? The radicals are the gun controllers, the anti-constitutional zealots. Remember George Washington’s words regarding our 2nd Amendment rights – “Firearms are the People’s Liberty teeth”

Then, The New York Times is pushing for more gun control without any mention that tracing reduces crime rates:

“As a new Congress looms, we suggest lawmakers travel to Washington by way of West Virginia and an obscure federal building called the National Tracing Center.

“There they can see workers laboring through unmanageably high backlogs of handwritten paper records submitted by the nation’s gun dealers. This is Congress’s handiwork — at the behest of the gun lobby and to the detriment of public safety.”

Meanwhile, one Virginia Republican candidate gets pummeled by the media for suggesting something quite reasonable: “I think that at Virginia Tech, if one of those kids in those classrooms was packing heat, I think that would not have happened.” (and at least the severity of the situation could have been mitigated, and probably dramatically reduced)

While he has backed away from his position, I truly hope that he wins just so that other politicians aren’t scared away from this discussion.

NRA’s Election 2010 Recap

Friday, November 05, 2010

Gun Owners’ Rights To Be Strengthened In Next Congress!

Election Day 2010 was a great day for the Second Amendment and NRA members, and positions us well for our future defense, and advancement, of the Second Amendment!  The most important fact about Tuesday’s elections for gun owners is how many more pro-gun lawmakers we will have in the next legislative session and how many fewer anti-gun lawmakers there will be.  Here are some highlights from Tuesday’s contests:

U.S. Senate

  • 19 of NRA-PVF’s 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats. 
  • In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators.  The 112th  Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1). 
  • There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.

U.S. House  (In New York every new GOP member is a victory for our 2nd Amendment rights)

  • Of the 262 candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF for the U.S. House, 225 were victorious, for an 85% winning percentage.  In every case but one where an NRA-PVF endorsed candidate lost, a pro-gun challenger replaced him. 
  • In the 111th Congress, there were 226 A-rated and 151 F-rated Representatives.  The 112th  Congress will contain 258 A-rated (+32) and 133 F-rated (-18) Members. 
  • There were pro-gun election upgrades in 27 House districts.

Note:  As of today, 9 races remain too close to call.

Gubernatorial & State Legislatures

  • Of the 21 gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF, 15 were victorious.  (Note:  Two races remain too close to call.)
  • We made major gains in state legislative races, which will position us well in the upcoming legislative sessions next year.

We want to thank the tens of millions of gun owners who actively volunteered for pro-gun candidates and who Voted Freedom First on November 2nd!

NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year Olds
The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D’Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.

New York Times attacks 2nd-Amendment rights for 18-20 year-olds 

  • November 26th, 2010 11:01 am ET

The editorial position of the New York Times, wanting freedom limited for young Americans old enough to vote and die fighting for their country

by Glenn F. Wright

One of the reasons the New York Times editorial page often seems like it was written by a bunch of hand-wringing sheep is that when it comes to posturing on the most basic US rights, the Times editors have some wooly notions of freedom.

Most Americans support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and understand that to mean a personal right to do so. This has of course been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

However, the 2nd Amendment right has been statutorily infringed for citizens aged 18-20, as the US government and numerous state and local governments have denied full citizenship rights regarding handgun ownership to that age group.

Now, the NRA, to the consternation of the Times, has filed two lawsuits challenging these restrictions, both intended to expand rights to citizens who are old enough to die defending those freedoms.

That point, that 18-20 year olds are relied upon regularly by the US government to carry weapons and deal out death, and often die as well, in the nation’s wars, was mentioned by a few people commenting on the Times editorial. It finds no mention at all however in the editorial itself.

Instead we are told:

“[T]he idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.”

Somebody better tell the US military.

The argument that 18-20 year-olds are responsible enough to vote, fight for their country, and die for it too, but are not really responsible enough to enjoy full 2nd-Amendment rights enjoyed by citizens all of 21, is daft at best.

Gun-rights hatred is a position liberals would be well advised to abandon, as most Americans understand the right to own an effective instrument of self defense is as basic an American right as saying you think a New York Times editorial is dead wrong.


by Ann Coulter

We must repeal the 26th Amendment: Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation’s anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.

But 18-year-olds aren’t allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.

As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents’ health care plans. The old motto was “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.” The new motto is: “Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote.”

Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don’t have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don’t even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.

The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we’ll let them vote.

Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.

How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?

Then we’d have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a “sustainable planet” or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities “Question Authority” bumper stickers.)

Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they’re the ones who will be footing the bill for all these “free” goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.

Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.

Unfortunately, we didn’t know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game — and I think congratulations are in order, by the way — understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.

It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, “C’mon, it’s really cool! Everyone’s doing it!”

We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.

True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today’s youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.

They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008 and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.

And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven’t brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, at least their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)

It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.

The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents’ health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 — having just received an A in Professor Ward Churchill’s college class on American Oppression — voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.

Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.

Luckily, she doesn’t have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she’ll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.

Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it’s at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.

Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote.


Obama’s Pick for ATF Chief Is ‘Anti-Gun,’ Say Pro-Second Amendment Groups  

November 24, 2010

( – Gun rights advocates are unhappy with President Barack Obama’s pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Obama announced on Nov. 15 his intent to nominate Andrew Traver, the special agent in charge of the ATF’s Chicago office. The NRA says Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. And the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms told that Traver would exercise vast control over all levels of the firearm industry.

The National Rifle Association Strongly Opposes the Nomination of Andrew Traver to Head BATFE – Calls on President Obama to withdraw the nomination
Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers.


What ammunition would you use against a bear?

How about a stuffed bear?

Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars has his own observations about yesterday’s ammo reclassification column.

Click here to read more.

And tangentially related to all this, while you’re there make sure you check out Mike’s “Open Letter to Andrew Traver.”


Now for some news from our neighbors: 

In Pennsylvania – Rendell vetoes self-defense

We discussed Pennsylvania’s “Castle Doctrine” bill when it passed the House and then when it cleared the Senate, noting it had gone to anti-gun Governor Ed Rendell to ignore, sign or veto.  Unsurprisingly:

Self-defense gun bill vetoed by Rendell

Legislature won’t be recalled for possible override before current session expires.

Only in the Bizarro World of anti-gunners could someone infringing on your right to self-defense under color of law say this with a straight face:

“As keepers of the public trust, we have the solemn duty to protect our citizenry, not put them in harm’s way, and to protect the sanctity of human life.”

This, of course, is the same Rendell who reportedly did not visit a disaster zone after a tornado. Why?

His no-show was handled nicely by a staff member who said that the governor could cause more havoc in disaster zones by diverting resources, because of the retinue of bodyguards and handlers accompanying him.

Typical of these power-abusing hypocrites…

In New Jersey – Case sparks national outrage

It is the kind of legal nightmare one only imagines from a Hollywood script writer, but right now in New Jersey, a man sits in prison who should not be there and his case has so outraged firearm civil rights activists that Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, will be flying to the Garden State in several days to join in a demonstration in Toms River, N.J.

The aim is to petition Gov. Chris Christie to grant clemency to Brian Aitken, who – if one can believe this – is in prison essentially because he legally owned a couple of handguns. His story has flashed across Internet gun rights forums, and has been reported by the Philadelphia Daily News.



‘The Social Contract’ exposes Southern Poverty Law Center

  • November 28th, 2010 11:40 am ET

by David Codrea

“Profiteers of Hate,” the cover of the Spring 2010 issue of The Social Contract accuses.  “The smear-mongering agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center…”

In this special issue The Social Contract presents an unsparing indictment, and a timely debunking, of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  Acclaimed expert on America’s political fringes Laird Wilcox skewers the bogus scholarship and smear tactics by which SPLC has successfully sold itself to government and media as an impartial arbiter of “hate,” in an exclusive, keynote interview with Peter Gemma. TSC’s team of accomplished contributors from the left, right, and center exposes SPLC’s unsavory methods, dubious aims, and tawdry fundraising practices with surgical precision and comprehensive scope.

Indeed.  TSC provides a linked index for every article in this issue, covering everything from SPLC’s “ritual defamations,” to their “hidden agenda,” all bearing in mind how immensely lucrative the venture has proven to be for founder Morris Dees and key executive staff.

We’ve covered the defamation/conflation angle from a gun owner perspective many times at Gun Rights Examiner. TSC expands that to show how other groups that the SPLC agenda finds convenient are also smeared in order to advance their agenda and bring in the cash.

A key observation that nicely illustrates SPLC hypocrisy when it comes to money, from an article by contributor Patrick Cleburne, notes “the $PLC now has an account in the notorious tax haven and money-laundering location of the Cayman Islands!” and that SPLC receive $2.9 million from “[t]he Picower Foundation, set up by Jeffry Picower, reliably reported to have been the biggest beneficiary of the Madoff scam.”  Cleburne suggests:

Madoff left many destitute elderly in his wake. The SPLC should return its Picower money to the Madoff trustee for their benefit.

Don’t hold your breath.

With 17 articles, there are far too many points to effectively summarize here, which means those of you wanting to learn more will need to spend some time reading.

Here’s what strikes me as the most important point I could raise: SPLC is rolling in dough. The people who are bringing us such detailed exposés deserve our support.  Here’s how you can give it:

Bookmark The Social Contract website. Share the link, along with the link to this article, with like-minded family and friends.

Don’t just read the articles online—buy a physical copy of this issue that you can share with others. Not only is it nice to own, hold and leaf through, but the price is right:

Note: this item is being offered free, plus a shipping fee of $5, under a special promotion – as long as supplies last.

Also note other offerings from TSC’s bookstore.

In a related development, it happens coincidentally that Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars posted late yesterday on SPLC’s Cayman Island account as well as the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by Morris Dees in “The House that Hate Built.”

Man, that’s livin’. Click here see more.


more Friends



  ‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’




Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: