A Nurse with a Gun

Saturday, August 15, 2009

A New Target

The City of New York and Mayor Bloomberg are wanting Michael Littlejohn's rifle, but so far he has been able to say ""from my cold, dead hands." According to the Penal Law of New York:
The Penal Law definition of antique firearm is generally applied to muzzle loading black powder firearms, but also applies to pistols or revolvers "that use fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade".

Muzzle loading pistols or revolvers do not have to be registered on a pistol permit if the owner never intends to fire them.

If they are possessed in a loaded condition or are simply possessed simultaneously with the components necessary to make them fire, they must first be registered on a valid pistol permit.

Note: Should a manufacturer begin to produce ammunition for a pistol or revolver for which ammunition had not been available previously, that weapon no longer meets the criteria of an antique weapon and is required to be registered. A pistol or revolver, regardless of age, when possessed with the ammunition necessary to make it discharge, is required to be registered.
So, as long as Mr. Littlejohn does not purchase any black powder or pick up a piece of flint on the street, he appears to be untouchable. That hasn't stopped Mayor Bloomberg from sending out his detectives to harass a legal gun owner in New York.

A flintlock rifle with no powder is no more a threat than a push broom, but hatred of firearms is irrational and runs deep. Contempt of gun owners knows no bounds. If gun owners abide by the law, gun control nuts will simply twist and manipulate the law to try to violate the rights of the gun owner anyway.

For years, the ability to own antique and replica antique firearms has existed unnoticed by New York's gun control activists. No more. When a convicted felon shot State Trooper Amanda Reif with a black powder rifle a few years back, the gun control nuts got out their pitchforks.

Never mind that a convicted felon could not legally own the rifle. Never mind having the rifle in a condition to fire, indeed, owning the rifle in conjunction with gun powder without a license is illegal in New York. In response, the gun control militants have decided to pursue law abiding citizens who legally possess such rifles, investigate them, and trample on their rights. Of course, portraying law abiding citizens as criminals and taking their property is easier than disarming criminals.....



Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is it going to take for gun owner outrage to equal the current outrage over health care? When the firearms are confiscated it will be too late, and the phrase "from my cold dead hands" may be a great sound bite, but inspires little confidence.

6:08 AM  
Blogger George said...

I do not expect that we will ever truly understand the psychological makeup of the gun banners. Rather ... while we may be able to intellectualize their weirdnesses, we will never be able to internalize their thinking (?).

Again, I can certainly appreciate the the frustrations we feel, don't waste any more energy on them. For us, they are beyond the Pale.


11:58 AM  
Anonymous Sans Authoritas said...


Perhaps a convicted felon may not statutorially own a firearm in New York, but antique and blackpowder firearms do not fall under the 1968 GCA. A felon may purchase and possess blackpowder weapons. They are not considered "firearms" by statute.

Courts of Statute have ruled on such issues before.

1:34 PM  
Anonymous Tom Stone said...

"Gun Control" in California has alwaays been about class and race.I am old enough to remember when open carry of a loaded firearm was legal in California.It changed when african americans started becoming a political force.I have had "the conversation" many times "Oh,I don't mind responsible adults carrying guns,it is those other people".Probe gently so as not to startle the feeble minded wuss and gosh,it is poor people,minorities and you know "Rednecks" who comprise those other people.I grew up in oakland and berkeley and registered republican in 1971 because republicans there and then were mostly principaled people.

6:05 PM  
Anonymous David said...

I wish the media would get a hold of this and let this guy show the people just what these morons want to ban. It really makes them look ridiculous. Maybe we can use something like this to show just how out of control these gun hating whackos are getting.

I know a lot of people who generally don't like guns, but would laugh at the notion that the particular firearm in question should be banned. Too bad most of the media agrees with Bloomberg.

Speaking of Bloomberg, I really wish they had gone after him for sending his goons to purchase guns illegally in other states. What ever happened with that? This guy needs to be investigated.

8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fudgie Ghost says:

The people who run NYC will NEVER allow more people to legally own firearms/pistols. The same can be said of all of the big cities, and many of the secondary ones.

Why is this? Here is my theory: What would happen if, say we had a FL type law in NYC, or Chicago, or LA? Think for a second, . . what would happen? . . .

That's right, there would be a major upswing in young minority males being shot by, for the most part, non-minority people.

Now, a large amount of political power in these big cities is in the hands of city council members, state congress and senate people, "clergy", and other community groups and "activists". They can and do rally the troops when necessary, and can have a real effect in these cities. Look at what happens when cops--no matter what race they are--are engaged in a shooting with a minority.

I firmly believe one of, if not the, most feared events for a big city mayor is civil/racial unrest and rioting. And for good reason. Such events bring loss of life and limb, damage or destroy property, businesses and residences.

Further, and perhaps most importantly in the long run, they send out signals to potential tourists and business people that that city is not safe. . . which can, over time, destroy a city. (See also: Detroit, MI and Newark NJ--two cities which have NEVER recovered from rioting 40 years ago)

So,--- these big city mayors (and other power wielders) will have none of your "but it's my constitutional right" stuff. They could not care less about that.

In their eyes, they are doing what they must to keep the lid on their cities. And in a way, it makes some kind of sense---if you have that type of political outlook----(I think it shows a lack of courage to stand up the racial arsonists.)

But at this point they (RA) have become so entrenched in the big cities power matrix, that maybe these mayors feel that there is no choice at this point. . .

They certainly aren't going to risk their cities for the 2nd amendment.---that's how I think they see it. . .

10:15 PM  
Blogger Chris M said...

For me, it is key that this man's problems began when Staples employees called the NYC police instead of returning the receipt he'd left in a copy machine. Such nice informers would have made Stalin or Heinrich Himmler proud. I can't do much about Bloomberg but I can boycott Staples and his other enablers.

10:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link