HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » MAIG's Top Thug Lies to S...

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:19 PM

 

MAIG's Top Thug Lies to Slander Concealed Weapon Carrier



It was aspirin.

This just goes to show that New York's anti-Second Amendment crime boss is not constrained by basic morals anymore than he is by the Constitution.

When local government thugs defy the Constitution and personally attack Americans, they need to be brought to heel and made to submit to the supreme law of the land.

As soon as her gun case is resolved, this woman should see how much of that thug's money the public slander and defamation is worth. And resolve not to ever set foot in Bloomberg's feifdom, at least not before Congress gets off its duff and passes national CCW.

14 replies, 1857 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:23 PM

1. Oh, Bloomie's just punkin' around. Remember: Smear is the way. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:41 PM

2. It's ok...

He's a republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:48 PM

3. I thought the drug test came back negative for cocaine.

Maybe was some Goody's headache powder. Something his excellency is not familiar with.

Whatta jerk!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

4. The great philosopher

Patric Star said it best - it may be stupid, but it's also dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:36 PM

5. Bloomberg is a fuckwad of the highest order. He should be exiled.

 

I hear North Korea needs a mentor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:53 PM

6. Safer from from gundeath in NY than in Tenn.

At the time of the Mayor’s statement he would have been aware that the arrest report filed during her Dec. 22 arrest said she had "two glassine envelopes of alleged cocaine" in addition to a loaded firearm. It turned out later, the white powder in her pocket was not drugs, according to the police, who tested it. His remark was wrong but not slanderous.
As a legally licensed concealed weapons carrier she had a responsibility to know and understand the fact that different states can have significantly different restrictions on carrying weapons. She broke the law. To simply assume that because Tennesee had granted her a permit that she was then free to go to any other state with a gun in her purse is absurd.
Relative to Tennesee the state of New York has over three times as many people and yet there are more people in Tennesee each year that die from gunshot. The 12/7/2011 National Vital Statistics Reports Final Data for 2008 demonstrates that 963 people died from gunfire in all of NY while 985 people died from gunshots in Tennesee.
With that population disparity that means the rate per 100,000 of people dying from guns some 322% higher in Tennesee than in NY. (15.8 v 4.9). Nationally the rate is 10.4.
I know, no one in this group cares about gundeaths so let’s compare homicide rates.
Tennesee 7.7
NY 4.5
National 5.9
Of course we all know not all homicides are committed with firearms but 100% of those gundeaths, are.

Actually carrying a firearm (legally of course) in Tennesee with that high a firearms death rate is almost understandable, but carrying a firearm anywhere mandates more knowledge than just how to shoot it, it requires a minimum of what the law is, wherever you are carrying it.

Jail isn't necessary but a conviction of a plea bargained offense would be appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:33 PM

7. Actually

your data might be outdated. National average for murder is 4.8 currently. Does that include suicide?
as of 2010: NY is 4.5 and TN is 5.6
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha
NY actually does not have stricter training standards for all residents. It seems like it varies with county, but does not look like the state does not. Hope I am wrong. In NYC, if you have the right bank account size, same day service with no training required.
http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
http://www.tn.gov/safety/handgun/handgunfaqs.shtml


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:56 PM

8. You have misidentified the lawbreaker

 

Of course it was slander, it was untrue. Having a police report that speaks of "alleged cocaine" is not an excuse for what the mayor said. He is a lying thug. If I had an official report saying that you are an "alleged child molester" I would not be justified in holding a press conference and declaring that you were in fact a child molester. It's hard to believe that you can't see that.

Bloomberg is sophisticated enough to know better. Anyone who reads newspapers and watches news reports knows that. Suspects are not "murderers," "drug dealers," "armed robbers," etc., they are "alleged murderers," "alleged drug dealers," 'alleged armed robbers." No one who owns media companies has the slightest excuse to claim, on the basis of that police report, that the woman had cocaine in her purse.

slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

Source: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1969


I agree that a person carrying a gun should know and abide by legitimate laws. The law in the United States is,

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That is the supreme law of the land. As interpreted by the Fourteenth Amendment and by the Supreme Court, that means that this woman has a constitutional right to carry a gun anywhere in the US.

Unfortunately the Court's understanding, though clearly expressed, occcured in dicta and not in the ruling proper. This is because the Court was not asked to rule on the "bear" part of the Amendment. However, any literate and well informed person who reads Heller, McDonald, or many other Supreme Court cases can see that this woman has a right to carry a gun in New York City.

Bloomberg is a lying thug. He knew better than to besmirch that woman's reputation; he acted out of a deep seated hatred for the right to keep and bear arms. He doesn't like ordinary people being able to defend themselves with arms, though he has no trouble with ordinary people paying taxes to arm his security detail.

He repeats his inane, half-witted one liner—"guns kill people"—yet it apparently never occurs to him that he could disarm the people that spend their time protecting his lying, Constitution defying, hypocrytical, thuggish hide.

New York City's legislature, police force, judges, prosecuters, mayor and prison system broke the law. They continue to break it daliy by enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws. They have no legitimate power to stop any sane, law abiding adult from carrying guns on or about their person in the city.

Instead of concerning ourselves with the violation of New York's little, unconstitutional, illigitmate law, why not worry about the crime lord who is using a corrupt political machine to break the supreme law of the land? Why not focus on the thug who is punishing people for exercising their rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:31 AM

9. I'm pretty sure that by carrying in NYC without a permit she was committing a felony.

No amount of fantasizing about the second amendment will change that. I doubt that even Scalia would go so far as to insist that NYC needs to allow people without valid permits to carry around concealed weapons.

