Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Letitia James]]>

New York AG: Easier In Some Places To Find A Gun Than An Apple

by Leave a Comment

Gun “buybacks” are popular among anti-gun politicians because it’s an easy way to get some free press. Normally when a compensated confiscation event takes place, the local media will run a puff piece about the number of guns collected featuring a quote from the politician du jour proclaiming that “every gun taken off the street is a life saved” or some nonsense like that.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is a big fan of the “buyback”, and her office regularly hosts events around the state. At a recent effort in New Rochelle the AG channeled her inner Obama, who once proclaimed that it’s easier for kids to buy a Glock than get a book.

James said Friday: “What’s so tragic is that in some parts of New York state, you can find a gun more easily than you can find an apple.”

Actually, I suppose James’ bizarre claim is closer to this statement by Barack Obama in March of 2015:

“There are neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.”

When Obama said that six years ago, the Washington Post gave him three Pinocchios for his bad take. I wonder if they’ll do the same for Letitia James, or if they’ll just let this one slide. Personally, I had no idea there was such an apple shortage in New York. You think maybe instead of a gun “buyback” the Attorney General should be working on an apple giveaway?

In all serious though, doesn’t James’ comment indicate that New York’s gun control laws aren’t doing much to control guns? I mean, if it’s easier to find a gun than an apple in some parts of the state (I’d love to know which parts James was referring to, by the way), and yet New York has universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines, a “may issue” carry law, and a host of other restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of residents, but according to the Attorney General it’s still easier to find a gun than a Granny Smith.

While the local paper didn’t challenge the veracity of James’ statement, it did do something that’s pretty rare when it comes to coverage of gun “buybacks”; pointing out that there’s no evidence these programs reduce crime.

At Friday’s event, the attorney general said the buybacks are more than just about education: “It’s about prevention,” James said, “and it’s about recovering guns off the streets of New York.”

Research on buyback effectiveness shows they aren’t effective in reducing gun violence.

A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research this summer found that in the year following gun buyback events, firearm-related crimes decreased less than 1.3%.

The study also concluded there was no evidence that buybacks reduce suicides or homicides involving firearms.

The Left loves to proclaim that we should “follow the Science”, expect when the science shows us that their gun control efforts are worthless at preventing violent crime. In that case I guess we’re just supposed to follow the lead of the anti-gun politicians and feel good that they’re “doing something,” even if it doesn’t do anything at all to make us safer.

The New Rochelle “buyback” resulted in 57 guns being turned over in exchange for gift cards and iPads. According to the research, however, it won’t result in fewer violent crimes, suicides, or accidents involving firearms. Still, as long as Tish James gets her headlines, I’m sure she’ll see this event as a stunning success, even if her comments demonstrate the state’s gun laws are an abysmal failure.

NRA Calls Attempts To Shut It Down “Unwarranted”

by Leave a Comment

The NRA describes itself as the nation’s oldest civil rights organization in the country, and that’s not an inaccurate claim. It’s been around for a long time, and though its history may have been marred by capitulation to the anti-Second Amendment forces in the nation at certain times, it still ended becoming the boogieman for every gun control fan in the country.

Unfortunately, its days may be numbered if New York Attorney General Letitia James has her way about it.

She’s currently trying to force the courts to shut down the group. The NRA, unsurprisingly, is saying that such an effort is uncalled for.

The National Rifle Association urged a judge to dismiss a lawsuit by New York Attorney General Letitia James, saying she hasn’t shown rampant misconduct by top executives. Even if she could prove her claims, they would mean the NRA was a victim and that James’ push to dissolve the guns-rights group is misguided, it argued in a court filing.

James is seeking the NRA’s “corporate death” over allegations that executives at the New York-chartered nonprofit misused millions of dollars of assets, the organization said Wednesday in a court filing. The attorney general sued in state court last year and amended her complaint after the NRA’s failed attempt to declare bankruptcy and move to Texas.

“Even if the disputed allegations against the individual defendants were true, the NRA itself, its Board, and its members were the victims of the wrongdoing, not the perpetrators,” the organization argued. “It would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice — and contrary to New York law — to punish the NRA’s 5 million members by dissolving the NRA.”

