NY Daily News Asks “One gun a month isn’t enough?”
This week the Associated Press via The New York Daily News ran a story titled “REALLY? One gun a month isn’t enough? Virginia repeals law limiting handgun purchases.” The title alone sounds like an editorial, not a news feature?
Once again we’ll ask why the folks in New York City seem to be so worried – and up in arms (no pun intended) – about the law in Virginia? While there are claims that Virginia was the source of illegal guns in New York City, the truth is that gun crime remains a problem. And yet New York City has very strict laws, so why aren’t these laws working? Isn’t it obvious that criminals just go elsewhere.
The story could have been balanced, but instead just attempts to suggest that Virginia is a Wild West or terrorist arms market of illegal guns. What is never mentioned once is the ban only affects law-abiding citizens. Criminals could buy as many guns as they want!
Why Do Newspaper Editors Feel it Necessary to Comment on Gun Laws Across the Country?
Most newspapers – with a few exceptions – are really build around local news reporting. While national and international news is covered, the papers are really about the “hometown” spirit. So why do some larger papers feel it necessary to offer editorials about firearm in issues across the country?
We see this a lot with New York City’s papers as somehow the country’s largest city seems to think it speaks for the nation. But this week The Los Angeles Times noted in an editorial “Virginia shoots itself in the foot on handguns” in response to the overturned one-gun-a-month law.
Not only that but the subhead (the dek as it is called) offered this thought:
There’s simply no good reason for the state Senate vote to scrap a sensible law that limited handgun purchases to one a month.
So is the Constitution of the United States of America not a GOOD REASON?
But the editors write:
Virginia’s refusal to close the notorious “gun-show loophole” has long been criticized by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who frets that relatively tough regulations in his state are undermined when criminals can easily purchase firearms in other states and bring them into New York. In fact, similar worries about interstate gun-running were what prompted Virginia’s Legislature to restrict handgun purchases in 1993. But with Republican lawmakers and two Democrats from rural districts eager to make a statement about gun rights, the state Senate approved the repeal by a 21-19 vote, and Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to sign it.
Here is an interesting fact. Gun crimes continue to be a problem in NYC. Criminals find a way of buying guns, and the limit apparently hasn’t stopped them.
The paper added:
Backers say they’re just trying to bring Virginia’s laws in line with those in other states, pointing out that only California, Maryland and New Jersey have monthly limits on handgun purchases. Moreover, they say the ban isn’t effective because it doesn’t apply to groups such as police officers and holders of concealed weapons permits. But that’s a reason to strengthen the law, not to repeal it. And we have yet to hear a gun-rights advocate articulate why any law-abiding citizen has a compelling need to buy more than one gun a month. Criminals sometimes need to get their hands on a lot of guns at once to pull off a big job or to keep gangs well-armed; citizens who want to protect their homes from intruders have no such imperative.
So here is the rub… the editors in California feel that other states should be as restrictive as California. But let’s answer the question. Why does any law-abiding citizen have a compelling need to buy more than one gun a month? How about collectors for one? Collectors are often seldom mentioned in these debates, but it is a valid argument.
And here is the other side of that coin – it notes that criminals might want guns to “pull off a big job” or gangs that need to arm up. This is nonsense pure and simple. The editors watch too many movies. Criminals aren’t going to go to the gun show or gun shop to arm up, nor are gangs. For one things any gun shop is absolutely going to do a background check, and even at gun shows any licensed dealer has to do a background check, while many other part-time dealers could still ask for driver’s license or other information. What criminal looking to pull a big job is going to want their information on file? Same with the gangs, because the successful ones know how to avoid being arrested.
Finally the paper makes an interesting point:
Effective lobbying by the National Rifle Assn., combined with a reflexive antipathy to gun laws by conservative voters — even when they would have no impact on the rights of law-abiding citizens — have turned gun control into a dead issue politically, abandoned by Democratic lawmakers who once championed it. But even if new restrictions are off the table, that’s no reason to scrap sensible laws already on the books. Virginia’s repeal is a gift to killers that will endanger people in nearby states.
Why is this an issue if gun control is a “dead issue politically” unless you are pro-gun control? The truth is that the issue of gun control is VERY MUCH ALIVE but the gun lobby, gun advocates and anyone who believes in the Second Amendment is just going to fight gun control!
