5:13 pm Jan. 2, 20129
When Mayor Michael Bloomberg was first asked to comment on the Tennessee nurse arrested for bringing a gun to the Sept. 11 memorial at the World Trade Center, his reaction was to imply that she had other problems.
"Let's assume she didn't get arrested for carrying a gun," Bloomberg said. "She probably would have gotten arrested for the cocaine that was in her pocket."
It turns out the white powder in her pocket was not drugs, according to the police, who tested it. The mayor said, before the lab reports came back negative, that the arrestee deserved no leniency and ought to be sentenced according to the existing guidelines.
The mayor's comments only added fuel to a debate about the arrestee's character, and the fitness of New York's mandatory-sentencing rules for gun violations.
Peter Vallone Jr., chairman of the New York City Council's public safety committee, had said that the woman was a "moron" for allegedly forgetting about her gun before attempting to check the weapon with a police officer downtown.
"Whether or not it was cocaine just complicates the example I was trying to make," Vallone told me today. "If she had actual cocaine, she'd be a complete moron. But without it, she's just a knucklehead."
A knucklehead, he has said, who should not face three and a half years in prison under New York sentencing guidelines for gun possession.
The case of the Tennessee tourist, Meredith Graves, is just one of "the examples the rest of the country is using in trying to pass this reciprocity law," Vallone said, referring to a federal bill that would require every state to honor gun licenses issued in other state. The bill passed the House but not the Senate.
Gun-control critics, Vallone said, "are pointing to examples like this of law-abiding people who make mistakes and face tremendous jail sentences. And we have to fix it."
Vallone, who worked in the Manhattan D.A.'s office before being elected to the Council in 2001, said the pendulum has swung back and forth on ways to mandate jail time for gun possession here.
"The law was put in for a good reason," he said. "Back when I was a D.A., there was a one-year mandatory minimum. But there were exceptions to that law. Every time, a judge would find extraordinary circumstances, and I was a D.A. for six years, and I can count the number of people on one hand who actually went to jail for gun possession because judges were abusing the discretion. So the legislature took that discretion away and made it a three-and-a-half-year minimum."
Vallone, who represents Astoria, said, "If the mayor were the D.A. she she would be facing three and a half years in jail, and I have not met anyone other than the mayor who thinks that's a fair sentence in this case."
Asked what he thought would be a fair punishment, Vallone said, "Assuming she's a law-abiding citizen with no rap sheet and no cocaine in her purse, I don't think she should do any jail time."
I asked whether he thought there ought to be any consequences for the mayor for making what turned out to be a false insinuation about the woman who was arrested.
"No," Vallone chuckled. "That's one of the things we like about the mayor. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to say them."
"forgetting about her gun before attempting to check the weapon with a police officer downtown."
And that's why you don't trust the police.
The mayor wasn't saying "his own opinion" or "insinuating" he said she had cocaine in her purse to a group of national reporters! That is not stating an opinion! That is SLANDER! Bloomberg should know better and he should at the very least apologize to the woman he spread false and damaging statements about to the world press!
By the way the "cocaine" Bloomberg said she had... turns out it was BC Powder, an over the counter headache medicine.
She shouldn't get more than a parking ticket. Blocking a fire hydrant is more of a threat to safety than anything that she did.
The fact is, HE is a NYCidiot. He and his cronies are out of touch. In free states, a lot of people carry a gun EVERYWHERE EVERYDAY. It's NORMAL. Keys, wallet, phone, pistol. If I was allowed the opportunity to defend myself, I would never leave the house unarmed. Unfortunately, NY does not believe in a right to self defense.
So we'll continue to allow criminals easy prey. Imagine if that poor women had used her gun to defend herself from a mugging. She would be in even more trouble. Charged with murder or attempted murder. Just for doing the right thing. In conclusion, if you value your freedom stay out of NY. Also to be avoided are NJ, CT, MA, IL and CA. I may have left out some other bastions of wrong thinking. Please check laws before traveling.
It's almost impossible for me to articulate how much I detest dirtbags like Bloomberg, Vallone, Schumer, McCarthy, and all the rest of the Democrat members of the Cabel Of Tyrrany in liberty-hating states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. This peaceable citizen from Tennessee, a state located in the real U.S. of A., has had her good name and reputation destroyed for no other reason than exercising a Constitutionally protected right. I won't hold my breath waiting for these two turds from the sludge pit of New York to publicly apologize.
To me, a suitable response by the police would be the following: "Mrs. Citizen, New York City's laws would normally get you three and a half years in jail. However, since you attempted in good faith to comply with the ordinance you saw, have met the criteria of your home state for CCW, are not a criminal and do not have illicit drugs we will confiscate your firearm until you depart NYC. Give us the name of a FFL dealer where we can send the firearm and you will be able to retrieve it when you return home. This and the cost of processing and shipping will be yours. Enjoy your stay."