I agree that Bloomberg should have used the word "alleged". So both of them made mistakes. One omitted a word during a press conference, the other committed a felony and potentially endangered the lives of many New Yorkers (as well as her own) by illegally carrying a gun in a crowded area of NYC.

Part of the responsibility of a CCW permit is to know the laws and follow the laws. If you can't do that, you shouldn't have a CCW permit. And by follow the laws, I mean follow the actual laws, not simply using the second amendment as an excuse to ignore the laws and carry a gun around anywhere you want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:49 AM

10. Do you actually doubt that per the Second Amendment, the NY legal scheme is invalid?

 

Keep in mind that it permits no bearing of arms by people eligible to bear arms who don't reside in the city.

If NY City allowed unconcealed carry by all sane, law-abiding people or even if they respected out-of-state permits you would have a stronger case. But they totally infringe the right. Their legal scheme is itself illegal.

What is pathetic is that the City of New York knows full well that its legal scheme is illegal. It has a technical fig leaf to stand behind--the Supreme Court has not said so explicitly in a modern ruling. But they are the real criminals. They know they are committing crime—just like the thuggish Mayor knows the scanning technology he is testing violates the Fourth Amendment—but his attitude is "so sue me."

The penalty for blatantly violating the Bill of Rights under color of law shoud be prohibitive—it should strike fear into the hearts of petty megalomaniacs.

The Second Amendmen is not an excuse, any more than the First or the Fourth. If I am arrested because some city believes it has the power to violate the Bill of Rights, they are the ones in error, not me. You agree with that with respect to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments.

As a practical matter, it would have been wise for her to have known of NY's unconstitutional and abusive laws, but as a matter of legitimate legal theory, no one has a duty to live their lives according to transparently unconstitutional—that is to say, illegal—laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:28 AM

12. Do you actually think that NYC's law is unconstitutional?

We've been over this ground before. We have different readings of the second amendment. You agree with Scalia, me not so much. Although in this situation you appear to even be to the right of Scalia.

But regardless, it's not that "it would have been wise" for her to know about the local gun laws, it's that she committed a felony. For all the talk about "law abiding gun owners", this felony she committed doesn't seem to trouble pro-gunners very much. I guess the idea is to only obey laws you agree with, and pretend that the ones you don't like are unconstitutional.

The whole idea kind of reminds me of the kooks who don't pay their taxes and then try to claim that income taxes are illegal. Those people probably have strange ideas about the second amendment as well. And really, if she wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the law, she should have tried to apply for a NYC permit, and then gotten denied, and then sued. But this obviously had nothing to do with the constitution.

NYC is a very large and densely populated city, and it does a pretty good job protecting it's citizens from gun violence. Tight gun laws are part of that. This woman put herself and others at risk by either her carelessness or disrespect for the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:25 AM

14. Yes, NY law is unconstitutional.

 

Not their forbidding her concealed carry per se, but their forbidding her any carry whatsoever.

I have noticed that you like to compare apples and battleships:

The whole idea kind of reminds me of the kooks who don't pay their taxes and then try to claim that income taxes are illegal.


Has the Supreme Court said, multiple times, that income taxes are illegal? Have authors of the Constitution gone on record that they wrote with the specific purpose to deny governmental entities the power to levy income taxes?

Taking your point as true that NY City does a good job protecting its citizens from gun violence, what is the relevance? Do good results justify illegal means? Would you take the same attitude if forced confessions were proven to be a part of the program to "protect citizens"? What about scanning people for items hidden under their clothes?

About your "felony" claim, yes, as a practical matter, she will possibly be labeled a felon and lose her gun rights and hope for a medical career. But because a self-important city, a state or even the federal government makes an unconstitutional law does not make the law legitimate. Here are some other crimes to consider:

Luther Baldwin, a private citizen, was indicted for a comment he made during a visit by President Adams to Newark, New Jersey. The President was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon. A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Baldwin replied that he did not care "if they fired through his ass." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "seditious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined $100.

In November 1798, David Brown led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts in setting up a liberty pole with the words, "No Stamp Act, No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills, No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the President; Long Live the Vice President".

Brown was arrested in Andover, Massachusetts, but because he could not afford the $4,000 bail, he was taken to Salem for trial. Brown was tried in June 1799. Brown pled guilty but Justice Samuel Chase asked him to name others who had assisted him. Brown refused, was fined $480, and sentenced to eighteen months in prison, the most severe sentence ever imposed under the Sedition Act.
...
Constitutionality and Aftermath
...

The Alien and Sedition Acts were, however, never appealed to the Supreme Court, whose right of judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Court in 1798 was composed entirely of Federalists, all appointed by Washington. Many of them, particularly Associate Justice Samuel Chase, were openly hostile to the Federalists' opponents. Individual Supreme Court Justices, particularly Chase, sitting in circuit, heard many of the cases prosecuting opponents of the Federalists. Subsequent mentions in Supreme Court opinions have assumed that it was unconstitutional. In the seminal free speech case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964). In a concurring opinion in Watts v. United States, which involved an alleged threat against President Lyndon Johnson, William O. Douglas noted, "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." The Alien Enemies Act remained in force and was used as a basis for the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts


Yes, sometimes the bad guys win. Bloomberg may "win," at least temporarily. But ultimately, New York's gun laws will go the way of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the internment camps. Or at least it will if we act legitimately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:21 AM

11. Part of the responsibility of a mayor is to know the supreme law of the land and follow it.

 

If you can't do that, you have no business being mayor.

Why not give any weight to the mayor's duty? It seems mayors should be held to a higher standard than tourists, wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:13 AM

13. And lets not forget, der mayor took an oath...N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread