Silly Glen Reynolds. Waiting periods are for the proles.
MY NEW YORK POST COLUMN FOR TOMORROW: Why Not A Waiting Period For Laws? “I’d like to propose a ‘waiting period’ for legislation. No bill should be voted on without hearings, debate and a final text that’s available online for at least a week. (A month would be better. How many bills really couldn’t wait a month?) And if the bill is advertised as addressing a ‘tragedy’ or named after a dead child, this period should double.”
Recall that New York had such a "waiting period" for proposed bills, and the Governor declared an emergency in order to suspend that rule so it could be voted on in the middle of the night, less than a half hour after it was printed.
Speaking of New York:
BOB OWENS: Register … or Rebel: How Many New Yorkers Will Defy New Law? “Already, signs that Governor Cuomo and his allies underestimated the pushback.”
Hey, if you can’t even get orderly Canadians with no Second Amendment tradition to go along with a rifle registry. . . .
From Bob Owens:
New York has estimated that there are one million firearms that fit their new definition of an “assault weapon,” and they are concerned that a large number of citizens will rip the teeth out of the law by simply refusing to register their arms. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of New York’s most law-abiding citizens are likely to make the choice to rebel against an unconstitutional law that violates their Second Amendment rights.
Perhaps of even more concern to Governor Cuomo and his anti-gun allies: this high level of resistance arose before Assemblyman McLaughlin released the list of confiscatory amendments Democrats had wanted to include in the NY SAFE Act.
Also check the link to see the gun control that didn't get into Cuomo's ban. Gems such as limiting the number of magazines you can own.
On a related note this article by Sebastian is worth a read
Recall that if Canadians (and Germans) flaunted their country's registry systems. What hope is there for the US?
Well... for starters registration seems like an easier game. At least the precursors are. And remember when a politician starts talking about hunting... be ready.
Hunting has very little to do with the Second Amendment but it’s an evergreen rhetorical sop to rural voters (many of whom live in purple states) whenever Democrats start getting grabby about guns. Clinton mentioned it the other day in warning Democrats not to condescend to their opponents, moments before he said of rural gun owners, “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing.” Obama’s been talking up the glories of hunting since 2008 at least; he celebrated it again in the opening to his speech two weeks ago before launching into an explanation of why he needs to take executive action on guns. Listening to a liberal defend hunting is like watching a volcano start to smoke: You know what’s coming, and it won’t be good. But hey — if your concept of self-defense extends no further than long rifles or shotguns, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Continue to cling bitterly to them as needed.
That’s the White House’s new plan. Focus on universal background checks, which are popular across the board in polling, as something that really might pass Congress and then try, try, try to hold as many Democrats together as possible on more aggressive doomed-to-fail stuff like the assault weapons ban. If they can at least manage a near-party line vote, then they can blame gun control’s failure on the GOP and hope that the public is peeved about that in 2014. Aside from background checks, it’s all kabuki.
And the background checks are bad enough. Given how banning private sales is kabuki in and of itself. It's a system built to fail and lead into requiring registration to "close the loopholes"
RobertaX has related thoughts on that progression. And a reminder to contact your reps.
And more on the "laws are for the little people"...
Here's a reminder on how Media Matters' David Brock has body guards armed with illegal guns.
And yes this is the same Media Matters that is pro gun control and against concealed carry.
And of course Feinstein's ban exempts government officials. Even retired ones!
Laws for thee but not for me.
And such a roundup wouldn't be complete without mentioning Baron Bloomberg.
It seems a peon dared to ask the Baron if he'd have the grace to divest his men-at-arms of their "swords"
Naturally the Baron was displeased. And sent some of his men after the so-called "journalist" to show them what for.
And speaking of New York City: TOP NYC COP: Banning 'assualt rifles' not enough...
Recall that New York city has its own gun laws and bans, in addition to the double bans the State has.
Was there any doubt?
It's almost like there's some sort of progression of gun control with an end-goal in mind.