Lewis attorney says gun confiscation no “error”

posted at 8:41 am on April 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Jazz wrote on Saturday about the case of David Lewis, who was ordered to relinquish his firearms because he supposedly once took an anti-depressant, which actually wasn’t the case at all. State police insist that the entire episode was a clerical error, but Lewis’ attorney says this wasn’t just a case of mistaken identity. James Tresmond told NBC affiliate WGRZ that the state of New York is now scouring medical records to find guns to confiscate. When asked for proof, Tresmond says it’s forthcoming, but he’s been hearing this from doctors and law-enforcement officials over the last several days in which he has represented Lewis:

But why did state police ever think Lewis was a threat to begin with? Authorities ordered him to hand over his guns based on a provision of the New York SAFE act, which is Governor Cuomo’s signature gun control law. It requires mental health professionals to report a patient whom they believe is likely to seriously harm himself or others.

State police said they simply notified the wrong David Lewis. But Lewis’s attorney says that’s not true, and that the state is somehow scouring the medical records of people.

REPORTER: How do you know this? In other words, what proof do you have that the state police are actually doing this?

TRESMOND: The proof, well, actual proof will be forthcoming. Right now we just have statements from various state assembly people, various state troopers who have contacted us, and doctors that have contacted us.

State police have publicly denied these accusations. But several state lawmakers are demanding answers about how state authorities are using their new power under the SAFE Act.

 

WGRZ has video on that question from Friday. It certainly sounds as though legislators think it’s possible that the police are scouring medical records, too:

All of this apparently stems from Governor Cuomo’s signature gun control bill, the SAFE Act, which requires mental health professionals to notify the state when they believe a patient is at risk of hurting themselves or others. State Police and the Erie County Clerk had misidentified Lewis as such a threat, confusing him with someone else with the same name. Both sides have blamed each other for the snafu.

It’s not sitting well with some State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer (R-Amherst) and State Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak (D-Cheektowaga). They are calling for an investigation of state police, specifically how the police are using medical records to seize guns.

REPORTER: What exactly are the state police allowed to do?

RANZENHOFER: That’s a very good question, and one of the things I’ve done is I’ve reached out to (State Police) Superintendent (Joseph) D’Amico to ask him that very question because, as I said, we’re getting a lot of calls from concerned constituents. I’m concerned when I hear about the state police – the state government — looking into people’s medical records, their mental health records.

Gabryszak said he is also in the dark

REPORTER: Do we know exactly what the state police are doing?

GABRYSZAK: That’s a good question, Aaron. Quite honestly, I can’t tell you right now that I know.

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Did they also take any knives, chain saws, pointy garden equipment, poisons, sling shots, bow&arrow or other potentially-used-as-deadly-weapons items he had in his house?

albill on April 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Am I the only one that thinks that a Molon Labe moment is in the not-too-distant future?

turfmann on April 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

State Police scouring State records…so that citizens of the State can be brought into compliance with the State…when we all belong to the State, well, this is gonna happen.

And, why, the Founding Fathers put that pesky little Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Not so citizens could go hunting; not so citizens could have an annual turkey shoot; not so the rich citizens could do a little skeet shooting off their verandas…

But, so the citizens could protect themselves when the time came against foreign invaders, imminent threats against their persons or property or the tyranny of the State.

SAFE Act? Indeed. “Safe” for whom?

The State?

coldwarrior on April 15, 2013 at 8:50 AM

albill on April 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Forks! You forgot forks!

Shy Guy on April 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

I would happily tranfer, with alacrity, all of my projectiles toward the confiscating authorities.

M240H on April 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Every warning the NRA has ever issued about gun confiscations is proving true.

JellyToast on April 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Yah, just a mistake, nothing to see here. And when the Missouri State Patrol gave the FBI a list of every single state CCW holder, not once but twice and in contravention of state law, that was just a mistake too. A mistake made twice, apparently.

You can almost see the divide occurring between the rulers and those they would presume to rule, the rulers aren’t even trying all that hard to hide their fascism any longer.

Bishop on April 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Why worry about NY’s SAFE Act when we have our own version prancing around The Hill? Mr Speaker already said he doesn’t need a majority of his party to put the bill through the House. Yippee!

Limerick on April 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM

The state AG has got to go. So does any DA that new this was happening. So does the trooper who drove out to harrass Mr. Lewis.

This is why the 2nd Amendment exists. As a last resort remedy to quell such government overreachs against our natural and Constututional rights.

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I’m concerned when I hear about the state police – the state government — looking into people’s medical records, their mental health records.

And we find out whats in ObamaCare, they won’t have to look into peoples’ medical records anymore. They’ll just look into the health record owned by the government with your name on it.

“I see you were diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 5…..you are medically disqualified from ever owning a firearm”

“Your history with PMS cramping is quite extensive, and due to the heavy use of pain killers for treatment, we feel you may not have full control of your faculties during “that time”, so you’re disqualified from ever owning a firearm”

“Gall bladder missing? Disqualified”

Whoever gets to decide what disqualifies you medically will be the one who controls firearms in the US.

And guess who that is?

BobMbx on April 15, 2013 at 8:55 AM

1500 pages to put in a law that everyone who purchases a weapon has to have a background check. 1500 pages! There must be one helluva run-on sentence in there.

Limerick on April 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM

new—> knew

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM

But several state lawmakers are demanding answers about how state authorities are using their new power under the SAFE Act.

See, “we have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in the bill we intend to do with the bill”.

FineasFinn on April 15, 2013 at 8:59 AM

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED!

….unless you live in NEW YAWK !

TX-96 on April 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM

The Progressive WAR on America.

Battlefield: Albany, and any home in the state.

PappyD61 on April 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM

We used to be worried that if they took our guns only the criminals would have guns. Looks like only the state will end up with them.

Kissmygrits on April 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM

There must be one helluva run-on sentence in there.

Limerick on April 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM

For the record, I had absolutely nothing to do with the writing of that infernal document.

:-)

coldwarrior on April 15, 2013 at 9:02 AM

coldwarrior on April 15, 2013 at 8:50 AM

…thank you!

Every warning the NRA has ever issued about gun confiscations is proving true.

JellyToast on April 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM

…Thank You!

petefrt on April 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM

…THANK YOU!

KOOLAID2 on April 15, 2013 at 9:03 AM

So, when do we start becoming afraid that New York might get nukes?

hawkdriver on April 15, 2013 at 9:03 AM

People with mental health issues are easy targets (pun).

The media has been ignoring the carnage in cities like Chicago for decades.

They might get return fire if they tried to remove guns from the hands of real criminals.

IlikedAUH2O on April 15, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Learn from the left. Organize a boycott of every non-vital NY business, and any business that refuses to join. Make that boycott very, very public.

Archivarix on April 15, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Learn from the left. Organize a boycott of every non-vital NY business, and any business that refuses to join. Make that boycott very, very public.

Archivarix on April 15, 2013 at 9:06 AM

And don’t forget to send gun-owners to congregate outside the homes of anybody who voted for this law. Camp out in front of their kids schools. Confront them at church, etc. Taunt their staffs. Make life very uncomfortable for these traitors.

Happy Nomad on April 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM

You know that cops and firemen have pretty stressful jobs. I wonder if any of them ever took any of the targeted meds. Same goes for celeb bodyguards.

Limerick on April 15, 2013 at 9:13 AM

BAD news: New York is making itself a case-study in gun control legislation.
GOOD news: New York is making US House Reps squishy about federal gun control legislation.

kooly on April 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM

This is also an electronic medical record issue. This would be almost impossible with paper records.

If they can do this with your medical records, what else can they do?

How did they get access to the records?

Are hospitals letting them in to their systems?

HakerA on April 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM

There might be some debate as to whether a medical record is the property of the patient or the property of the doctor who makes it. One thing it most assuredly is NOT, however… is the property of the state.

This isn’t just about privacy or the doctor-patient relationship. It’s not just about guns or the 2nd Amendment. This is about PROPERTY, and whether we’re citizens or subjects.

Murf76 on April 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM

You know that cops and firemen have pretty stressful jobs. I wonder if any of them ever took any of the targeted meds. Same goes for celeb bodyguards.

Limerick on April 15, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Great point! +1

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 9:23 AM

We used to be worried that if they took our guns only the criminals would have guns. Looks like only the state will end up with them.

Kissmygrits on April 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM

And the difference is…what? Do note they’re not going after existing criminals.

Steve Eggleston on April 15, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Am I the only one that thinks that a Molon Labe moment is in the not-too-distant future?

turfmann on April 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

DHS and DSS are waaay ahead of you on that. Orwell you glorious bastard!

onomo on April 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

I hope that the NRA or some other organization is suing the cr@p out of New York State!

NavyMustang on April 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

How did they get access to the records?

Are hospitals letting them in to their systems?

HakerA on April 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Firstly and lastly, under Obamacare, the government owns all medical records. And there will be information in those records, about you, that you will not be allowed to see. Such as “patient seems out of sorts; suspect latent tendencies to harm self or others“.

So, why didn’t I get my firearm? Cuz there is some info in your record that prohibits you from owning one, and you are not authorized to see that info….privacy concerns….you know.

