Cuomo administration suspends development of statewide database of ammunition sales, key element of SAFE Act

New York Daily News as suggested by Thomas

Gov. Cuomo is backing off a key element of his much heralded 2013 gun control law, the NY-SAFE Act.

In a major concession to Senate Republicans and new Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, the Cuomo administration agreed to suspend development of a troubled statewide database of ammunition sales.

The agreement also gives Flanagan a veto over the database’s future development, stating that “no expenditures of state monies shall be allocated" for its future development unless both sides agree on a plan to move forward.

"This is a clear victory for Second Amendment rights in New York," said Sen. James Seward (R-Oneonta), who announced the deal.

"The plan to establish a statewide ammunition database has been fraught with problems since it was first conceived, not to mention it infringes on the rights of lawful firearm owners,’ Seward added.

Maybe the reason for this change is because it was "fraught with problems," not because it "infringes on the rights of lawful firearm owners."

Today's the Day for Initiative 594

The Guardian

Washington state voters appear ready to go where their politicians fear to tread and impose greater gun controls in the face of a well-funded campaign by the National Rifle Association and a rival spoiler measure on Tuesday’s ballot.

Opinion polls suggest a clear majority in favour of requiring background checks on all firearms sales in Washington state including at gun shows and through private advertising. The campaign for the only major piece of gun control legislation on the ballot in the US this year, Initiative 594, was launched in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting on the other side of the country two years ago, in which 20 children and six adults were murdered. But the campaign drew to a close with a school killing in Washington itself in which five students were shot in the Marysville school north of Seattle last month.

Last chance to make a prediction.

The Michigan Episcopal Church Calls for More Gun Control

From left: the Rev. Steven Kelly of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Detroit; the Rev. Wendell Gibbs Jr., bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan; and Dennis Lennox, a member of St. John’s Episcopal Church, at the 180th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan.

(Photo: Dennis Lennox )

USA Today

The Episcopal Church in Michigan has passed a controversial resolution calling for stiffer gun control, drawing sharp criticism from conservative members who say it violates the right to bear arms.

The dispute is part of a larger debate among Episcopalians and other mainline Protestants about the future of their churches as they face sharp declines in membership.

Some conservatives say the gun resolution is the latest example of the Episcopal Church focusing on promoting liberal social issues such as gun control and same-sex marriage instead of the gospel, alienating congregants. But liberals say that their views are in line with the teachings of Christianity.

By a clear majority, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan — which consists of southeast Michigan and the Lansing and Jackson areas — voted recently to approve a resolution calling for universal background checks on all gun purchases, banning all sales of semiautomatic weapons, high-impact ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and making gun trafficking a federal crime.

"banning all sales of semiautomatic weapons"

How do you explain this line?

1. typo (they meant to say fully automatic)
2. ignorance (they don't know the difference)
3. conspiracy by evil fanatical gun grabbers (they tried to slip this in there in order to essentially ban all guns)

No monopoly on crazies

To some of my circle's annoyance--I do not "twitter".  I just don't get it.

On the other hand, I have to share this tweet from the White House

This is true--the US does not have a monopoly on crazies, but it does have a problem with allowing access to firearms to those who shouldn't own them.

Trying to divert the issue by saying that the gun violence problem has nothing to do with guns is facially  ludicrous. It demonstrates that you do not understand the scope of this problem.

So, for the stupid "how is that old gun control thing working for you?"  There never has been any significant form of gun "control" (i.e., regulation) in the US.  It has been spotty, if not non-existent when it does appear. 

Fortunately, the Heller and McDonald decisions have held that background checks and registration do not violate the Second Amendment.  here is the Heller-McDonald language:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

 From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

Seriously, if one is going to invoke the Second Amendment, then a lot of things need to change in the US military establishment.  I seriously do not see a lot of the dickheads who wish to enjoy this right as being willing to put up with the responsibilities incumbent to that right: which is to enlist in the National Guard (which is the current incarnation of "the militia") and follow lawful orders.

I whole heartedly support you if you do wish to do exactly that.

Bills that Would Bar Domestic Abusers from Keeping Guns Gain Support at Minnesota Legislature

MPR News

Gun control bills typically don't gain traction in election years, but a couple of proposals are moving through the Legislature this session. Unlike the sweeping proposals that failed last year, the bills this session are more modest and have bipartisan support.

Members of Protect Minnesota and other gun control advocacy groups rallied at the state Capitol Friday to support a bill that, among other things, would allow courts to bar people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.

Bills sponsored by Rep. Dan Schoen, DFL-St. Paul Park, and Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, would allow judges to order gun owners subject to such orders to surrender their guns to law enforcement, a licensed gun dealer or an eligible third party.

Heather Martens, president of Protect Minnesota, said there is a wide consensus that the measure is needed.

"It's something that everyone seems to agree on — that domestic abusers should not have firearms," she said.

Somehow, I doubt that very seriously.  I haven't seen much in the gun debate that "everyone seems to agree on."  Have you?