New York Times: New York Gun Ban Bill Sucks

 

“Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to lead the nation in gun control, but he’s picked a peculiar way of doing it,” New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal opines. [Click here.] “Mr. Cuomo negotiated in secret with a few other powerful politicians on a dog’s breakfast of legislation that got no public discussion at all and was passed by state senators who had not even read it—because they were not given a chance to do so.” Shhh. The next thing you know they’ll want to read the Constitution. “The resulting bill is hard to judge on the merits. It’s a snarl of good ideas, strange ideas and ideas that seem quite bad. While some items should figure into federal gun control legislation, Washington should not take New York as an example of how to go about this difficult business.” Ya think? He thinks . . .

Nothing about New Yorkers’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, of course. Just bitching and moaning about the mental health reporting requirement. But Rosenthal’s queasiness about the bill oozes out of every pixel (or something like that).

I hope, moreover, that the authors took into account the Constitution’s rules on search and seizure – because the anti-gun-control crowd is already feeding off paranoia about confiscation . . .

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Cuomo is getting ready to raid the homes of law-abiding citizens. Still, passing confusing legislation in the dead of night without public discussion is not a great way to prove that.

In other words, Rosenthal can hear the proverbial knock on the door in the middle of the night. Hey Andy, join the club.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

29 Responses to New York Times: New York Gun Ban Bill Sucks

  1. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Hmm. They could have said the exact same things about Obamacare. But they didn’t.

  2. avatarDavid W. says:

    o_O actual reporting from the New York Times?

    Isn’t there a corporate law against that somewhere? Don’t they make all employees sign it?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Many people mistake disagreement with editorial positions from news-and-opinion orgs like the NYT for an objective judgment of their competence.

      They’ve always been competent. You just may not have agreed with anything you heard from their editorial (ie opinion) voices.

      • avatargreat unknown says:

        They’ve always been competent? Just for example, how competent were they in reporting the facts [not editorial opinion] about the Benghazi debacle before the election?

        Or how competent have they been about reporting on all of the DGUs discussed here [and that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number] and on the number of lives saved thereby?

        Or how competent have they been about reporting on the polls that show the majority of Americans are against gun control?

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell, Alpha?

      • avatarRalph says:

        Alpha, the NYT was a good newspaper before the editors decided that editorial content was the sole purpose for publishing. They haven’t written a straight-up “news” story since Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. took over in 1992.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Fair up to a point, Ralph. I agree in general, but even so I think they have produced work of value in the last 20 years. Sometimes those biases can have positive effect — I’m convinced they wouldn’t have put 20% as much work into reporting on the Iraq war if they hadn’t been so firmly opposed to GWB.

          As with any other news source, it’s important to know what systematic biases to expect and to be mindful of them. True whether you’re looking for bias which conflicts with your worldview, or worse, reinforces your view and blinds you via confirmation bias.

        • avatarAharon says:

          #1

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        The standard for journalism isn’t perfection. That’s unreasonable.

        I judge competence based on how an organization handles both successes and mistakes. The NYT has screwed up, sure, but they have shown willingness to recognize and address their mistakes.

        My personal opinion is that anyone who looks at a news org and judges them incompetent based on 0.001% of their work output is unreasonable, and there is no news org anywhere which will ever meet their standards.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          The NYT has screwed up, sure, but they have shown willingness to recognize and address their mistakes.

          How?

          My personal opinion is that anyone who looks at a news org and judges them incompetent based on 0.001% of their work output is unreasonable, and there is no news org anywhere which will ever meet their standards.

          No, we’re judging them based on the other 99.999% of their work which is beyond biased. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The NYT uses their own “facts” to support their blatantly biased agenda.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        And if you did have complaints about their “straight news” coverage, you could alway talk to the moose.

  3. avatarLance says:

    Idiot New Yorkers. “Pass the bill so we can see what it says!”

  4. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    Ever get the feeling some people just constantly want something to be unhappy about?

  5. avatarMolon Labe says:

    ● ➪ “ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL, if you read The Constitution you will see in Article II Sections 1. – 4 — that the POTUS powers are few – The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    ● He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    ● The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
    Section 3.

    ● He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
    Section 4.

    ● The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE POTUS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ISSUE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AS LAW. THIS IS DICTATORSHIP AND IS ILLEGAL AS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. — ONLY CONGRESS CAN WRITE LEGISLATION AND THE POTUS SIGNS OFF ON IT. THE JUDICIARY UPHOLDS IT AND THE POTUS THEN INSURES THAT THE LAW IS CARRIED OUT. CONGRESS CAN ONLY PASS THOSE LAWS WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. — WHAT BHO HAS DONE IS TREASON.”