Media Matters Shamefully Attacks Ryan Jerome Coverage
The paranoia at Media Matters for America has reached a boiling point, and unfortunately former US Marine Ryan Jerome is caught up in it. The so-called watchdog site suggests the right-wing media is using this an excuse to change national gun laws.
The post last week began:
Today for the fourth time the Daily Caller has written about the Ryan Jerome, the New York City tourist and former Marine that was arrested last September for illegally carrying a concealed firearm.
Well, here we need to be the watchdogs of the watchdogs… Jerome was illegally carrying the gun, but he legally owned it, and nowhere in this reporting does it note how Jerome misinterpreted the law and brought the gun to New York. Nor does it note that Jerome tried to check the gun with security at the Empire State Building where he was subsequently arrested. These are facts that should be made clear, but that would hurt Media Matters argument.
The post added:
The right-wing media is engaged in a campaign to falsely suggest New York City tourists are in danger of having “their lives destroyed” because New York has stiff penalties for illegal gun possession. In fact, New York prosecutors have repeatedly used their discretion to reach plea agreements for misdemeanor charges that keep people that made honest mistakes and are arrested for carrying concealed guns illegally out of jail.
It isn’t just the “right wing media” and even The New York Post and The New York Daily News have reported on this story. And how is taking a plea agreement, which could hurt Jerome’s career as a jewelry merchant, not destroying his life?
NRA News: Former Marine Ryan Jerome Refuses Plea Deal in NYC Gun Possession Case
Cam Edwards talks to Mark Bederow, attorney for Ryan Jerome
NY Daily News: NY state of mind: Gun amnesty for criminals, felony charges for unwitting Marine
When the media that normally rallies against guns sees that New York City is wrong in how it is handling the Ryan Jerome case, you know the city is truly in the wrong.
This week the New York Daily News this week noted:
New York City offers cash for illegal, unregistered guns. Anyone can drop off such a weapon and walk away with a fistful of cash — and immunity from prosecution.
And added:
Approximately one month after Jerome was arrested, the DA’s office hosted a “Gun Buyback” day on October 22. “Individuals will receive $200 bank cards for turning in operable handguns and $20 bank cards for operable rifles and shotguns, no questions asked,” said a press release from Vance’s office.
We’ve long said New York has one law for the rich and famous and one law for everyone else – now it seems there is another law for those who aren’t criminals yet make a mistake, and sadly it is harsher than the punishment (or money) given to the real criminals.
Former Marine Ryan Jerome Update
This week The New York Post noted that Ryan Jerome has been offered a “no-jail misdemeanor plea deal in apparent recognition of the special circumstances of his case.” But even the paper noted this really isn’t enough:
Getting prosecuted under New York’s gun laws is a nonsensical crapshoot, where gangsters get their cases expunged and thugs can turn in illegal weapons for $200 — but a weapon that’s legally registered elsewhere can brand a citizen as a criminal for life.
That’s the view of a retired Marine who is facing criminal charges after unwittingly trying to check his Indiana-registered handgun at the Empire State building, according to the latest court filings in the case.
The paper offered a PDF version of the letter from Jerome’s lawyer to the DA’s office.
Finally, we should correct the Post… Jerome is a former Marine, not an “ex-Marine” as the headline implies
Hufftington Post Writer Calls for NYC Gun Cases to be Thrown Out
This past weekend Steven Strauss, a self-confessed “knee-jerk opponent of the National Rifle Association” offered commentary for the Huffington Post that called for the cases against two tourists – who in different cases “illegally” brought their guns to New York City, believing their home state permits would suffice – to be thrown out.
If even an anti-gun guy like Strauss can see it, why can’t the prosecutors in NYC? Strauss argues:
NY County District Attorney Cyrus Vance should either: explain why these two are being prosecuted, or use his prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the charges. Here’s why:
• Precedent: Vance’s office routinely runs gun buybacks, combined with amnesties, to encourage people to hand in illegal guns — no questions asked. After a recent buyback, Vance said: “Our gun buyback took 139 dangerous weapons out of our neighborhoods, and will hopefully save lives.” Ryan and Meredith made our neighborhoods safer by handing in their weapons to the authorities. They should qualify for the same amnesty.
