gun control

Uncategorized

Toomey & Manchin – The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

April 10, 2013 by 6 Comments

I didn’t get to see the press conference at 11am. However, the following is the joint release that Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin are putting out. They are calling this bill “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act”.

As with everything, the devil is in the details. One of the keys will be how transfers are defined. Will it be transfer as in transferring ownership or the Bloomberg desired redefinition. If it is the latter, this bill needs to die a quick death with plenty of pain for both Toomey and Manchin. Remember these are only the publicized details of the bill and not the actual language

The only two things I really see that I like within this bill is that a concealed carry permit from any state will substitute for a NICS check and that interstate sales of handguns will now be permitted by dealers. I am presuming that the latter means you or I can go into a gun shop in another state and buy that custom 1911 that has been sitting in the dealer’s second hand case. While I can currently use my NC CHP for a purchase, the concern I’d have about this provision is letting the Feds get involved in defining the requirements of a CCW.

I still think Pat Toomey is a damn fool for even getting involved in any of this and should have let the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot with gun control.

Bottom Line: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.

TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.

  • – Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
  • – Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
  • – Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
  • – Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

  • – Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
  • – Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
  • – Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
  • – Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
  • – Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.
  • – Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
  • – Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
  • – Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
  • – Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
  • – Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

 TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE

Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.

The bill will not ban any type of firearm.

The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.

The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.

The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens –

Uncategorized

Toomey, Manchin, And The Politics Of “Doing Something”

April 10, 2013 by 2 Comments

I, for one, do not understand just what the hell that Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) thought he’d gain by entering backroom discussions on gun control with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Gun control legislation was dying in the Senate because red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2014 were mortally afraid of it. Toomey’s move gives them more than a bit of cover.

I’ll be in client meetings when Toomey and Manchin have their press conference at 11 am this morning. However, Sebastian and Bitter have been doing a great job of reporting on Toomey’s efforts. I suggest going there to read some more background and to keep up with the latest details.

Uncategorized

GRNC On S.374 And S.649

April 8, 2013 by

Grass Roots North Carolina issued an alert last night regarding the pressure that is being put on Sen. Kay Hagan and five Republican senators to support gun control. They note the ads being run by MAIG and petitions being gathered by OFA. GRNC has some suggested messages to send to Hagan and to the other senators.

From GRNC:


MAIG & Obama radicals pressuring Hagan & others

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to bring S. 649, the latest “universal background check” (read that “registration”) bill to a vote as early as this week, Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” Obama’s “Organizing for Action, and the media have begun a full court press to pass whatever gun control they can foist on the American public.

In fact, North Carolinians “Against Gun Control” just dropped 39,000 petitions, presumably gathered by Obama’s radicals at “Organizing for Action,” on Hagan. In response, the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban forged by GRNC and others is running a campaign against Hagan and 5 other senators.

S. 374 & S. 649 would make you a criminal

There is nothing benign about “universal background checks,” which are gun control code words for “universal gun registration.” Not only would S. 649 open the door for registration, it and similar bills under consideration would make it a 5-year federal felony to:

  • Leave town for more than 7 days, and leave your wife, partner, or roommate at home with your guns;

  • Lend a gun to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;

  • Loan a gun to your mother if she lives at a different residence;

  • Hand a gun to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;

  • Teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand them the gun; or

  • Fail to report a gun as lost or stolen within 24 hours, even if you are on a hunting trip deep in the woods and are unable to do so.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

  • CALL & EMAIL SEN. KAY HAGAN IMMEDIATELY at 202-224-6342 and by CLICKING HERE or going to: http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact/ and deliver the message below.

  • CALL @ EMAIL Sen. Richard Burr at 202-224-3154 and by CLICKING HERE or going to: http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm and deliver the message below.

