Countering The Bloomberg Manifesto

bloomberg redcoat

Courtesy Jim McGuire

By Dennis Petrocelli, MD

Michael Bloomberg’s gun control plan should actually be read by gun owners as a clarion call to get busy supporting our rights. The would-be Democrat presidential nominee has our Second Amendment in his crosshairs and is willing to spend vast (to us, not him) sums of money to strip us of them, law after law, state by state.

Should Bloomberg somehow be elected President, the damage to Americans’ Second Amendment rights would be catastrophic.

Below is a point-by-point rebuttal to his statements about firearms and their regulation:

1.  The NRA’s “latest effort to abolish gun safety laws”

“Gun safety” cannot be legislated. It is an experiential, immersive practice that requires time and effort, and is passed on from teacher to student via both formal, organized educational efforts and individual mentorship.

2.  The Supreme Court case “has reached a new level of absurdity—and danger”

Neither the NRA nor is members pose any danger to anyone.  If there was ever a case of an NRA member attacking someone with a gun, the anti-gunners would never let us hear the end of it. They have yet to publicize a case because one doesn’t exist.  All available data indicate that concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than law enforcement officers.

3.  “And if ever there were a case that the Supreme Court should flatly reject, this is it.”

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case absolutely needed to be heard, if for no other reason than to make it clear to municipalities throughout the United States that they can’t get away with radical restrictions on their citizens’ gun rights.

The danger is that if the case is held moot, municipalities will believe they can resurrect their infringements until the Court steps in again. New York City has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court in its filings and must be held to account.

With regard to the Second Amendment inalienable rights in question, lower courts have ruled based upon selective readings of Heller v. D.C. The opportunity to re-emphasize the individual right to keep and bear arms again with clarity should not be squandered.

Additionally, there is a range of other gun rights cases seeking review by the Court. It would be most efficient to issue a broad ruling in NYSRPA v. NYC and return those cases to lower courts to be considered in that light.

4.  The New York City law “imposed an unnecessary restriction on gun owners’…”

Praise be, we agree!  It remains to be explained, however, why Hizzoner (along with New York State) kept this law on the books, “unnecessary” as it was—for not one, not two, but three of his terms as mayor.

Keep in mind the gravity of this law: it turned people into felons for exercising their natural, God-given rights. “Unnecessary” doesn’t begin to capture the City’s assault on individual freedom.

5.  The law restricted “gun owners’ ability to visit ranges”

It apparently bears repeating that the basis for the Second Amendment’s prohibition against government infringement has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against criminals or even target practice(!). Most importantly, it provides a critical check against potential government tyranny.

The historical record on this point is unquestionable. The American Revolution went hot when the British tried to seize colonial armories.  The Founders wrote and spoke explicitly about the need to guard against tyranny. Only the tyrannical fail to recognize or appreciate this.

6.  “. . . the NRA wouldn’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.”

Nor would any other sane organization when people like Michael Bloomberg repeatedly throw millions of dollars into legislate infringement of the rights at stake. Far too many of our military service members have died so that we can remain free, he while claims gun rights are about shooting ranges.

7.  If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the NRA will undoubtedly argue that state regulations requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm are unconstitutional.”

Correct. More states have adopted Constitutional carry than still have selective (and misused) “may issue” concealed carry laws. Here is where Bloomberg’s assault on law-abiding gun owners crescendos –vand fails — because there is no meaningful supporting data.

Why fear concealed carry? Criminals should. And they do, based on FBI survey data.  Incarcerated felons said they feared potentially armed victims more than law enforcement. The mayor keeps curious company by keeping their citizens disarmed.

8.  “[A]ll 50 states allow concealed carry”

This requires careful unpacking. “Allow” shows that he continues to see this as a privilege, not the enumerated civil right that the Second Amendment clearly defines.

“May issue” states have so abused this right that in some it is statistically impossible to obtain a permit. The Founders were prescient in their thinking: they knew that the government would infringe if it was allowed to. And it has. Repeatedly.

9.  “[Such] laws [are] designed to . . . ensure an argument. . . doesn’t turn into a shootout.”

Perhaps Hizzoner should document the epidemic of lawful concealed carry permit holders engaging in shootouts over petty disagreements. Lawful defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal uses of guns.

10.  In “may issue” jurisdictions, local police may object to issuance of a permit if they know the applicant is a danger to themselves or others.”