James has failed to provide evidence that the NRA, longtime leader Wayne LaPierre and three executives diverted millions of dollars in assets to themselves, the group said. The NRA also said the attorney general hasn’t provided support for her claims that LaPierre improperly controls the 76-member board of directors. The NRA repeated an earlier claim that James had a “political vendetta” against the group.

I mean, she called the NRA a terrorist organization, so yeah, I’d say she has a vendetta against them. If that doesn’t work against her, I don’t know what would.

As for the NRA’s claim, they make a fair point.

Now, I haven’t looked at what’s been happening in court in and of itself. I just know what the media has revealed, much of which I suspect was provided by a certain disgruntled former employee. How much of that is completely accurate remains to be seen and how much of that is the basis for the court case also remains to be seen.

However, what I can tell you, though, is that what the NRA’s attorneys are saying about the possibility of them being true is dead-on accurate. If there’s been mismanagement of funds within the NRA, then the group and its membership are victims. They’ve been stolen from and James is essentially trying to get the death penalty for an armed robbery victim.

This wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for the fact that James loathes the NRA’s mission. She supports gun control and figures that if she gets the NRA out of the way, her party can successfully ram through whatever agenda they want, so she’s pouncing on the idea that she can kill the organization.

I’m sure the fact that it would put her on a sure path toward higher office isn’t hurting her motivation, either.

Regardless, the legal mechanisms James is trying to use exist for organizations that are little more than scams, not groups that have been effectively accomplishing their mission since 1871.

James doesn’t care about that, though. She’s only worried about settling that vendetta.

NY AG: NRA Hasn't Cleaned Up Its Act, So It Has To Go

by Leave a Comment

The NRA is the largest Second Amendment group in the United States. It’s also the oldest civil rights group in America. The fact that it’s also the greatest boogieman the anti-Second Amendment crowd can think of is also a thing.

However, there have been some troubling revelations about the group of late. Accusations that people spent money on things they shouldn’t have.

And a lot of pro-gun people have opinions on that.

Regardless, though, New York Attorney General Letitia James believes the NRA needs to be dissolved.

The National Rifle Association hasn’t cleaned up rampant financial and managerial misconduct as it claimed over the past year, illustrating the need for the gun-rights group to be dissolved, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a court filing.

A failed bid for bankruptcy protection earlier this year exposed the hollowness of the organization’s claim to have corrected the mismanagement, which included lavish spending by its longtime leader Wayne LaPierre and other serious lapses, James said in an amended lawsuit in New York state court. The attorney general said even the bankruptcy judge had cited the “shocking” level of authority LaPierre exercised over the group.

James, who sued to dissolve the New York-chartered nonprofit a year ago, said in her new complaint Monday that the NRA’s “evasion of accountability” has “continued unabated.” She said the organization’s leaders intentionally disregarded proper corporate governance, wasted charitable assets, falsely reported improper transactions, and allowed insiders to take advantage of the NRA.

Several alleged abuses were highlighted during a bankruptcy trial in Texas federal court, where a judge in May rejected the NRA’s attempt to reorganize as not having been filed in good faith. The court wrote that the NRA’s bankruptcy was part of an inappropriate attempt to avoid James’s lawsuit. The judge also said he was concerned about the “surreptitious manner” in which LaPierre excluded NRA board members and executives from his decision to file for bankruptcy.

‘Politically-Motivated Attack’

The NRA disputed the attorney general’s claims.

“It is now more evident than ever that the NYAG’s action is a politically-motivated attack,” William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA, said in an email. “In 2018, without a shred of evidence to support her action, the NYAG called the NRA a ‘terrorist organization’ and a ‘criminal enterprise.’ Predictably, she now quotes selectively from a federal court ruling and suggests that it supports her claims against the NRA.”

The problem for James is that Brewer is right. She did make all of those claims.

What’s more, anyone with a brain knows that James isn’t trying to look out for the good of the NRA’s membership. She wants to destroy the boogieman so she can advance within the Democratic Party. Think about how much hay Joe Biden made about “beating” the NRA, then imagine what James would be like if she actually got the group dissolved?

That’s what this is about and we all know it.

Look, if she can find where NRA leadership did anything illegal, then make arrests. Arrest the perpetrators and let the organization deal with the aftermath.

