Incendiary Image of the Day: Our Lives, Our Laws Indeed Edition

This is not the first time that Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has attempted to get their gun control party started by changing their name. Remember the “Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership“? No, I didn’t think so. The MAIG proxy was created to blackmail retailers into adhering to gun control regs MAIG couldn’t inflict on gun stores through legislation. Only Wal-Mart signed up—and never returned TTAG’s phone calls on the subject. And now we have “Our Lives, Our Laws,” MAIG’s effort to “Stop the Washington gun lobby and their allies in Congress from taking away your state’s right to decide who can carry a concealed gun.” In other words, “Stop your state stopping law-abiding citizens from carrying a concealed gun.” More specifically, H.R. 822 would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits.” So proper vetting and all that. Who knew?

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d love to see a similar photo of Mayor Blameburg, his face blocked with a sign that says “Elected Mayor” and holding a board that says “F^cking Douchebag.”

  2. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    This bill has no chance of being passed until Rick Perry becomes our next president.

    1. avatar stateisevil says:

      Maybe. If they get two more votes in the Senate, it’s my understanding they can attach it to something “necessary”, such as giving more money to banksters or the military industrial complex or any other type of bill raping the few at the expense of the many. If that happens, the relevant lobby will force their incumbent ho to sign.

      On Bloomberg, what an absolute monster. The man hates the smallfolk with a passion. He gets aroused by being in power and simply wants you unarmed. It doesn’t matter if you live 1,000 miles away.

    2. avatar Anonymouse says:

      Not only no chance of getting passed, but a very VERY Bad Idea ™:

      H.R. 822 goes against one of the primary principles of gun laws in the US: gun laws are the pervue of the states, not the federal government.

      Thus Utah can give a concealed carry permit to anyone with a pulse (including nonresidents in states which don’t honor Utah’s concealed carry permit), Nevada can encourage the sales of Evil Black Rifles Modern Sporting Carbines with 50 round magazines, California can ban anything that looks scary and delegate CCW authority to the counties (so Sacramento? Just ask and wait. San Francisco? If your name isn’t Feinstein, don’t bother), and New York can regulate kids with rubber bands.

  3. avatar MikeSilver says:

    Even better …. change the graphics to:

    Mayor Larry Langford – Convicted – Corruption & Bribery
    Mayor Eddie Perez – Convicted – Theft Extortion
    Mayor Jerramiah Healy – Convicted – Resisting Arrest

    Another Co-Conspirator of Mayor Bloomberg

  4. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Article IV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution lays out the so called “Full Faith and Credit” clause, whereby the states and the Federal government must respect, and are obliged to protect, constitutionally valid legal instruments amongst the states. The same reason that one’s marriage license or driver’s license is valid in all fifty states, is the same reason that one’s fundamental right to self defense and the means/tools needed to ensure it are protected, though the courts have yet to go that far. One’s fundamental and essential human and civill rights do not end at one’s front porch. Combine Article IV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution, with the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 protections for Due Process, Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities clauses, MAIG and their fellow travelers don’t have a legal or rationally valid argument of attenuating or stripping away altogether our fundamental and essential human right to self defense and the means/tools by which to ensure that right. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the courts in the next few years, but whichever way it goes the courts can never nullify or make moot those core tenets of our human rights.

    I just wish that everyone involved would get down to fundamentals, stop screwing around and acknowledge what is truly rational and right. Call me old fashioned and naive but I truly believe that right will triumph in the end and that end is not too far in the future

    1. avatar Adam says:

      Except that the Supreme Court does not share your interpretation:


      Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of “privileges and immunities”. The ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.


      Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include


      protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty … the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.


      Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters.

      source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution

    2. avatar ihatetrees says:

      Note that the Full Faith and Credit Clause in full does seem to give Congress discretion regarding the possibility that states will pass dumb things. Note (my) italics below in said clause:

      Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

      However, since I think Congress has been silent on the CCW issue (as opposed to say, Gay Marriage), I would think states’ must accept others’ CCW licences.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      Full faith and credit doesn’t apply to most licenses. That’s why my license to practice law was valid in my home state, but not in any other state unless it had a reciprocity agreement with my state.

  5. avatar cmd says:

    Don’t forget that NYC allowed Mayor Bloomberg to change a 15 year old law limiting term limits to two terms. He was origianlly against the change but once he got close to the end of his second term he reversed his position. I would be surprised if the law wasn’t ammended again to allow a fourth term.

    Isn’t this how dictators get their start short of an all out coup?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Well, he was against it before he was for it. He should get some credit for that. It worked out so well for John Kerry.

  6. avatar Chris says:

    http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/daniel-zimmerman/ny-cops-may-have-killed-bystander-with-one-of-71-stray-bullets/

    APPROVED TO CARRY A CONCEALED GUN IN ALL 50 STATES

    How about that for a little role-reversal?

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