As a forensic psychiatrist, this is my lane. The words “know” and “dangerousness” ought never be used in the same sentence regarding the same subject.

At best, someone may be at greater or lesser risk than the general public of doing something very narrowly construed based upon the presence or absence of evidence of objective risk factors. If police “know” someone is “dangerous” and do nothing about it until a concealed permit is applied for, then the level of public safety is far less than we imagine.

11.  Permit applicants may have to “possess a valid firearm owner’s identification, take a course involving gun range instruction and pass a marksmanship test.”

Firearm owner identification is very close (and is a precursor) to registry which, based on the historical record elsewhere, enables subsequent confiscation.

Training and education are vital to the making of a complete gun owner. One downside to required instruction is that it leads to thinking that “I’ve passed, so I’m good to go.” No one should ever stop learning.

12.  “[T]he NRA desires rights without responsibilities or restrictions . . .”

Indeed, the greatest objection to restrictive laws is that exercising a pre-existing right cannot be subject to government approval. The greatest goal of the “gun lobby” is safe, responsible use of firearms.

The NRA and its affiliates spent the lion’s share of their energy and money supporting gun safety via quality firearm training. All my firearm instructors have been certified by the NRA and have provided consistently high quality education.

13.  “The NRA wants the Court . . . to deal a death blow to even more basic public safety protections”

In Virginia, public safety protections would include bringing back Project Exile.  This program called for the federal prosecution of gun crimes with out-of-state federal penitentiary time.  Gun violence dropped dramatically in Richmond following its implementation.  I’m not aware of  lawful gun owners oppositint any form of crime control.

14.  “. . . such as, barring domestic abusers from possessing guns”

Gun owners, like all citizens, are owed full due process before anyone is separated from their rights or property.  Of course, no one wants domestic abusers to possess the means to harm others once they are properly adjudicated to be risks.

15.   “The NRA opposes much-needed fixes to the gun-sale background check system. . .”

Nearly all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Background checks do not stop criminals from stealing guns or selling them among themselves. It does, however, too frequently delay or prevent those who should be able to lawfully buy guns from getting them expeditiously.

16.  “America’s gun safety movement has successfully put hundreds of strong laws on the books in recent years”

There is not a scintilla of evidence that these laws have accomplished anything than to disarm citizens and turn them into undefended soft targets.  Non-gun related suicide matched the decline in gun-related suicide in Connecticut after twenty years of confiscation, and there isn’t any evidence a single homicide was prevented.  Gun free zones provide killers with large groups of helpless victims.

17.  Red flag laws help “keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others”

Words matter. This should read: whom “a judge opines pose a threat.”  It is almost impossible to identify who is likely to commit violence prospectively.  A court may be persuaded that someone was “dangerous”, but cannot say that they “are dangerous.”

At best, Connecticut’s red flag law has deprived as many as 20 people of their rights in order to save one from suicide. That degree of over-prediction is unacceptable given that defensive gun usage so outweighs criminal gun usage.

Even the ACLU is disquieted by red flag laws.  When the ACLU agrees with gun owners about the trampling of due process inherent in these laws, it is a good sign that anti-gun activists are going too far.

18.  “[T]he Second Amendment allows for common sense limits on gun ownership”

“Common sense”, according to someone who refuses to comprehend what is at stake, is neither.  It is the destruction of the final defensive line against tyranny.

As a psychiatrist, I submit that mental health requires real individual liberty.  The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not just legal or philosophical documents, but astute observations about how our social species can relate peaceably with one another. This necessitates being aware of and prepared for our baser drives that would assert our will over others.

Michael Bloomberg would deprive you of your rights for your own good, but reserves those same rights for himself.  His hypocrisy is breathtaking.  Not only does he have armed security, he demanded that the Johns Hopkins University police carry guns.  That is probably a good idea, but if guns are so dangerous, why should they be anywhere near students? If not, why should adult students (or anyone else) not carry in order to protect themselves?

I’d happily split a BIG GULP with the former mayor on the way to the range so he can see gun owners for what we are—the biggest, most welcoming tent there is.  My experience at several Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution hearings in Virginia have brought me in contact with hunters, sport shooters, people who care about self-defense, along with those for whom a right unexercised is lost.  It is a community as diverse as America, unified by a shared interest in a shared principles and practice.

When we come together, all the other differences are irrelevant, because we know that as free people, safe from tyranny, those differences can be peacefully worked through.  Our philosophy is to not force anything on anyone, and all we ask for is to be treated the same way.

