“If someone’s not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that’s usually a sign that you can’t trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun”

So sayeth Paul Helmke. The President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made the pro-Stalinist—I mean, pro-government remark whilst in support of proposed changes to the New York City police department’s concealed carry permitting process. This from a man who presumably has never been “arrested, indicted or convicted for a crime or violation, except minor traffic violations.” Such as a speeding ticket (I kid you not). Oh wait; it doesn’t matter. Helmke doesn’t live in The Big Apple nor carry a gun, presumably. In fact, it really doesn’t matter to anyone else, either, because New York City is already denying concealed carry permits to anyone save celebrities and other politically connected pals. But the language of the new regs is flat-out unconstitutional. fox.com charts the strange ch-ch-ch-changes . . .

If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any “violation,” in any state; having a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; being deemed to lack “good moral character”; or if any other information demonstrates “other good cause for the denial of the permit.”

In other words, if these regs get the City Council’s nod [click here to download], New York City cops have enough leeway to deny a concealed carry permit to anyone for any reason they deem appropriate. Which, as I said, they already do, anyway.

This move is stunning in its audacity. But then the gun control crowd are growing increasingly desperate, as both The Supreme Court and voters are sweeping away decades of barriers to Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.

Still, TTAG feeds on chutzpah and hypocrisy, and there’s plenty of grist for our metaphorical mill here. Some of it from the spinmeister in charge of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Jason Post, who can’t seem to find the time to tell TTAG whether or not Wal-Mart contributes to MAIG or their shill group the Responsible Firearms Retail Partnership.

But Jason Post, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office, said nothing in the proposal gives police a power they don’t already have.

“The revisions will make the application process more efficient and give more clarity to applicants for gun licenses,” Post told FoxNews.com in an e-mail.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, agreed, saying the changes appear to be a “fleshing out” of existing gun restrictions, and not an expansion of them.

“I think it’s a good faith attempt by New York City authorities to make sure that their restrictions comply with the Constitution standards that the Supreme Court’s adopted over the last two years,” he told FoxNews.com.

While some restrictions, like paying legally required debts, may seem irrelevant to critics, Helmke says they are not.

“Child support, taxes, fines and governmental penalties I think are legitimate things. Basically, if someone’s not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that’s usually a sign that you can’t trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun,” he said.

As for whether the rule could apply to failure to pay a cable TV bill, as Halloran implied, Helmke said, “I think he’s stretching it there.”

comments

  1. avatar TTACer says:

    “If someone’s not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that’s usually a sign that you can’t trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun”

    Like if they are not using the correct water fountain or restroom? Or perhaps if they are not wearing the armband required of those of their religion? Maybe those who unlawfully harvest salt?

  2. avatar Ed B. says:

    In NYC and other big cities, people are required to obtain a permit to OWN a firearm. They are not just talking carry permits here. That's right, a government permission slip is needed to exercise a fundmental right (even in your own home) with non compliance being prison. How is that a constitutional right?

  3. avatar ARYAN says:

    THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! If Conservs ALLOW this -in any form, fashion or manner- its no LESS outrageous… and a direct anti-Consitutional attempt to skirt a Civil Right GUARANTEED by GOD Himself & enumerated by the 2nd Amendment!! Prob is, Conserves nowadays r as much to blame for this even being 'attempted', much less having a solid chance of passing!!!

    N.Y'ers dont deserve to have Rights… they're pretty d%#@$% STUPID, actually!! Come to think of it… never mind. Comment retracted.

  4. avatar TheRandyGuy says:

    "Basically, if someone’s not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that’s usually a sign that you can’t trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun." So, governmental regulations are always reasonable, justified, and never passed as a means of controlling the actions of individuals? If there were more people in 1776 like this yutz, we'd never have broken away from England. And by the way, those "Constitution standards that the Supreme Court’s adopted over the last two years" EXPAND gun rights. These proposed "regulations" RESTRICT them. Can you at least try and be accurate?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email