BobMbx on April 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM

There might be some debate as to whether a medical record is the property of the patient or the property of the doctor who makes it. One thing it most assuredly is NOT, however… is the property of the state.

… This is about PROPERTY, and whether we’re citizens or subjects.

Murf76 on April 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM

They will argue our med records are property of the state because of 0bamacare.

freedomfirst on April 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Happy Nomad on April 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM

You are correct. Such personal attention is the best way to remove from the mind of the elected the idea that they are somehow superior to and shetered from the mere citizens they represent.

And that works great for lefties, but if normal, nonunion people do such things, they’ll be labelled an angry terrorist mob bent on assasination. You know it’s true.

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Do note they’re not going after existing criminals.

Steve Eggleston on April 15, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Criminals aren’t foolish enough to register their weapons.

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Firstly and lastly, under Obamacare, the government owns all medical records. And there will be information in those records, about you, that you will not be allowed to see. Such as “patient seems out of sorts; suspect latent tendencies to harm self or others“.

So, why didn’t I get my firearm? Cuz there is some info in your record that prohibits you from owning one, and you are not authorized to see that info….privacy concerns….you know.

BobMbx on April 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Actually, our medical records were seized as a provision of Porkulus under the auspices of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Murf76 on April 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

And that works great for lefties, but if normal, nonunion people do such things, they’ll be labelled an angry terrorist mob bent on assasination. You know it’s true.

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

True enough. The left can bus in homeless people in on a Sunday afternoon to terrorize the families of administration staffers without repercussion. But if a group of proponents of the Second Amendment were to congregate outside the home of some NY legislator it would be deemed stalking or something.

Happy Nomad on April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

They will argue our med records are property of the state because of 0bamacare.

freedomfirst on April 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

I doubt they’ll bother. Simpler just to deny they’re doing it. It’s not like they feel any compulsion toward honesty after all.
But who knows? I never imagined John Robert’s contortions on Obamacare when it went before the SC. Give Obama another hand-picked, socialist justice or two and they won’t fear the SC at all.

Murf76 on April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Am I the only one that thinks that a Molon Labe moment is in the not-too-distant future?

turfmann on April 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

There will never be a Molon Labe moment in this country. Anyone that resists will be eliminated, then brutally attacked in the media.

Not to mention the fact Americans have been neutered. We already live under greater tyranny than our founders, yet we do nothing. Our freedom is being stolen right before our eyes, yet we do nothing.

Fazman on April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I hope that the NRA or some other organization is suing the cr@p out of New York State!

NavyMustang on April 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

This.

Because, sadly, this is how the left intends to fight this fight, the same way they get what they want in other matters — via the courts.

They know that law-abiding gun owners are level-headed enough not to go muzzle-to-muzzle with an armed SWAT team. They know most of us will simply wait for our day in court. They also know that most of us actually work for a living, paycheck to paycheck in most cases. They know we can’t afford a protracted legal battle, so they know they can beat us that way.

This makes it even more important to join groups like the NRA, because then you have at least a little backup.

CurtZHP on April 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM

We used to be worried that if they took our guns only the criminals would have guns. Looks like only the state will end up with them.

Kissmygrits on April 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM

The state will gladly shoulder the societal function currently carried by the criminals, i.e. taking your money and raping your ass.

Archivarix on April 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Americans have been neutered. We already live under greater tyranny than our founders, yet we do nothing. Our freedom is being stolen right before our eyes, yet we do nothing.

Fazman on April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

We don’t know how to fight.

We know the opposition’s reasoning is absurd and mistakenly believe it will be self-evident to the average citizen. We don’t know how to stick together, abandoning our brethren at the first misspoken word. We don’t vote with our dolllars enough. You buy from a lefty, you are helping them destroy your kid’s future. We are allowing ourselves and our values to be forced from the mainstream and into the shadows. Like rabbits we hide, hoping the hawk will strike another “again this time”.

We don’t know how to fight.

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM

There will never be a Molon Labe moment in this country. Anyone that resists will be eliminated, then brutally attacked in the media.

Not to mention the fact Americans have been neutered. We already live under greater tyranny than our founders, yet we do nothing. Our freedom is being stolen right before our eyes, yet we do nothing.

Fazman on April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM

It’s possible that any rebellion against tyranny will be as quiet as it can be — just people getting what they need to live a decent life out of sight of the law, and if that means dropping out of sight, manufacturing their own guns, and living on an underground economy instead of in a city, so be it.

It could be that there will be no overt civil war — just massive civil disobedience.