 

Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

comments

  1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Everyone knows Michael Bloomberg is a wiseman who only cares about the wellbeing of those less fortunate than he, take for example his stand on large soda servings. Lives were saved by this forethought and action….

    1. avatar RGP says:

      Damn right! Some sweating construction working son of a damn I can’t say that about somebody’s mother shouldn’t be allowed to have a bigger drink than a plant in an office!

  2. BloominIdiotberg has been on the losing side for over 15 years now. And this despite tossing millions at the treasonous attempt to erode our Constitutionally secured right. In fact, we might even be grateful for his treason, for it polarized patriots to stand up and fight back. Case in point; at the turn of this century there were two states that had Constitutional Carry; Alaska and Vermont. There are now SIXTEEN states with Constitutional Carry. In addition, a totally ignorant decision of S.C.O.T.U.S., (Miller), has been overturned. And now our right is recognized as just that – a RIGHT.

    With Mr. President Trump packing the Federal courts with conservative judges and justices. We can only expect that our right will move more towards what was originally intended. But, that is only if patriots keep up the fight and demand that our rights be respected by our servants in governments. As it would be foolish to sit back and allow all of the recent gains to be stripped away again. This is the best opportunity we’ve had to restore our right.

    1. avatar Marc says:

      Losing side? That depends where you are from. I still don’t see a single Democrat from a single solid-blue state proactively expanding gun rights.

      1. Believe it or not there are some pro-second amendment democrats. Although I still question why anyone in their right mind would vote for someone affiliated with such an obviously treasonous party.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          The only person I know who owns a machine gun is a card carrying liberal Democrat. Very hard nosed on crime. Very left wing on social issues. Takes an annual refresher training on combat carbine, shotgun and pistol. Despises both Clintons.

          There is no such thing a pure liberal or a pure conservative.

        2. Aye, indeed. And I’ve seen raving liberals that were some of the most staunch second amendment supporters you’d want to meet. Yet their views on other issues would make you puke.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          I believe that there are pro-2nd dems but I would never trust one to be elected for anything including dog-catcher and not turn their back on it immediately.

        4. No doubt whatsoever, and I’m the only conservative in a family that has long been democrats. When obummer was first running I asked my mother who she was voting for, and she said obummer. I told her that if she did that I would never speak with her again. She did, and I never spoke with her again, even when my brother pleaded with me on the phone when she was on her death bed. I look at democrats as traitors, and I treat them accordingly.

        5. avatar Marc says:

          Can you point out the Democrat politicians that you describe? I cannot, at least not from Senate or House vote results and bill sponsorships.

        6. Wasn’t necessarily referring to politicians, more as to people in general. Although there used to be many solid second amendment supporters among the democratic party years ago. John F. Kennedy being one of the first that comes to mind. There must still be some on the local and state levels, but am not absolutely sure. In any event, after the last twenty years or so, I would never trust another democrat for as long as I live. I view them as nothing more than domestic enemies worthy of being treated accordingly.

  3. avatar Texican says:

    The little tyrunt (as someone else put it on this blog) is probably afraid of his own shadow. Probably even got bullied when a boy. Now that he’s wealthy and protected by men with guns he wants to either try to protect others from bullies or be the bully and get back at his harrassers indirectly. Either way he needs to be out in his place one way or another. Hopefully, he’ll learn from his mistakes.

  4. avatar M. Bloomberg, Esq. says:

    You peasants should never have been allowed to stay armed once you secured this country for you betters. I intend to fix that. Armed ordinary people might be a threat to the safety and well being of the anointed.

    1. avatar King George III says:

      Indeed. Enough with these silly elections. Once Bloomberg is crowned may his reign last til death and his heir take the throne. Subjects of the americas would be wise to bend the knee now and curry favor before his rule begins.

  5. avatar neiowa says:

    Little big man complex as we knew it the Army (5’8″ suuuuure). See also Nadler (5’4″)

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Audey Murphy proved heroes can be in small sizes.

      Looking forward to watching “To Hell And Back” over the Christmas break.

  6. avatar Merle 0 says:

    I see some irony in the left presently. The left loves to compare itself or dream of one day re living the French Revolution here in America, reign of terror and all. But they seemingly forget that in rather short order, revolutionary France was subjected to a short, angry man with imperial ambitions.

    Now the left, seeing its self as rising up to change America fundamentally, will see its party hi jacked by a short, angry man with imperial ambitions.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      What is the difference between a Capitalist fairy tale and a Communist fairy tale?

      A Capitalist fairy tale starts with “Once upon a time“.

      A Communist fairy tale starts with “One day there will be“.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Outstanding Southern Cross!

        I am so going to steal that and use it shamelessly!

      2. avatar Ing says:

        The end is different, too.

        A capitalist fairy tale usually ends with “and they all lived happily ever after.”
        A communist fairy tale always ends with “next time it will work.”

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Just give us one more chance, because we really can make it work!

  7. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Would it be ironic if Michael Bloomberg wears Hugo Boss suits?

    This should not have to be explained.

    1. avatar COtt says:

      subtle…nice!

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Irony: A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

      What you’re describing is exactly as expected.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    The problem with ” Permit applicants may have to “ take a course involving gun range instruction and pass a marksmanship test” is that it puts the cost of gun ownership out of the question for many Americans. Already legislatures are seeking to increase the cost of obtaining CCW and the cost of guns and ammo with new taxes–for the same purpose, to reduce the number of firearms being purchased. Adding hundreds of dollars to the cost for certified gun training and testing will make gun ownership nothing but a dream. Which is why he proposes it. He hates the “little people,” and by that I am not referring to persons of diminutive size.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It’s a poll tax on a basic civil right. Which the left is comfortable with. Fascism fits them well.

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        “It’s not fascism when WE do it!” – every liberal ever.

      2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Democrats never seemed to have had any issues with implementing poll taxes (on voting) the first time around so why would they have any issues this time around. It’s all racist either way.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “18. “[T]he Second Amendment allows for common sense limits on gun ownership” ”

    The response to this assertion addressed the wrong issue: common sense. No where does the Second Amendment allow, provide, insinuate, endorse, command, recommend, encourage “common sense”, about anything. The response should have been a slap-down demanding the anti-gunners admit that is is the courts that have allowed for “common sense” restrictions; not the amendment itself.

  10. avatar Ing says:

    “…the Second Amendment’s prohibition against government infringement has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against criminals or even target practice…”

    So tired of this canard. The Second Amendment has *everything* to do with our right to do ALL those things — from hunting to target practice to garden-variety self-defense to using tyrants’ suit-coat buttons as a point of aim.

    Otherwise, right on.

  11. avatar Kyle says:

    When a multi-billionaire decides to go to war with the constitution of united states, its always going to be a very dangerous time. adjusted for inflation, it has happened before. So far the constitution has always won, but its always been a pretty rough fight.

  12. avatar Eric O says:

    Look all those BATFE, NSA, FDA, FBI, USDA, EPA, etc government enforcers behind him, though!

    1. avatar Ogre says:

      Interesting that Mikey would use redcoat Revolutionary War reenactors of the recreated 10th Regiment of Foot for photo props. He must realize the message he’s putting forth. The 10th Foot was part of the 1775 Lexington/Concord expedition to seize arms and gunpowder from the colonial militia.

      Incidentally, the British Army reenactors in the photo are the recreated 10th Foot’s Light Infantry Company in the regimental uniform and equipment of 1768. They are from the NY/New England area. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen any of them, but I may be acquainted with a few of the guys in the photo. I wonder how much Mikey paid them to pose with him.

  13. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Bloomturd is just another failed Communist candidate in a long line of them,think Bobby “Hell Yes We Are Going To Take Your AR’s and AK’s” O’Dourke isn’t running for $hit.

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Those who berate the Supreme Court in this fashion are tyrants in training or tyrants awaiting. Does he realize what his oath of office would be? It contains some of the same language the one he took as mayor, to defend/support this constitution, Article 2, section 1, clause 8 and Article 6, clause 3.

  15. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    Where did the Dr. get the quotes he listed, point-by-point?

    The link he listed :

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/president-bloombergs-gun-control-plan-would-include-federal-permitting-banning-assault-weapons-a-48-hour-wait-period-and-much-more/

    …did not have what he referenced…

  16. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    GARRETT EPPS—CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR
    MARCH 8, 2018

    The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others
    Its text and context don’t ensure an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone.

    That contextual reading is quite enlightening; it strongly suggests to me that the main—indeed, almost exclusive—purpose of the amendment was, in fact, to protect the rights of states to maintain and arm militias. There’s certainly enough evidence to support an argument for some reference to personal possession—but no convincing proof that personal possession was the main focus, or that personal possession was intended to be unqualified.