I know that reciprocity has passed the house, and is pending in the senate. Until it is passed into law, the overreaction by politicians, reflected down through the police, will be the "norm" for NYC and other municipalities which similar views. I am also convinced that NYC and others will attempt to either ignore reciprocity or attempt to place restrictions on it to effectively prevent it's intended purpose.
But that is for another day.
Thank you, Olderman, I had the same idea about how to handle the situation, by having the cops ship the voluntarily surrendered weapon back to an authorized dealer in Tenessee. I agree that Bloomberg is trying to buy time instead of taking the bull by the horns and thinking about what the people of NYC need. I completely disagree with what is being done to Ms. Graves. It is very sad because it could ruin a good human life, and I think it's destructive because instead of teaching people to follow the law, it may just leave behind ideas about how someone may be hurt if they approach the authorities to comply with the law.
We should all hope that no decent person is discouraged from doing the right thing, as she did. We should encourage people to turn in illegal weapons to the police. Anyone who supports gun control should see why people who voluntarily surrender weapons should not be prosecuted for doing so. The gun control debate seems to be fueled by ignorance on both sides.
The dialogue should be about safety and population density, not state lines and politics. I think so many people are packed so closely together in Manhattan that it is very easy for a stray bullet or one that exited to hurt a bystander; I do think there is a need for gun control in such a densely populated urban area. By the same token, those who live in rural areas may be isolated and need guns to defend themselves, and should have them- I can see how, in a rural area, overly strict gun control could hurt more people than it helps. People are just too caught up in politics and state lines to stop and think about how different their community's needs might be if they were in a different economic class or a different part of the country, and that collective attitude is helping nobody at all.
Pete,
I agree that emotions can run high on both sides. Yet, there is more to this than one liner's and statements designed to denigrate an opposing view.
Gun control: In essence those in favor of very strict law see the ownership and possession of firearms as something not much more serious than a hobby. Government should have the ultimate say-so concerning who, what, when and where including having a recipient of a firearm justify his or her choice to acquire one. Also, government should have the power to confiscate, with or without compensation, when the interests of the government deem it so. Protection of self, family and society are the sole power of government.
Anti gun control: Strict law is anathema to the right of the individual to own and possess firearms. Protection of self, family and society are the primary responsibility of the individual: advances in law, society and government not with standing. Revocation of an individual's right to own, bear and use firearms should be reserved for the most extreme cases of criminal activity. Currently, the only way to restrict a specific individual is to make him or her a felon. Being a felon also removes an individual from society as a participating member: cannot vote, participate in government meetings, cannot hold a job of any real significance.
Essentially, these two positions need to reconcile with each other. The major problems separating them are two.
- There are people (criminals) who care nothing for you, what you have done, whether you have a family or your position in the community. The sole purpose of these people is to acquire all that you have in the easiest, fastest way possible. If that includes violence, then so - be - it.
- The general form of government in the U.S. is a representative republic. We elect representatives to government who in turn appoint executives to carry out the details of what the people have elected the representatives to do both specifically and philosophically. Many of our representatives do not really want to initiate anything but their own agenda (yes mayor Bloomberg, this is you: as you well know). These two are at odds with each other because of the competing philosophies of government power vs. individual freedom.
Assume for the sake of argument that you are a policeman in uniform. You walk around a corner, and become the victim of a robbery. Question: at that exact place and time, just how much law exists? Answer: none. A fact is that hard core criminals *do* exist, the police cannot be everywhere all the time. Sometimes without any real effect.
You raise a point about densely populated centers. Yet, criminals discharge firearms anywhere and anytime they want to; usually in the commission of a crime. Our duty and responsibility as adult citizens is to become educated, trained and proficient. When violence is visited on anyone, to respond with education, training and proficiency with the tools at hand is the good, right and proper thing to do in preservation of self, family and society.
Concealed Carry Is A Larger Deterrent To Violent Crime
Than Is Law Enforcement!
Here are the numbers:
About 310,000,000 inhabitants in the United States
Less than 700,000 non-federal peace officers (1 on-duty officer for every 2000 citizens)
More than 6,000,000 concealed carry licenses (one license for every 40 adults)
Consequently, all "gun free zones", without the presence of a peace officer, are asymmetrically more dangerous.
From 1960 to 1992, the violent crime rate in the U.S. increased by a stunning 470%. The increase in violent crime was caused mainly by young males in an increasingly degenerative drug culture.
But then something changed. From 1992 to 2005 the violent crime rate decreased by 180% of the 1960 rate. A contributory cause of this decrease was that, beginning in 1986, the number of States that passed "shall issue" and unrestricted concealed carry laws increased from 8 to 40. This increase in the number of "shall issue" and unrestricted States was driven by the increase in violent crime perpertrated upon peaceful citizens.