  • Call and email senate Republicans Pat Toomey (PA), Chuck Grassley (IA), Tom Coburn (OK), and Mitch McConnell (KY)

  • DONATE TO GRNC: In the next two days, GRNC will be sending 30,000 automated telephone alerts to gun-owning voters. THIS DOESN’T COME CHEAP. Please help with the effort by CLICKING HERE or going to: http://www.grnc.org/join-grnc/contribute

CONTACT INFORMATION

Sen. Pat Toomey (PA), 202-224-4254, email HERE or at: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), 202-224–3744, email HERE or at: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Sen. Tom Coburn (OK), 202-224-5754, email HERE or at: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactform

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), 202-224-2541, email HERE or at: http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

To Hagan:

Suggested Subject: Don’t Support Universal Background Checks/Registration

Dear Senator Hagan:

You recently expressed support for the type of “universal background checks” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring to a floor vote as early as this week. You’ve also been pressured by Michael Bloomberg’s misnamed group, “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” and President Obama’s “Organizing for Action.”

But I live in North Carolina. They don’t. I am one of the 300,000 gun-owning North Carolina voters who will follow the recommendations of Grass Roots North Carolina and the 39-member “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban” they have formed.

More importantly, *I* am the one who will work to remove you from office if you fail to: (1) Vote against any “motion to proceed” on S. 374, S. 649 or whatever other thinly disguised gun registration bill hits the Senate floor, and (2) Support efforts to filibuster such legislation.

I would suggest you act like your political career depends on it, because it does. I will be closely monitoring your actions via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

To Senate Republicans:

Suggested Subject: Don’t Support Universal Background Checks/Registration

Dear Senator:

I am one of the hundreds of thousands of gun-owners who follow recommendations of the 39-member “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban”. They have formed to oppose any and all gun control.

More importantly, *I* am the one who will work to remove you from office if you fail to: (1) Vote against any “motion to proceed” on S. 374, S. 649 or whatever other thinly disguised gun registration bill hits the Senate floor, and (2) Support efforts to filibuster such legislation.

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban will not accept any “compromise” on competing universal gun registration schemes — not between Sens. Charles Schumer and Tom Coburn, not between Sen. Joe Manchin and the NRA, and not the “alternative” being put together by Sen. Chuck Grassley. We have long ago learned that “compromise” in the gun debate defines a process in which we lose less freedom than under our opposition’s original proposal, but we still lose.

Uncategorized

Who Will Be The First To Leave?

April 7, 2013 by 14 Comments

Now that both Maryland and Connecticut have passed their draconian gun control acts, the question becomes who among the gun manufacturers in those two states will be the first to relocate.

On Thursday, there was an article in Opposing Views suggesting that Beretta USA had announced their departure from Maryland. However, if you read the article closely, this is incorrect. What Beretta actually said was that they would have to leave if the gun control legislation was passed. They have not yet made a formal announcement that they were moving their operations out of Maryland. I’m sure that probably will happen but it hasn’t happened yet.

So that leaves the question who will be first. Moreover, where will they move.

Both states have a number of well-known firearms manufacturers: Beretta, Colt, Ruger, and Mossberg. However, to get a better feel for the companies involved in firearms manufacturing in both states, I went to the ATF list of Federal Firearms Licensees. I pulled the 07 FFLs – manufacturers of firearms other than destructive devices – and 10 FFLs – manufacturers of destructive devices for each state. It should be noted that some of the firearms “manufacturers” in each state either make components or are actually gunsmiths doing custom work.

Maryland and Connecticut each have five manufacturers of destructive devices including big companies such as Beretta, Colt Defense, Colt’s Manufacturing, and  defense contractor Mistral Group. Under the listing for ordinary firearms manufacturers, Connecticut has 121 companies listed while Maryland has 105 companies listed. Below is a list by state of some of the true manufacturers as opposed to either gunsmiths or those providing ancillary services such as CNC milling or specialty coatings.

Maryland

Connecticut

When discussing who will leave and who won’t, we need to keep a number of things in mind. First, you don’t just relocate a plant of any kind at the drop of a hat. Second, the companies involved have ties to their community and region going back generations. Third, very few, if any, of the manufacturers do everything and must depend upon local subcontractors to perform certain operations. Fourth, the companies would be losing a well trained workforce if they moved and their employees did not also relocate. Finally, with the firearm industry being heavily regulated, there would be immense amounts of red-tape involved in moving to a new state.

