Friday, October 29, 2010

Because NYC's gun regs weren't tight enough already...

There are cities in America that deny their residents the most effective means of self-defense even more strictly than The Big Apple, such as Chicago and Washington DC and... uh... Chicago...

Anyway, New York City, whose current firearms acquisition process makes the court protocol of Justinian the First look as transparent and simple as the Flat Tax, is apparently mulling over adding a new set of flaming hoops through which prospective gun owners must jump. Among other things, they plan to deny duck guns to people with too many parking tickets, since a proclivity for double parking is apparently a sign of a poor ability to handle one's fowling piece.

Additionally, lack of "good moral character" is on the list of downchecks. Traditionally, this has been used in other jurisdictions as a code phrase for "excessive swarthiness" or "donated to the wrong candidate in the last election", but surely the good burghers of Gotham are too pure and incorruptible to... to... BWAHAHAHAHA! sorry, got carried away there... too pure and incorruptible to use this vague requirement so capriciously.

Further, permits will be denied for having been fired for "circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment". I'd be willing to bet that plenty of current NYC firearms permit holders showed a lack of good judgment by buying and selling bundles of mortgage-backed securities which were in fact backed by nothing more than the full faith and credit of the people who made Flip This House a hit TV show, but since few of them have been fired, their permits should be safe.


(H/T to The Travis McGee Reader.)

13 comments:

deadcenter said...

I wonder how many celebrities that have convictions that resulted from lack of judgement will continue to retain their ownership privileges?

Bubblehead Les. said...

Isn't it funny that after the McDonald Ruling that the Anti-Gun Cities are making their laws even more stringent? At first glance, one would think that it would be like hanging a dead man after he was electrocuted. But these are a Cunning Folk. If they get sued with their new extremist laws, they are betting that by removing their new additions, the courts will rule that their original laws in place pre-McDonald will be declared "Reasonable Restrictions". Then you have to fight them again in the courts, and the taxpayers pay their legal bills, while the SAF and others need donations to maintain the battle. This allows them to drag on the fight for years, and when Kennedy and/or a Conservative on the SCOTUS will die and be replaced by a young Liberal or two, and they can over turn McDonald and Heller.

Remember, the Ruling Elite FEARS the Peasants being Armed. Know thy Enemy.

rickn8or said...

I predicted with McDonald, we'd spend the next thirty years getting an exact definition of "shall not be infringed."

Buzz said...

The words couldn't be more clear:

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED


Got it, worthless turds?

Comrade Misfit said...

Gun control has always been a means to ensure that "those people" do not have access to firearms.

Brad K. said...

I wonder - if they establish that you gots to have good character to buy a gun - won't that spill over onto other weapons?

Like cars, since thy kill more people that guns, and hospitals - way more people die in hospitals, too. I think. How about dogs? And baby cribs. You should definitely have to prove good character to get a job babysitting, or driving a subway, or to join a union . . wait, that wouldn't fly. Um, I know! You should have to show good character to run for city council or mayor . . oh, wait, that would be a bigger problem than union dues.

I actually think you should demand your daughter's friends - and especially dates and, um, 'dates', should all have good character, otherwise she is likely to run with the wrong crowd, and her own character be corrupted, she might be abused or neglected, or just taken advantage of. But that doesn't work all the time.

I like Barry Goldwater's "You cannot legislate morality." That, and Judge Dredd's brother's 'Secret of life' - "It ends." But that is a story for another day.

Good character is something so judgmental that it is rife with risk of abuse - such as racial and gender bigotry, corrupt influence peddling, black marketing, etc.

Let me back up. NYC might benefit from such a move, if they require everyone applying for a city position, from police to mayor, to pass all the requirements for getting a gun - whether they actually buy one or not. Maybe even require every elected official to buy a handgun, and train three hours a week as "auxiliary security" - another armed citizen, capable of defending themselves, their family, and their neighbors "until the police arrive". Can't pass all the hoops and tests? Can't run for office. Maybe get a note from the Quakers certifying member in good standing and with conscientious objection in good order (another pesky character reference), to get out of the gun purchase.

I can think of a few other communities that could benefit from something like that.

wv: foses - thoses agin me.

John said...

Sheeple and the Masters.

Flock 'em all.

Brad K. said...

bubblehead les,

I think if the neighbors of the folk that sue then sue for infringement of their rights while the intentionally infringing regs were on the books - cities might start to think twice.

I am sure Michale Bloomberg would be peeved by a suit by several million voters for negligence and misuse of office to the tune of, say, $250,000 each, one might be able to affect the prevailing attitudes of the city.

Maybe even sue any politician that runs for office wanting to control guns.

Randy said...

I think you could make the argument that simply voluntarily choosing to live in NYFC demonstrates "lack of good judgment."

John Stephens said...

Anyone else get the feeling that Gun Control is nothing more than a conspiracy by the lawyers to keep themselves employed?

Anonymous said...

"Gun control has always been a means to ensure that "those people" do not have access to firearms."

I agree, but the problem is that the definition of "those people" has become everyone BUT us.


Bill

Steve Skubinna said...

Does anyone in NYC find it offensive that the slugs and parasites and leeches in City Hall will be judging them on "good moral character" and "good judgment?" New Yorkers like to pretend they're tough, but for the most part they're swaggering pussies, submitting to horrendous abuse for the dubious privilege of residing in the Navel of the Universe.

Ancient Woodsman said...

I passed through NYC recently.

It's not the navel.