Vigilante
Frankly, longtime readers know that I am a gun owner and, in fact, have a concealed carry permit. Which I use. Longtime readers also know I am very adamant that illegal gun crimes need to be prosecuted - with vigor. But I read an article like this in a British newspaper, the Telegraph, about the antics of the mayor of New York City and wonder who, exactly, appointed him as the marshal over all of the United States.
Indeed, there is a growing backlash against Mayor Bloomberg in southern states over a gun control campaign that stretches far beyond New York's borders. The operation is arousing accusations of Northern "Yankee" interference in a region where old Civil War antagonisms still linger.
The hostile reaction illustrates the obstacles that Mr Bloomberg will face if he enters the presidential fray. He may be highly rated in New York for his success in running the city, but in much of rural America where carrying arms is regarded as a birthright, his anti-guns crusade would be a vote-loser. His aides have been assessing his prospects if he staged an independent run for the nation's highest office, and holding meetings with potential backers, even as the mayor continues to insist he has no plans to join the race.
He certainly does not lack the cash. The 65-year-old founder of the eponymous financial information company is estimated to be worth $13 billion (£6.6 billion) and is understood to be willing to spend up to $1 billion if he tries to win the White House. The mayor, a lifelong Democrat who joined the Republican Party to run for New York's top job in 2001, insists that he is not a politician, but a manager and philanthropist who gets things done.
He has been adopting a notably higher profile recently and has just revived his personal website. Last week, he co-hosted a global climate change summit for mayors from across the world, with Bill Clinton, the former president whose wife, Hillary, is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
His best-known initiative is Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a network of 226 city leaders across the country that could provide the basis for a national political campaign. As part of his drive against gun crime, he has sent private investigators to firearms stores across the country that his officials say are the source of weapons used by criminals in New York. The investigators visited the stores with hidden cameras and filled out the paperwork to buy guns on behalf of people who were banned by law from owning weapons, an illegal so-called "straw purchase". The firearms lobby was infuriated when the operation resulted in New York filing lawsuits against 27 gun dealers in five states.
Activists argued that the dealers were the victims of sting operations by agents provocateurs. Local politicians were angered that Mayor Bloomberg was conducting these missions outside New York without seeking authorisation, or even informing them.
Virginia has led the fightback against such unilateral ventures, making it a crime to conduct similar missions without the supervision of state or federal authorities. Last week, prominent Republicans in Georgia said they intended to follow suit.
Knowingly filling out false information on a BATF form is a Federal crime. Every. Single. One. Of Bloomberg's "investigators" committed a Federal felony and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Period. Bloomberg is the mayor of a city, not the enforcer of Federal law nationwide. And he is a vigilante with a very high opinion of himself which will, if he chooses to enter the race, lead to a vast squandering of his money on a fruitless quest. Because this man might be a legend in his own mind, but the rest of the country isn't going to like him very much.
Other Links to this Post
-
Don Surber » Blog Archive » Sunday reads — Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 9:56 am
By syn, Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 5:19 am
I live in NYC and I think Bloomberg is creepy. I am ashamed to say that before 9/11/2001 I was politically apatheic but tended more towards supporting the ‘feel-good’ policies of Liberalism because everyone else was and it appeared sophisticated plus the only reference to Conservatism I had was the Rush Limbaugh was a right-winger out to destroy America. I voted Bloomberg the first time because he ran off Rudy’s coat-tails regarding the War on Terror. After taking the time to learn more about Conservatism and actually listened to Rush in 2003 I consider myself a neo-con (former liberal mugged by reality)
Bloomberg a least taught me that just because there is a R behind a name doesn’t necessarily mean Republican. The only reason lifelong Bloomberg ran as a Republican was there were too many Democrats running in his own party so he switched parties.
Both Bloomberg and Cal governor Arnold are the reason why I distrust social liberals, they end up getting power then start doing all sorts of creepy and intrustive things. Bloomberg is the fat police, the smoker police, the gun control police, the hate-speech police and Big Daddy who wants to pay allowances to make people responsible for their own lives. He Is Creepy.
My definition of a social liberal is:
Government stay our of our bedrooms BUT give us free health care, free art, free food, free housing, free education, cure AIDS, develop a stem-cell cure all for everything, cheap gas, pristine streets, end violence, stop all wars and while you’re at it feed all the world’s hungry.
So when I hear from a social liberal with either D or R behind their name all I can think of is serfdom.
By feeblemind, Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 8:20 am
I am not a lawyer, but after reading your comments about the law and the false applications, one wonders if Bloomberg could be prosecuted for issuing the orders? Wouldn’t that make him an accessory or co-conspirator or something?