Dan Haar of the Hartford Courant looks at the issue in an article published yesterday entitled, “Gun Industry Dilemma: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?” He notes the issue for some of these companies is not just having to move family but the consumer backlash on their companies if they don’t.

Scalise (of ASC) badly wants to stay in Connecticut, where he and his wife have four children ages 5 to 12. So does Mark Malkowski, owner of Stag Arms a few hundred yards away in New Britain, and the executives at O.F. Mossberg & Sons and Colt’s Manufacturing Co. — all of them makers of the now banned military-style rifles at the heart of the law.

The trouble is not the direct effects of the ban — they’re allowed to continue manufacturing, and each firm will lose a few percentage points of their sales — but rather, the companies’ standing in an industry where customers famously punish certain brands.

The companies have been receiving thousands of emails from both current and future customers urging them to move. Some have indicated they will purchase from other companies if, for example, Stag Arms, stays in Connecticut. Moreover, industrial recruiters from more gun friendly states have been offering incentives to the companies to move. Whether they will move lock, stock, and barrel or move some of the production to plants in other states is the question.

Haar believes that the majority will attempt to grow production at plants outside of the state while still having some operations in Connecticut. He notes that Mossberg has a plant in Texas. It should also be remembered that Colt opened a new factory in Osceola County, Florida in 2011. Likewise, in Maryland, Beretta has some operations in Virginia.

Having established metal fabricating and finishing companies in a state would be a definite plus in attracting any firearm company to relocate. You would tend to find many of these co-located with the automotive and aircraft industries. Thus, you could see companies moving to the Upstate of South Carolina due to BMW, to Alabama due to Mercedes, to Tennessee due to Nissan, or Kentucky due to Toyota. Likewise, you could see a company relocating to the Wichita, KS area with its aircraft industry. All of these locations are in gun friendly states with strong industrial development recruiting departments.

So who would be first to go? In terms of ease of relocating, Ruger would be at the top of the list. Their manufacturing operations are in New Hampshire and Arizona. The only operations they have in Connecticut are their corporate offices.

The next on my list would be either ASC or Stag Arms. ASC is actively considering it.

Scalise, his accountant, lawyer and a few industry colleagues are looking into a move to a friendlier state. And it’s not just ASC, a New Britain business with 100 employees, that might pull up stakes. Scalise’s other company in New Britain, Marsam Metal Finishing, and at least one other firm in the firearms industry are part of the joint plan.

In all, more than 300 people would lose their jobs or be forced to move to a locale like Arkansas, South Dakota, Kansas or Texas, to name just four states that are wooing Scalise with tax breaks, cheap labor and a government that has open arms for arms-makers.

“We’re doing a due diligence analysis state-by-state,” Scalise said.

Mark Malkowski of Stag is also considering moving.

Mark Malkowski, the 34-year-old founder of Stag Arms, said he grew up in New Britain, where the company is based, and had never before considered leaving the state. But he said he would consider it now.

“If our product is so bad, so dangerous, why would the state of Connecticut want us to produce it here, create jobs here, manufacture it here and ship it to all the other states?” he said.

You would also have to put Beretta up high on the list given their past statements.

As to the others, I foresee that they will move more and more operations out of state as time goes by.  While they all can “export” their products for now, you have to wonder how long the state will even allow that.

This all leaves one more entity to consider – the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is hard for me to see just how long they can remain in Connecticut and not be considered to be tacitly endorsing the Connecticut gun control laws by staying.

Uncategorized

NSSF On Passage Of Connecticut Legislation

April 5, 2013 by



The National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown, Connecticut released the following statement yesterday regarding the passage of that state’s new gun control law. I think the most important part of their statement is the last sentence which says they are studying it for possible legal challenges.

I think this will be a given and not a possibility. The only question will be which gun rights organization files first.

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement today:

Gov. Dannel Malloy today signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembled in secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received a public hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual bill language.

The unfortunate results of this process, which made it appear that all points of view were being heard when in fact true expertise was shut out when it was most needed, means that mistakes in what is now enacted law will have to be corrected.

For example, language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailers to perform mandatory “universal” background checks on private party transactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulations governing the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As we read it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions in the state now cannot be accomplished legally.

We share the goal of wanting to make Connecticut safer for our citizens following the unspeakable tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the end, however, public safety has not been enhanced and the unintended consequences of behind-closed-doors lawmaking will cause considerable confusion until the General Assembly corrects its mistakes.

Here is where we stand today. Law-abiding citizens of this state now have greater restrictions on their Second Amendment and state constitutional rights while Connecticut’s firearms manufacturers will be forced to seriously weigh the impact on their businesses and their employees of the state’s double-standard of you can build it here, but not sell it here, public policy formulation.

We will be carefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in the courts.

Uncategorized

So Much For Being “The Free State”

April 4, 2013 by 4 Comments

One of the state nicknames for Maryland is the Free State. With the passage of draconian gun control by the Maryland House of Delegates yesterday, that nickname should be called into question. The bill in question, SB 281, now returns to the State Senate for concurrence.

The bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics the proponents don’t like; would require training, a license, and fingerprinting to purchase a handgun; and would ban the sale and transfer of  all magazines with greater than 10 round capacity. The bill would also require the registration of all currently possessed “assault pistols” and “assault weapons”.  Failure to do so would result in fines and an up to one year prison term. Maryland Shall Issue has an excellent summary of the provisions of the bill here.

The NRA-ILA issued an alert last night urging Marylanders to contact their state senator and Senate President Mike Miller. As they noted, this will be the last chance to stop this legislation. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD) has been a major proponent of gun control legislation and will sign this bill if passed by the Senate.

UPDATE: The Maryland Senate gave final approval to the bill yesterday and it has been sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley for his signature. At this point, the only thing that could delay its implementation is if opponents gather enough signatures to get it put on the ballot in November 2014 as a referendum item.

Uncategorized

There Is A Reason Congress Doesn’t Vote In Secret

April 2, 2013 by 5 Comments

Yesterday the Washington Post ran an article about how the push for gun control measures is running out of steam in Congress. It seems that those of us who believe in Constitutional rights and the Second Amendment have been pushing back.

Among the people interviewed for this article was Matt Bennett of Third Way. This “think tank” tries to portray itself as centrist which might be true in DC but not elsewhere. It says it seeks “principled solutions and pragmatic compromise.” Among the items on their agenda is more gun control or, as they call it, “gun safety laws.”

Speaking of the progress on gun control since Senators went home to their states for the Easter break where they have been hearing from their constituents, Mr. Bennett had this to say:

“If there was a secret-ballot vote it would pass overwhelmingly, because
from a substantive point of view most of these senators understand that
this is the right thing to do,” said Matt Bennett, a gun-control
advocate and senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
“What’s holding them back is pure politics.”

Yes, and if we had star chambers then all those who opposed so-called progressive laws would be in prison or worse.

Mr. Bennett is the Senior VP for Public Affairs for Third Way. Previously, he worked as an assistant to Al Gore and then Bill Clinton. He was the Director of Public Affairs fro 2001-2004 for the gun control group Americans for Gun Safety among other jobs post-Clinton.

It is rather appalling to read of the anti-democratic principles espoused by gun control proponents. It is all too easy for them to denigrate the voice of those of us in the hinterlands as “pure politics” if we disagree with their “prescriptions”. They should remember that America is not some sort of technocratic autocracy where “our betters” rule. We still retain for now the vote and by God we will vote out those who think so little of our Second Amendment rights.