    That’s the context. To me it suggests that, in adopting what became the Second Amendment, members of Congress were attempting to reassure the states that they could retain their militias and that Congress could not disarm them. Maybe there was a subsidiary right to bear arms; but the militia is the main thing the Constitution revamped, and the militia is what the Amendment talks about.

    I’ve devoted years of my life to studying such ideas as the “original understanding” or “original public meaning” of constitutional provisions. No matter what anyone tells you, no one (and I certainly include myself) can really know the single meaning of any part of the Constitution at the time it was adopted.

    Anyone who claims that the text of the amendment is “plain” has a heavy burden to carry. The burden is even heavier if an advocate argues that the Second Amendment was understood to upend laws against concealed carry or dangerous weapons—both of which were in force in many parts of the country long after it was adopted.

    So it may be that the amendment’s text supports something like where we are now: Dick Heller, a law-abiding citizen, can own a handgun in his home for self-protection. The text and context, however, don’t point us to an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone, whether a minor or a felon or domestic abuser. That would be a right that, if recognized by the courts, has the potential to disrupt our society at a profound level; a right that, as Fallows’s correspondent blithely asserts, renders the damage of gun violence “utterly irrelevant.”

    There’s no other such right anywhere in the Constitution. To prove that the Second Amendment transcends all others, the proof would have to be damned strong. I haven’t seen it yet.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I see now why you flunked out of Kent State. You’re not very bright and easily led.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        The only person that flunked was you. You flunked out of high school. I have my degrees where the fk is yours Jethro?????? And by the way Moron I have two degrees, and neither was from Kent.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          No, you don’t. And we both know it.

        2. avatar Void says:

          After all nobody would lie on the internet.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Again. The 2nd Amendment is comprised of 27 words, in two clauses making up one sentence. I hope I’m not throwing to many big words or numbers at you, so stay with me here. One clause is dependent and the other is independent, meaning it stands by itself for meaning and relevance while the dependent clause needs to be associated with the independent clause for meaning and relevance. It doesn’t include the main subject of the sentence. Now for the $64,000 dollars, guess whether “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” is the dependent or independent clause. It’s OK to go ask your parents.

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      By the way when you lift an entire piece of writing like that, you really need to add the source in this case the Atlantic website. They’ll probably be teaching you that when you get to high school.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Where you went wrong is in quoting anyone who calls himself a constitutional scholar.

      Those people study the Constitution like most of the people in my English graduate program studied literature: as a slate upon which they project their own brilliance, never mind what the words actually say.

    5. avatar AD says:

      The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, huh? What’s it like to be so completely and consistently wrong?

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    31 cent solution.

  18. avatar anon says:

    everytime i see his ads on tv i get sick–listen to what is being said—-held the office of mayor of nyc for 3 terms—–that is funny—there were term limits for that office—-two terms—until mikey decided he should have a third term—four more years————–the 40,000 jobs he created—that was the second and third jobs that people had to get to earn money to live———–he protects the environment——-so when the 24 oz. bottles were going to be outlawed, people would have to buy two plastic bottles of 12 oz. soda, and pay a double deposit———it goes on and on———no salary as mayor—-but how much was made by illegal real estate deals–because he says so—giving away public park lands to build condos———–i wonder if he was also teased in school like the previous mayor—–the game was called take away—or monkey in the middle——–the sad reality of it is that the will probably buy the election, if he does i hope a quick impeachment for everything including lying is quickly in order———-

  19. avatar Possum says:

    I myself do not like the sound of a clarion, air raid sirens yes.. At this time I’ve found a cult following of this, ” Time to change the Constitution, stop the killings( yes, that confused) too some of number, ” What’s the second amendment?” It’s a goodm thing George Washington and those types are not around. A rich gunm nut and his followers getting shot and arrested would make quite the news.

  20. avatar Peegeetwo says:

    Hey Doc, until your profession owns that it’s the 3rd leading cause of death in the US, and until your profession stops being the middle men for the the largest lobby in the USA and stops participating in the attacks on parental and family rights, you’re going to have a hard time gaining credibility in the circles of people who understand what your profession has become.

  21. avatar Speakup says:

    No law ever saved a life. Humans always find a way.

    The only solution is more freedom not less.

    Centralized power is centralized oppression.

    The Bill of Rights is our centralized freedom guarantee.

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