The fact that she hasn’t suggests that doesn’t have any/enough evidence to do so.

Instead, she’s hoping to shatter the NRA because, like so many others, she believes the NRA is the only thing preventing gun control. The problem for James is the NRA is so powerful because it represents people like you and me, even if we’re not members. Slay the giant and another giant will rise up. Probably more than one.

Now, I know that some of you have feelings where the NRA is concerned. You’re not crazy about these allegations and if even some of them are true, you want nothing to do with the NRA.

That’s your right.

However, let’s also remember that if James can get away with this, no group’s existence is safe. People like her will be waiting to pounce on honest mistakes in the future to try and pull this again.

Just something to think about.

Oral Arguments Set In SCOTUS Showdown Over Right To Carry

by Leave a Comment

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, November 3rd. That’s when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a supremely important case dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. The nine justices will hear from New York Attorney General Letitia James, who’ll be defending that state’s restrictive and subjective “may issue” laws regarding concealed carry permits, as well as former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who’s representing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and several of its members who’ve been denied a carry license from the issuing authorities in their home counties.

The arguments will be heard this fall by a high court that leans conservative, with six of the nine justices having been appointed by Republicans.

The decision to elevate the case may be a consequence of the dramatic shift in the court’s ideological makeup under Republican former President Donald Trump, who appointed associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The most recent major Supreme Court decisions on guns came more than a decade earlier, when court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry a gun for self-defense inside the home.

Last year, the court declined to issue a substantial ruling in another case about gun regulations in New York, which has some of the strictest such rules in the country.

The case being heard in November stems from a lawsuit brought in 2018 by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, two New York residents whose applications to carry guns in public for self-defense reasons had been denied.

The licensing officer denied the requests by Nash and Koch, saying they “did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public.”

That alone should be reason enough for the Court to toss out New York’s law, which flatly forbids the average citizen from bearing arms in self-defense. Instead, in order to receive a government-issued permission slip, individuals must show that their own circumstances are special and unique enough to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a gun, and the right to bear arms or the right of self-defense isn’t a good enough reason to qualify.

New York’s law turns the Second Amendment on its head. Instead of acknowledging a right to both keep and bear arms, the state treats gun ownership generally and the specific ability to carry a firearm for self-defense in public as privileges that are only granted to those approved by those in authority. Letitia James has previously argued that the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case striking down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns actually supports New York’s point of view because it said that the “core purpose” of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of armed self-defense in the home. As Clement pointed out in his reply brief, however, the Heller decision recognized that the right clearly wasn’t limited to a gun owner’s residence.

Heller held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” And it explained that the term “bear,” as used in the text, means to “wear” or to “carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

Because “conflict with another person” often occurs outside one’s home, the right to bear arms necessarily includes a right to carry a handgun outside the home.

Indeed, there would have been no need for the historical restrictions on carrying handguns in “sensitive places” if the right were confined to the home.

Yes, New York is really relying on the argument that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t actually mean you have a right to carry a firearm in self-defense. Of course, James would also argue that the right to merely possess a firearm in your home should also be subject to subjective licensing standards, but since that portion of New York’s gun control laws isn’t a part of NYSPRA v. Bruen there’s no need for her bring that up during oral arguments. Instead, she’ll stick to her talking points: Because the state of New York has an interest in public safety they have the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms, and because some people can obtain a carry license the law isn’t an impermissible burden on a constitutionally protected right… even if the state’s law denies the general public from bearing arms in self-defense.

Fash James vs. Creepy Cuomo – New Yorkers' 2022 Nightmare

by Leave a Comment

It’s usually easy to tell when a psychopath is making moves for higher office or trying to hold on to it. The signs to watch for are an appetite for publicity, vilifying a numerical minority while pandering to the tastes of the voting majority, making a show of outdoing your rivals and if in power, abusing your public office as a means to the end of personal ambition.

