In another ominous sign of what “tax day” in America really means, the state of New York’s new gun registration requirement and limits on magazines goes into effect today, leaving law-abiding New Yorkers less safe and less prepared to defend themselves and their families against violent attacks from the United States’ criminal element.
After a well-publicized incident of New York wrongly confiscating a state resident’s firearms enabled by just this kind of registration, only time will tell how many New Yorkers will willingly give up their constitutional rights by registering their firearms with the state. This case clearly indicates the state’s desire to heavily regulate who it deems worthy of gun ownership and personal protection. Moreover, the state evidently feels little obligation to doing even the slightest modicum of due diligence before removing a law-abiding citizen’s ability to protect him or herself with a firearm.
Magazine limits also go into effect today, making it that much easier for home invaders – especially those who choose to break into homes in groups – to successfully rob state residents of their possessions and, in some cases, their lives. Law-abiding state residents are now required to take care of the situation using no more than 7 shots. Criminals’ magazine capacities, of course, are not required to abide by the law.
Today, New Yorkers are less safe than yesterday. The state legislature systematically removed law-abiding people’s ability to protect themselves and positioned the state to be the supreme ruler of firearms in the state, which is home to one of the bloodiest cities in the union – New York City.
To say the state of New York did its citizens a disservice is an understatement. This is flat out criminal.
In encouraging news, several local guns rights groups are raising funds to fight back against the state of Connecticut’s recent passage of gun laws that strip law-abiding citizens of their right to own certain firearms and instantly turns regular citizens into criminals (New York, anyone?). The National Rifle Association has joined forces with these groups to add some fire power to the cause of second amendment freedom and liberty.
The groups include the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights. Gun shops and other firearms clubs from the state are helping to raise money by donating to a legal defense fund to help the group wage legal challenges against the new gun-grabbing laws. The first lawsuit was filed this week by the group.
The new Connecticut gun laws include a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and prohibits the use of high capacity magazines, two provisions that have demonstrably little effect on preventing gun crimes.
Despite claims that the rich are not “paying their fair share” and government spending that now exceeds the median income for all Americans, the federal government is projected to take in a record amount of revenue this year, exceeding the CBO’s estimates. By the end of the fiscal year, the government is expected to confiscate from Americans a whopping $2.712 trillion in taxes.
The previous record was set in 2007 when the feds swam in more than $2.5 trillion.
A 76-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with multiple crimes after using his shotgun to kill a 7-foot, 350-pound bear that chased the man around his backyard. ”It just dropped,” the man said of the bear’s shooting.
For the crime of resisting death at the hands (paws?) of a man-killing wild animal, the state has charged the resident with multiple crimes including killing a bear, baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure the weapon. More or less, the state would rather this man have stood there defenseless to provide this bear with a fresh meal for the evening.
The police do not believe the bear was a threat to anyone. The resident, who was chased by the bear, feels differently.
According to a survey from PoliceOne.com, more than 15,000 police officers resoundingly believe that the gun controls being discussed in Congress and passed in several states are meaningless to public safety and will not reduce violent crime.
Asked what effect the White House’s position on gun controls would have in improving police officer safety, more than 60% said “none”. Asked if the assault weapons ban would reduce violent crime, more than 70% said “none”. 95% of officers surveyed said that magazine limits will not reduce violent crime.
Once again, those most intimately involved in stopping violent crime and experienced in the lawful use of firearms resoundingly believe most of the proposed gun controls to be ineffectual on their face. The majority of officers believe that stiff penalties for those who commit a crime with a gun would do more to curb violent crime than trying to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, something I wrote about recently.