• Public Safety: It’s desirable that law-abiding citizens, without valid NYC permits, turn their guns over to police. NYC’s gun-control regime isn’t about preventing honest citizens from having guns — but making sure weapons don’t end up in the wrong hands. A policy that encourages unsafe gun disposal is a bad policy. The clear message for visitors to NYC who legally own a gun in their home state (but inadvertently bring it to NYC) is to dispose of that gun — secretly, in a potentially unsafe manner (e.g., tossing it in a garbage can).
• Maintaining long term support for gun control: Prosecutions of non-criminals provide support to foes of gun control. They provide poster children for why states should be forced to recognize each other’s gun permits (however lax the requirements in obtaining them) — a policy NYC opposes.
• Treat the 99% the same as the 1%: Where the 1% are concerned, NY’s prosecutors have used their prosecutorial discretion to not pursue victimless crimes; Meredith and Ryan should qualify for the same treatment.
Excellent points, even if they come from an anti-gun guy!
Anti-Gun Founder of Media Matters Approved of Aide Carrying Gun Illegally
There is a level of hypocrisy that goes beyond belief from the anti-gun crowd. Over the years anti-gun zealots such as Rosie O’Donnell suggested that no one should have gun, yet her bodyguard was armed. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues a crusade against all guns (not just the illegal variety) with his anti-gun group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, yet everywhere the billionaire goes he has armed guards.
And now it seems that David Brock could be the biggest hypocrite of them all. His name might not be as familiar to readers as Bloomberg or O’Donnell, but Brock is founder of Media Matters for America, a progressive watchdog site that routinely calls out the NRA for anything pro-gun.
This week the political site The Daily Caller noted in a multi-page feature on Brock this interesting tidbit:
By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.
Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.
So let’s get this straight. Brock knew that his assistant was armed and breaking the law for carrying a gun, but still regularly crusaded against the NRA and other pro-gun groups. At least with O’Donnell and Bloomberg their respective guards were carrying guns legally, but Brock’s was breaking the law!
We’ll be interested to see if this news is picked up anywhere? Will the media even care?
New York Daily News Gives Bloomberg Platform to Rant
While the story this week in The New York Daily News wasn’t entirely biased, it did basically just parrot New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It offered this passage:
“Federal laws say you can’t get a gun if you have a drug problem, psychiatric problem, criminal record or [are a\] minor, and yet Congress doesn’t give monies to make sure that we can have a background check,” Bloomberg said on “Meet the Press.”
Criminals seeking guns can take advantage of “too many loopholes,” the mayor said.
“The background database isn’t up to date, private sector sales of guns is something like 40%, and they don’t do background checks,” he said.
The problem with this argument is that it basically blames the loopholes and not the criminals. It also tries to suggest that those 40 percent are 100 percent of the illegal gun problem, and there is no evidence this is the case. Once again it seems clear that Bloomberg isn’t just part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, he’s a mayor against all guns.
National Review Calls out Bloomberg
We’re pleased that FirearmsTruth.com isn’t the only one to call out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for issuing what is essentially a mixed message in his call for safer gun laws. As the National Review noted this week, Bloomberg’s issue is as much about the mental-health database as it is a gun issue – too bad that Bloomberg doesn’t address this and leave the gun issue to someone who understands it.
However, the National Review seems to be giving in on the issue a bit. The article notes:
Improving the mental-health database is an unambiguously good idea, and requiring background checks for private sales is at least debatable — a fair number of crime guns seem to come from private sources, and it’s not unreasonable to ask someone who wants to transfer a gun to drive to a licensed dealer first.
We just have to ask where does this line end? Is it unreasonable when a stranger buys a gun from you? This almost makes sense as you don’t know the person, but it becomes a gray area when it could be selling or trading guns to your friend. Is the background check still necessary? And what about when Dad decides to give a family gun to his son? Is the background check still necessary? “Happy birthday son, now let’s go to the gun shop so you can pay to receive your gift.”
And this is where the notion of “reasonable gun control” that so many anti-gun types call for becomes a bit unreasonable, especially as street thugs and criminals NEVER bother with background checks and permits.