Uncategorized

Another Company Leaving Colorado

April 1, 2013 by 6 Comments

In the lead story in both the Outdoor and Shooting Wires, it is reported that HiViz Shooting Systems is leaving Ft. Collins, Colorado due to the new gun control laws recently signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO). HiViz makes fiber optic sights for rifles, shotguns, and pistols. The President and CEO of HiViz, Phillip Howe, said they were in discussions with officials in an undisclosed neighboring state to move operations to that state.

Mr. Howe comments, “I make this announcement with mixed emotions. Colorado is a beautiful state with great people, but we cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our customer base.” Mr. Howe notes that prior to the changes in law in Colorado, he made several attempts to persuade state officials via emails and telephone calls to proceed slowly with gun control legislation that would impact individual shooters and the shooting industry as a whole.

HiViz will move their corporate headquarters first and then their other operations.

In the same issue of the Shooting Wire, it was announced that the Rocky Mountain Western States Regional IDPA Championship scheduled to be held in Montrose, Colorado in July was cancelled. The cancellation comes due, like the HiViz move, to the new Colorado gun control laws.

This is the second major shooting competition to be either cancelled or moved from Colorado. The 2013 Ruger Rimfire Challenge World Championship was scheduled to be held at the Colorado Rifle Club in Byers in July. It is being rescheduled and will be relocated to another state.

If I were a Colorado resident or even a potential Colorado visitor, I’d be reminding Gov. Hickenlooper that actions have consequences. Here is a link to his email page.

Uncategorized

United Network Of Rational Americans? Huh?

March 29, 2013 by 2 Comments

A new group pushing gun control and background checks has emerged on the scene. Calling themselves United Network of Rational Americans, they have just released a gun control video. The video quotes the late Ronald Reagan from 1991 as saying that if there had been background checks in 1981 then he and Jim Brady would never have been shot.

Ignoring President Reagan’s statement and his later signature on a letter supporting the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which one of his own sons has attributed to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, just who the heck is United Network for Rational Americans?

It appears to be the invention of Scott Crider of Watchdog Causes LLC. Located in Gulf Shores, Alabama, Watchdog Causes calls themselves a “a progressive-leaning social media & online/interactive marketing consultancy.” They are the ones responsible for inventing and promoting the Dogs Against Romney campaign which did draw a good bit of media attention.

About the ad, Crider is quoted in US News and World Report saying:

“We need to convince Republicans in Washington. Reagan lived by the Grace of God, not because he had armed security. And he lived to tell Republicans in Washington today to use your brains, use your hearts, and have enough guts to do what’s right,” says Scott Crider, the creator of UNRA. “Instead of being selfish and worrying that the NRA will give you a primary opponent in your next election, worry about that next child that will get murdered by a madman with a gun if you don’t do your job.”

From his resume, Crider states he is a 1987 graduate in communications from Ouachita Baptist University and independent social media and interactive marketing consultant.

An award-winning digital marketer and social media strategist with real-world accomplishments and quantifiable results, Scott Crider has 25- years of experience as a marketing executive. A digital marketing leader and innovator for more than 15-years, Crider drives the strategy and execution of digital marketing programs that leverage viral opportunities in social media and related applications. With a proven track record of identifying high-impact opportunities and innovative strategies for clients and brands, Crider focuses on application strategy and technology integration within the social media space.

Beyond a Facebook page and a website, there doesn’t seem to be much to UN-RA. Despite The Hill calling them a “pro-gun-control group”, there doesn’t seem to be much group there. Their Facebook page was put up on March 6th and their webpage only has its first posting on March 19th where they are pushing bumper stickers and magnets.

In UN-RA’s “about page”, they say:

The UNRA (United Network of Rational Americans) is composed of people and groups who support the 2nd Amendment and honor America’s history of responsible gun ownership. Many UNRA members own guns, store them and use them responsibly, undergo training to learn to defend themselves and their families, and participate in hunting and shooting sports.

Given their sparse background and their recent creation, it would be interesting to know just where the money is coming from for the video and webpage that seems to be targeting Republican politicians. Is it coming from Mr. Crider’s own pocket or is it being funneled to him groups like Obama’ Organizing for America or Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors? I doubt we will ever really find out the answers to this question.

In the meantime, we should keep monitoring this group if only because Mr. Crider has been successful in garnering media attention for lefty causes in the past.

Uncategorized

The Fine Hand Of Bloomberg And Bill Drafting

March 26, 2013 by 9 Comments

The New York Post reported yesterday that sources within Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration are blaming the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg’s people for all the problems with the new NY SAFE Act. That is, of course, beyond the fact that the bill was rammed through both houses of the New York State legislature with very no discussion.

A Cuomo administration source is flatly denying the governor’s claim that his new anti-gun SAFE Act was carefully drafted, saying the governor himself wasn’t even aware of some provisions when it was hastily enacted into law.

“The governor thought the limit on the size of [gun] magazines would only apply to assault-style rifles, not to handguns,’’ said the source.

“That’s why there’s the big problem now with handguns, among other things in the statute.’’

The legal sale of virtually all semiautomatic handguns will soon be impossible because Cuomo’s law limits the size of bullet-holding magazines to seven shots, virtually none of which are manufactured for sale.

“Much of what’s in the law was drafted by people connected to Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady Center, not by the governor’s staff,” the source said. “That’s why there are so many problems with it.’’

As Michael Bane has reported many times, the new gun control bills in Colorado were drafted by Bloomberg and his people and have definitions that are peculiar to New York law and not Colorado law. This especially relates to the definition of transfer of a firearm.

Meanwhile back in February, in Minnesota, Rep. Alice Hausman, the prime sponsor and ostensible author of HF 241 – the Minnesota “assault weapons” (sic) ban – left the hearings on her own bill and let Heather Martens, a lobbyist from the gun control group Protect Minnesota, explain the bill. Hausman told a reporter later that she really didn’t understand her own bill. That bill also had a different definition of “transfer” as well.

As used in this section, “transfer” means a sale, gift, loan,
assignment, or other delivery to another, whether or not for consideration, of an assault
weapon.

When the BATFE speaks of transfer of a firearm, they mean the transfer of ownership or title. Under normal commercial law, a sales transaction or transfer of title requires an offer, an acceptance of that offer, and the offering of consideration. Consideration is the cash or other remuneration paid for the item. Without those three actions, the transaction or transfer is void and didn’t occur. Notice that the Minnesota law explicitly removes the third element from their definition of transfer.

I’m sure a close examination of any of the other gun control bills involving semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and background checks that have been introduced in many state legislatures would show these same similarities. What Michael Bloomberg and his billions can’t achieve on a national level might be achieved on the state level if we aren’t on guard. As Michael Bane said to Tom Gresham on Sunday during his interview on Gun Talk, they were blindsided in Colorado.

UPDATE: It seems like Mayor Bloomberg isn’t pleased with the reports that Cuomo is blaming the drafting of NY SAFE on him.

Asked about that criticism today, Bloomberg erupted in anger.

“What did we do, put a gun to their head, if you pardon the pun, and force them to write legislation?” he said, during a press conference in Brooklyn about helping the unemployed get jobs. “Is that the allegation? That we were up there with automatic weapons with expanded capacity magazines forcing them to write a bill?”

“That’s the kind of journalism that I find troublesome,” he continued. “You’ve got a source that isn’t willing to put their name on the bill and the reporting of it wasn’t in the context of, is that credible? But they were forced by guns, or a knife at their throat, to take our ideas. If they took our ideas, I’m flattered. I hope they did. And I don’t know whether they did or didn’t, and I don’t know whether they got it accurate or not.”

In a latter statement from one of Bloomberg’s press spokesman, they said they wanted micro-stamping in NY SAFE but never said anything about magazines. Hmmm.

Jacob at GunpoliticsNY.com has more on this along with some analysis. Sebastian discusses this buck-passing and the reliance on polling by some politicians in a post this afternoon. I suggest reading both.