Aitch748 on April 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM

It could be that there will be no overt civil war — just massive civil disobedience.

Aitch748 on April 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM

The problem is not the means, but the (in)ability to organize. A well-organized “Ignore the Tax Day” movement will probably put the Fedzilla under, or at least send it into the death spiral. Too bad we missed the opportunity this year, and will likely miss it the next because there are no leaders on the right to issue the call to arms. We’ve been culled all too well by the public schools and universities over the last decades.

Archivarix on April 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM

I have spoken with my medical doctor and my eye doctor about my medical records. According to them, all medical records must be in electronic form, as per regulation in ObamaCare.

It’s for the “good of the patient”. There will come a time, when the government will base the cost of your health care on health issues such as: diet, exercise, heredity, previous health conditions and oh, by the way, do you own a firearm”?

sigsauer on April 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM

ROCnPhilly on April 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I agree 100%. Corrupt politicians know this as well. That is why they no longer hide their true intentions anymore. They can do whatever they want and there will be no consequences for them. They may get booted out of office, but they just become lobbyists, and the person that replaces them is more than likely just as corrupt.

I said it in another post: You are living in fantasyland if you believe we can save this country through voting.

Fazman on April 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM

REPORTER: What exactly are the state police allowed to do?

I continue to be amused by the naivete of people who think that leftists care about the rule of law.

Fenris on April 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to protect themselves from the government. Is it any surprise that the Dums want to eviscerate the 2nd amendment?

If the 2nd Amendment, a clear and precise statement, can be eviscerated, then the entire Constitution is at risk, not the least of which is the presiental term limit provision.

polarglen on April 15, 2013 at 10:15 AM

If anti-depressants are indicative of a some mental imbalance then it follows that anybody who has taken them should be barred from occupations where irrational choices, decisions and actions could affect other people in a strong negative fashion.

At all levels of government, politicians and political advisers must be screened urgently and if found to have used anti-depressants, must be immediately removed from their jobs until they can prove that at no point in the future will they make irrational decisions that could damage the communities they are supposed to serve.

Think of the children.

YiZhangZhe on April 15, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Actually, our medical records were seized as a provision of Porkulus under the auspices of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Murf76 on April 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I found this out last spring. I had gone for my yearly physical and bloods and EKG at my group. A week later i received a letter from my PCP. It contained the complete results of my physical and tests.Right down to that body mass number. I stopped by a few days later and asked the administrator what the hell this letter was for. She said it was my copy of the records they are required to send to HHS.It also contained my PCP’s suggestions for a lower cholesterol diet. Everything your MD records is now going to HHS, and I guess they will provide the info to the states if asked. This is especially true if your docs are in a large provider group where the MDs are responsible to admins and are overseen daily.

xkaydet65 on April 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM

YiZhangZhe on April 15, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Is alcohol an anti-depressant, I wonder?

OldEnglish on April 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Cert denied on NY SAFE act

thanks SCOTUS

clement on April 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Going to be interesting in HOW and from WHO, State Police got this guy’s name. And then HOW and from WHO, did they get his medical records.

……..assuming it’s not just covered up.

……..like Fast and Furious.

GarandFan on April 15, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Here is an idea. Not sure I believe it entirely, but put together these to stories

Supreme Court to hear NY Gun case

Vast majority of LEO’s oppose further gun legislation

Could it be that some police are intentionally violating citizens rights under the umbrella of the SAFE act as ammo to have it overturned?

kurtzz3 on April 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

to = two

kurtzz3 on April 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Cert denied on NY SAFE act

thanks SCOTUS

clement on April 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Ah hell.

kurtzz3 on April 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Every warning the NRA has ever issued about gun confiscations is proving true.

It’s hard to go wrong predicting that the state, at whatever level, will abuse its power.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on April 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM

It’s not sitting well with some State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer (R-Amherst) and State Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak (D-Cheektowaga). They are calling for an investigation of state police, specifically how the police are using medical records to seize guns.

So, why, instead of questioning the implementation of the law, aren’t you calling for the law’s repeal, MR. LAWMAKER? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do when a hastily-enacted law results in gross violation of individual rights?

Socratease on April 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM

For all the cops that may be on “our side”, there sure seem to be more than enough who leap at the chance to hoover up privately owned firearms given even the implication of the chance to do so.

TexasDan on April 15, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Law enforcement willfully goes along with the Gun Grabbing kinda proving that if there ever was a Marshal Law situation we’d all be screwed.

Door-to-door gun confiscation will happen, as it has happened in the past (Katrina) and is happening now without Marshal Law even being declared.

This is the end-goal of Gun Control; disarming the public is what the elites in power really want.

Neo on April 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

But several state lawmakers are demanding answers about how state authorities are using their new power under the SAFE Act.

Too late to bit*h about the intended consequences. Anyone with a low double digit IQ (>10) would have seen this coming.

chemman on April 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

As to criminals and the registration requirement. Have you heard of Haynes v. U.S. (1968)? You’re going to love this one. The Supreme Court case decided, by an 8 to 1 margin, that convicted felons are not required to registar guns. Since they’re prohibited from owning firearms, obeying a gun registration law would, you see, violate their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Thus it is a lie when elected officials claim their latest anti-gun scheme is aimed at criminals.

amr on April 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM

People need to Remember this about NY state, The ultra left lives in and around NY city, the rest of the state for the most part is rural, conservative, and is very much Second Amendment supporting gun owners. 80% of NY state counties have passed motions stating they will not enforce Governor Cuomo’s unconstitutional gun grabbing NY state safe act, the only areas of NY state that are going to enforce the act is liberal Meccas in and around NY city.

Beastdogs on April 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

New York (state AND city) deserves the government it elects… the state also allows carpetbaggers to come in and get elected to the US Senate (RFK and Hillary immediately come to mind)…

No sympathy here… its YOUR mess; clean it up yourself and the sooner the better…

Khun Joe on April 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Progressive liberalism marxists….. liberals in NY….. you get exactly what you vote for. Elections have consequences and now you have to live with it. Just don’t pollute the rest of the Republic with your inane brand of liberalism. We the people, aren’t in the market.

ultracon on April 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

How did they get access to the records?

Are hospitals letting them in to their systems?

HakerA on April 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM

a)When you make the rules and control the money…you have “access”.

b)They own the systems…and they made the rules.

They said that electronic records-keeping would make the system a lot “easier” to use.
They just didn’t say “easier” for whom…or “easier” for what.

Solaratov on April 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

It looks like the State of New York and more specifically New York City is the test case, or pilot project for a more nationwide effort at total government control of firearms. We have to make sure that pilot project fails.

skspls on April 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.

Ed Morrisey

.
“Pretend” to repent ……. maybe.

listens2glenn on April 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM

It looks like the State of New York and more specifically New York City is the test case, or pilot project for a more nationwide effort at total government control of firearms. We have to make sure that pilot project fails.

skspls on April 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM

They may have bigger plans than that………….

http://ogdaa.blogspot.com/2013/04/seattle-is-under-federal-control.html

Solaratov on April 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

They said that electronic records-keeping would make the system a lot “easier” to use.
They just didn’t say “easier” for whom…or “easier” for what.

Solaratov on April 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

From the very beginning EMR has been intended to allow for data mining so government bureaucrats can decide what treatments are most cost effective (among other things like “do you own guns”). Note that has nothing to do with what is best from a patient’s survival or pain and suffering.

Aviator on April 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Cert denied on NY SAFE act

thanks SCOTUS

clement on April 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Cert wasn’t denied on the NY SAFE Act. The Court denied cert on an appeal concerning NY’s CCW law, which has been on the books for some time. The issue was whether individuals have a right to bear arms outside of the home because NY’s CCW law only allows for concealed carry permits in cases where individuals can prove that they have a special need for self-defence.

Resist We Much on April 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Flash: orders for DIY size metal lathes skyrocket.

bbhack on April 15, 2013 at 2:23 PM

This would be a story if the jack-booted thugs were not confiscating guns.

Just who is surprised here?

JackM on April 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

And the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case challenging this law. This of course means nothing about the law’s constitutionality, but it does mean the confiscations will continue.

I think the SCOTUS chickened out on this one.

JackM on April 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You can almost see the divide occurring between the rulers and those they would presume to rule, the rulers aren’t even trying all that hard to hide their fascism any longer.

Bishop on April 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM

First these fascists slowly took over the Democrat Party. They run the Federal Gov’t and have fellow like-minded individuals at high positions in virtually all the gov’t agencies and Obama has been appointing Federal Judges whenever the opportunity presents itself. Moreover, they are in Local and State Offices as well (although the Republicans managed to chase many of them out of various State Legislatures and Governors offices).

But the fact remains. They see NOW as their BEST chance to seal their power and control and so they’re shamelessly pushing ahead full steam trampling over peoples rights. THEY DON’T CARE what you think.

Frankly, I expect to wake up one morning and find the Internet shutdown, the Banks closed, and the Constitution suspended until further notice. Hey, they’ve done it in other countries where they’ve managed to consolidate power. After that, they’ll start separating out “undesirables” from the rest of the population.

Mahdi on April 16, 2013 at 11:29 AM