As one of the least freedom-friendly states in the Union, New York’s electorate rewards politicians who are explicitly anti-rights, and that’s especially true when it comes to New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights. Those politicians representing the deepest blue enclaves or running statewide can and do say that they hate the Second Amendment and think that gun ownership ought to be destroyed, while those in less blue enclaves won’t say that openly but will admit it in private. (Case in point: Tedra Cobb caught on video supporting assault weapons ban)

The state of the Second Amendment in New York is bad. New York City is a fiefdom unto itself with a total disregard for the right to keep and bear arms. Ownership of every type of firearm requires permitting and registration, a burden on lawful citizens that does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Concealed Carry is non-existent, and as one would expect from any system involving discretionary power, such as India’s “Permit Raj” during its socialist nadir, it is victim to corruption and third-world bribery. (See article: Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine)

New York State outside-NYC is marginally better, but it depends on where you live within the state. Long guns don’t require permits or registration but New Yorkers are subject to an “assault weapons” ban, which means they can’t own semi-automatic long guns with any evil features. Concealed Carry in New York varies from de facto shall-issue to de facto no-issue, but merely owning a handgun entails a long process that includes four character references and a court hearing. To the best of my knowledge, someone moving to New York has no recourse to even provisionally bring a lawfully owned handgun from their state of origin.

If you think that the status quo can’t get any worse, think again. New York recently passed a law making an end-run around the PLCAA, trying to destroy the Second Amendment by bankrupting firearms manufacturers out of existence; more awful legislation is also in the works.

For someone with a law degree, Governor Andrew Cuomo (J.D., Albany Law School) ought to have known that this bill was wrong on several fronts; it blames the wrong party for crime, violates the federal supremacy clause by trying to supersede the PLCAA and regulate interstate commerce, and is an unconstitutional assault on an enumerated right. However, electoral pressures almost always override principles in politics, so Cuomo signed the bill into law anyway.

Cuomo has a deeply troubling personal and political history. He has been credibly accused of sexual harassment and is currently facing the prospect of impeachment. In the past, he has openly said that conservatives are not welcome in New York and ought to leave the state. (Many have done just that, taking their productivity and tax revenue with them.) Cuomo’s governance during the COVID-19 pandemic was among the worst in the country; his decision to send sick people back to nursing homes led to a massive death toll, and in yet another example of cronyism, Cuomo arranged special COVID-19 tests early on for his own family, the wealthy and politically-connected.

It is unsurprising that someone like Cuomo, who treats a subset of New Yorkers as a special upper caste, has disdain for the egalitarian nature of the Bill of Rights and its guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms to the unwashed masses.

Cuomo is obviously bad for freedom-loving New Yorkers, but his ostensible gubernatorial rival and nemesis is even worse. NY Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James, who I affectionately call Fash James, has all the trappings of an authoritarian goon.

When Tish James campaigned for Attorney General, she called the National Rifle Association a “terrorist organization.” The NRA, as most people in the Second Amendment community know, is under a legal cloud due to Wayne LaPierre’s extravagances and improprieties. However, Fash James’ jihad against the NRA is not aimed at cleaning out the board and thus helping the organization, but in completely dissolving it and redistributing its valuable assets to gun control groups.

Someone with James’ background ought to know better. Imagine if the NAACP in 1950s Alabama had a corrupt President who was siphoning off money, and the Alabama Attorney General called the NAACP a “terrorist organization” and promised to dissolve it using its leadership’s corruption as a pretext. (See real life case: NAACP v Alabama). Yet, in today’s world under a different set of circumstances, James is acting like a fascist, abusing the power of her office to squelch a right she finds unpalatable.

In a game of typical political intrigue, James has initiated investigations of Cuomo on all fronts: sexual harassment, COVID mishandling, his COVID “leadership” book, while egging on other bodies to investigate him when she can’t. Cuomo’s misdeeds brought him to the edge, and James is gladly giving him the classic Looney Tunes cartoon nudge to launch him off the cliff. James’ behavior isn’t one borne of moral rectitude; it just so happens that it will bring her tremendous political gain.

In a state like New York, the Democrat primary is often the de facto general election. I really hope the Republican Party has a competitive nominee, but the likelihood of the Democrat nominee winning the general election is very high, whoever it ends up being. Libertarian candidate Larry Sharpe is great on the Second Amendment, and I happily voted for him in 2018. However, any man who takes off his political beer goggles can see reality in all of its ugliness. Brace yourself, fellow New Yorkers. We are in for a rough ride.