Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

Thanks for letting us benighted knuckledraggers know the opinion of an enlightened elite like yourself, Mayor Doomberg. No thanks; I think we’ll keep the Constitution -in particular the 2nd Amendment- just like it is. Ben Franklin said it best: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

You’ll notice later in the article that Doomberg says we can’t let recent events cause us to “categorize anybody from one religion as terrorist.” Maybe that’s true, but we sure can look at anecdotal evidences since the first WTC bombing in 1993 and see with certainty the religion where most of the terrorists are coming from.

via Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing | Politicker.

New York City’s Soda Ban Is Dead: Pushing Back Against the Nanny State

Thank goodness there are still some judges that will protect our personal liberties against nanny-state meddlers like Mayor Doomberg. If they can get away with limiting the size of soda we can buy, and whether we can have salt on our food, and whether you can smoke (admittedly, a poor health decision, but still a personal choice), they can get away with anything. To some extent, in some places, they have: you cannot (or it’s very difficult and expensive to) keep a gun for self defense (though the second amendment clearly says you can), and you must buy health insurance or be fined. Why is it that liberal do-gooders like Doomberg think they know better than we do what’s good for us? The gradual chipping away of personal liberty in the name of “the public good” results in the situation where -all of a sudden- we’re in a police state, and nobody really knows what happened. Thank you, Judge Tingling.

Earlier this week a New York state judge put a lid on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s looming ban of certain subjectively large sizes of sweetened drinks like soda. Judge Milton Tingling’s welcome decision, which came just hours before the ban was to take effect, means the city will move forward without any such restrictions.

The ban was problematic and wrong from the start.

As I argued in remarks I delivered on behalf of Keep Food Legal and its members and supporters before New York City’s health department over the summer—and in columns here and here—the ban lacked any legitimate scientific justification; would have negative intended consequences (it would have served as a sales tax increase) and negative unintended consequences (it would have generated additional waste, which seems anathema to a mayor who claims to be fighting such waste); was widely and wildly unpopular—everyone from Matt Lauer and Jon Stewart to The New York Times and The Nation opined against the ban; and would have restricted food freedom of choice.

Judge Tingling deserves credit for rightly acknowledging the ban was a wrongheaded, arbitrary, and capricious prohibition passed by an unelected health board whose members were each appointed personally by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The judge’s decision is a great victory for consumers and consumer rights and for small and large businesses alike.

“The key thing is that this was an arbitrary and capricious action by the health department, and the court recognized that,” I told National Review’s The Corner earlier this week. “It’s a victory. In general, I’d like to see the court being more vocal in defending people’s rights to make their own choices, but this is definitely a good first step.”

via New York City’s Soda Ban Is Dead – Reason.com.

Wyoming Lawmakers: Take Your Federal Gun-Control Law and Shove It

Linked by Doug Ross – Thanks!

Legislators in Wyoming have fired a preemptive strike against any gun control legislation or executive order that would restrict gun and ammunition ownership in any way.

Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a new bill that, if passed, would nullify any federal restrictions on guns, threatening to jail federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, ammunition magazines or ammunition.

The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.

Perhaps Virginia can follow suit. How about it, Bob McDonnell?

via Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Obamacare Amendment Forbids Gun and Ammo Registration – Or Does It?

I’ve heard this mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on his show, and seen numerous references to it on the interwebs. Folks seem to be in a tizzy that those stupid Democrats kicked themselves in the ass by inserting a provision into the Obamacare bill that they jammed down our throats last year that doesn’t allow the government to require gun and ammo registration. This is, of course, a hot topic these days, now that our progressive overlords are looking for a way to prevent another Newtown incident – they can’t, but they won’t mind infringing on your liberties while they try.

Here’s one outlet’s take on the miraculous provision:

Good news — it has become known that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”

CNN is calling it “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”

And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that’s exactly right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010. via Obamacare Amendment Forbids Gun and Ammo Registration.

Less excitable heads have taken a longer look at the thing, and say “not so fast, pardner.” They claim that this provision regarding firearms and ammunition only applies to whether or not you can qualify for insurance, and how much it will cost you.

The problem is that Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.only relates to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS- A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to–`(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.`(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to–`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;`(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or`(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.`(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.`(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE- A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon–`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or`(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.`(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS- No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to–`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.’.

In a nutshell, under Obamacare you can’t be required to provide information to doctors or health plans about legally owned guns, nor can your insurance rates be affected by such ownership. The government, in the execution of Obamacare, cannot collect information about or use information from other government databases about legally owned guns.

There’s noting in there that prevents the another agency from implementing gun and/or ammunition registration. If such an agency (BATF, DOJ, FBI, etc.) did implement such a scheme it would be illegal for the government to use such data in the execution of Obamacare’s mandates – that is all… (from Wizbang)

So – don’t get too excited. Those 2nd amendment-hating bastards are still going to try and infringe on your rights. They won’t be successful, but they’ll make a lot of noise trying.

Bloomberg: Let’s Go Forward With The Marathon So People Without Homes, Power, Warmth, or Food Will Have Something To Cheer About

5:25 PM UPDATE: Looks like he might have gotten wise after all. There was a sh*tstorm of criticism flying his way: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Marathon-Post-Storm-Resources-Mayor-Bloomberg-Defends-Decision-177019721.html

I think the Mayor is going to end up regretting this decision.

From Ace of Spades HQ:

Bloomberg: Let’s Go Forward With The Marathon So People Without Homes, Power, Warmth, or Food Will Have Something To Cheer About.