Monthly Archives: March 2014

Anti-Gun Gov. Cuomo calls for banishment of pro-gun opposition

By Chris Cox On 4:13 PM 03/26/2014

Politicians seeking to diminish Second Amendment rights often couch their views in language that hides their true agenda. But, on January 17, pro-gun advocates were squarely confronted with the contempt in which they are held by some political elites. Speaking on “The Capitol Pressroom” public radio program, Governor Andrew Cuomo labeled gun rights supporters who are “pro-assault weapon” and critical of his so-called SAFE Act as “extreme conservatives” who “have no place in the state of New York.” Ironically, this statement says more about Cuomo himself than those he attacks.

Besides being arrogant and dismissive, these comments ignore reality in the Empire State. The SAFE Act was passed under cover of night, and bypassed normal legislative procedures. Its own proponents obviously knew it would be controversial. Indeed, opposition to the law has been widespread, including among law enforcement groups such as the New York State Sheriffs’ Association. Further, the constitutionality of the act is still being litigated. As noted elsewhere in this issue, a case supported by NRA and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenging the law is progressing through the federal courts, and parts of the law have already been blocked by a federal judge.

One likely reason Cuomo considers those who defend the Second Amendment to be extreme is that he does not believe the amendment protects an individual right at all. As attorney general of New York, Cuomo signed onto a brief defending the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief argued the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right but instead “was intended to protect state sovereignty by restricting the federal government’s ability to regulate gun ownership in ways that would interfere with state militias.” Following the court’s affirmation of the individual right interpretation, a Gallup poll showed that 73 percent of Americans agreed with the decision, leaving Cuomo in a small minority.

In 1998, as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Clinton administration, Cuomo’s radical push to have the federal government support frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry faced resistance even from within the decidedly anti-gun White House. One White House insider opined that the scheme “smells like Cuomo” and that the Justice Department wouldn’t want to pursue the case. “How can you blame gun manufacturers for illegal weapons brought into public housing by tenants and non-tenants,” he asked. “Where is the conspiracy?”

Other gun control supporters agreed. In a Dec. 17, 1999, editorial, the Washington Post described the Cuomo supported lawsuits as “disquieting even for those who, like us, strongly support rigorous controls on handguns.” The piece went on to explain it “seems wrong for an agency of the federal government to organize other plaintiffs to put pressure on an industry… to achieve policy results the administration has not been able to achieve through normal legislation or regulation.”

Congress itself implicitly condemned Cuomo’s tactics by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005, which effectively barred these sorts of suits against gun manufacturers.

Even before Cuomo’s latest outburst, on May 21, 2013, the Albany Times Union reported that a source told them Cuomo “threatened to remove sheriffs from office” if the law enforcement officials did not keep quiet about their opposition to the SAFE Act. This is consistent with Cuomo’s attempt in 2000 to bully gun makers into signing an agreement supporting several gun control proposals by threatening to exert his influence as HUD secretary to sway municipal law enforcement contracts.

Most tellingly, the so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines banned by Cuomo’s “SAFE” Act are among the most popular, fastest-selling arms in the United States. Law-abiding Americans are expressing their disagreement with him with their hard-earned dollars.

Based on Cuomo’s long history of thuggish tactics to advance a radical anti-gun agenda, his recent comments striking at the core of New York’s pluralism are merely the latest example that he is the true extremist. This November, we encourage all NRA members and Second Amendment supporters in the Empire State to deliver just as strong a message that he is not welcome as their governor.

Chris’s column appears in the NRA publications American RiflemanAmerican Hunter and America’s First FreedomClick here to get a discounted NRA Annual Membership for only $25 a year complete with your choice of magazine delivered to your door.

Two Americas

On December 9, 2013 Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech”:

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have not’s, it’s the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t.   That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.

It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.   That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.”    He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery.   The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.   Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.   It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise “that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful“ seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.   Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.   Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.  There is significant income inequality between us.  Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.   While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes.   His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?  No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.  The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his butt and did nothing.  Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest “as ye sow, so shall ye reap“ is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”  Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way.   He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

NY senator calls adding voter registration to hunting license forms an ‘NRA voter assistance act’

By Teri Weaver | The Post-Standard
February 27, 2014

SYRACUSE, N.Y.   A proposal in Albany to make it easier for hunters and anglers to register to vote has been dubbed the “NRA voter assistance act” by one critical lawmaker.

The proposal would make voter registration an option for people who buy hunting and fishing licenses through the state’s Department of Environmental Conversation.

Already, people who interact with other government agencies – including the Department of Motor Vehicles, social service agencies and unemployment offices – can register to vote while renewing a driver’s license or applying for other public programs.

Sen. Greg Ball, R-Patterson, wants to add the DEC to that list.

But some Democratic senators questioned that today, arguing Ball’s bill was really intended to help hunters and fishers – who might oppose New York’s gun laws under the NY Safe Act – to register to vote.

Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, called the bill “the NRA voter assistance act” during today’s floor debate.

Later, Ball pulled the proposal before a vote was held.

Similar legislation passed the Senate twice in the past two years. Last year, it passed 54-9; all of Central New York’s senators voted in favor of the bill. Hoylman voted against the proposal last year.

The Assembly did not take up the bill last year.

Contact Teri Weaver at, 315-470-2274 or on Twitter at @TeriKWeaver.