    =========

    ● ➪ A reminder for the elites in Washington:

    ● ➪ Norton v. Shelby County – 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

    ➪ “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    =========

    ● Blatant Tyranny….. Unconstitutional!

    ● ➪Lets get all the firearm, ammo, distributors & equipment sales Refuse To Sell to All LEO, PD’s & Govt Agencies!

    ➪ Pass the word!
    ==========

    ● ➪ NYS Gun Owners

    ● ● “THIS IS CRITICAL!!!!!!!! ALL SHOULD CONTACT THIS MAN!!!!!!

    ➪ “ACTION REQUIRED: Federal Challenge to NY BANN

    Lawyer : Jim Tresmond, Attorney in Buffalo, New York. Attorney phone is 716.202.4301

    Successfully represented clients in the past on Second Amendment issues in NYS Supreme Court. This case is pro-bono for all the gun owners of New York.
    According to Mr. Tresmond the new ban is illegal as it is an ex-facto law taking away previously owned property and he intends to file this action in Federal Court.

    “We are looking for as many as possible to add to CLASS ACTION CASE:”

    ➪ “SEND Your Name and EMAIL ADDRESS and phone number to: TRESMONDLAW@GMAIL.COM

    ● Above quotes from other sites, hope it helps!

    Μολὼν λαβέ

  6. avatarChaz says:

    Just read on Bob Owen’s blog “The rabidly anti-gun law that appears to be on the fast track to passing in New York will apparently turn you into a felon if you own three or more guns.”

  7. avatarDerryM says:

    I spent about an hour and three-quarters reading through the Bill on a link posted on TTAG earlier today and came away confused on several points. I admit I do not read “legislatese” very well. So, I can see part of what this guy is complaining about, particularly the “mental health” aspects, which basically threatens mental health care professionals with prosecution if they don’t report anyone whom they even sort of seriously suspect of being dangerous to themselves and others.

    I hope someone smart enough to understand this thing can give us an understandable summary soon.

    Otherwise, I noted it includes many semi-automatic pistols as banned. Limits magazine capacity to 7 Rounds(!) for detachable magazines, and possibly for fixed magazine arms, as well. Requires all Gun Owners of affected Arms to Register the guns and themselves with the State and renew every five years. Creates a NY State Gun Owner/Gun Registry database. Requires all Transfers of arms to be conducted in very controlled ways, and threatens the hell out of anyone with a restraining order placed against them. There’s more, too, but that’s where I got confused.

    Anyway, it’s a real nightmare for…what a surprise…Law Abiding Gun Owners and new gun purchasers, while criminals just add a few more things to their list of Gun Laws to ignore and mentally-ill people learn the meaning of STFU when talking to their Therapist.

    Hopefully, some Court challenge will strike it down, and we can only hope Obama and others take this guy’s advice about not using it for a model for new Federal and other States’ possible future RKBA infringements.

  8. avatarChuckN says:

    Those that voted yes to the bill without reading it
    deserve as much, if not more, scorn and contempt
    as those who wrote it.

    • avatarWill says:

      What they deserve is to be take out of their official positions any legal way possible as they obviously don’t care enough about what they sign, or what their constituents may care about it. Are they up for vote soon? Vote ‘em out!

  9. avatarJSIII says:

    Well they needed to pass the bill first so they could read whats in it! If this bill is signed it is going to become the most decisive battle over gun rights in the courts ever.

  10. avatarMike123 says:

    The New York Senate is controlled by the Republicans. They accelerated passage of this bill.

    I suspect the reason for this bill isn’t Sandy Hook, but rather the Second Amendment Foundation’s case, Klachaksky, where the Second Circuit upheld the Sullivan Law’s vague standards for issuing permits to carry. SAF has filed a petition for certiorari .

    Are Republicans sending a message of support for the Sullivan Law?

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      Are you sure they arent setting the democrats up for failure as SAF winning said case, would in effect blow this new piece of toilet paper up wouldnt it!

  11. avatarAharon says:

    “Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Cuomo is getting ready to raid the homes of law-abiding citizens.”

    The dude is a NYC metro-sexxual editor. How does he know what Obummer and Cummer are getting ready to do?

  12. avatarpat says:

    Is Gov Cuomo an America-hating secular humanistic atheist who wants to see religious jews and christians become pelvic ashtrays with their own ashes inside?
    Creepy, evil, bagel eating, goblin eyed, hook nosed demonic libtard.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.