Mayor Bloomberg, States’ Rights Hypocrite
Yesterday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) officially protested H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, requiring all states issuing concealed handgun permits to recognize all other states’ permits.
The mayors’ group, insisting that Congress is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, launched a national campaign to “defend [the] right of states to decide who can carry…”
While there may be a 10th Amendment concern with H.R. 822–another topic too large to include here–the point is how MAIG curiously has become a pro-Tenth Amendment organization.
Let’s proceed to exhibit A.
For years, Bloomberg, MAIG founder and leader, has complained about the need for an “assault weapons” ban. In 2004, he published this statement urging renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban.
Bloomberg continues to work with anti-rights politicians like Rep. Charlie Rangel and Senator Chuck Schumer to implement another ban on semi-automatic rifles–shooting one bullet per trigger pull–that share some cosmetic similarities to real military assault rifles shooting multiple bullets per trigger pull.
Bloomberg’s rifle ban would require a federal law, infringing upon states’ rights to decide whether or not their residents can own such rifles. By supporting this, Bloomberg ignores his own alleged support for the 10th Amendment.
I wouldn’t expect consistent logic to those who believe guns “go off” or are some corrupting death magic that will cause everyone having a rough day to become a mass murderer, or who place form over function when it comes to generating their arcane definitions for “assault weapons”…
No, no, no—you misread Mayor Mike. He wants a salt rifle ban, since he is tired of reporters rifling through his life and recording the many instances in which he has consumed great quantities of salt, the very thing he is hell-bent on preventing the populace of New York City from consuming.
The problem of course is “States’ Rights”.
States don’t have Rights.
People have Rights.
States have Powers.
When States have Rights, People don’t.
Tyranny is no more benevolent at the State, or county, municipality, or neighborhood level for that matter, than it is at the Federal level.
“When States have Rights, People don’t.”
Sam is a wise man.
Your point is taken. It’s powers:
Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Anyone who wants to regulate individual salt intake and have those regulations enforced by men with guns should have the snot kicked out of them. Literally, and I would pay to watch it.
Bloomie will not be nearly so solicitous of the sovereign states’ powers when, say, West Virginia’s legislature and courts refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in New York.
It never ends with this guy. “Do as I say not as I do. You are the little people and I am a billionaire. Can’t you see that I know how to run your life better than you. It gets me hard.
Love, Uncle Bloomers”
One has to wonder what else Hizzonor has in common with Soros.
“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. The RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved by) the people.