The gun grabbers are up in arms this week while demonstrating the conveniently situational respect they have for the constitution when it comes to the Second Amendment. For our lead item, we return to New York where Governor Andrew Cuomo has just moved to quietly suspend a portion of the odious SAFE Act, resulting in all sorts of anger from the Democrats here. (From the New York Times)

The administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo agreed on Friday to suspend a plan to require background checks on ammunition sales, putting in doubt part of the gun control law that he considers one of his proudest legacies.

The decision, which the administration did not publicize, was the result of an unusual deal the governor’s office reached with the State Senate’s Republican majority. The Senate’s Democratic minority and the speaker of the State Assembly condemned the move.

The background-check system was approved as part of the Safe Act, the set of tough gun control measures that Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, persuaded lawmakers to pass in January 2013, shortly after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

As with so many things relating to the SAFE Act, the how and the why of the suspension of the ammunition purchase background check system remains a bit of a mystery. New York goes to great lengths to keep details of the implementation of this law under the covers, refusing as many details to the press as they can manage. The default reason given by the Governor’s office thus far is that the database required to implement the system is not up to snuff and can’t handle the job, so they don’t want to roll this out without a functional system. That make very little sense at first glance, though. We need a totally separate system to track and approve ammunition sales? We do background checks for gun sales on a constant basis, so why wouldn’t the same system be used for this?

The conflicting stories coming out of Albany might lead one to believe that there’s more politics than science involved.

Democrats in the Legislature criticized the agreement. The Assembly speaker, Carl E. Heastie, a Bronx Democrat, said it was “an ill-advised end run around the Legislature and the Safe Act.”

“I did not participate in this ‘agreement’,” he said. “The law may not be ‘suspended’ by a memorandum such as this. I believe the law should be followed and implemented as intended.” A spokesman for the Senate Democrats, Mike Murphy, called the agreement “outrageous.”

“On first read, this appears blatantly unconstitutional,” said Senator Michael N. Gianaris of Queens, the deputy minority leader. “The notion that one house of the Legislature will have greater powers than another, and the governor, with one house only, can agree to change state law, turns our democracy on its head.”

Here’s where the interesting bit of hypocrisy comes in. Notice how the gun grabbing Democrats are quick to say that a “memorandum of understanding” signed by the Governor should not be used as an end run around the legislature. Another cries out that such a move by the executive branch is blatantly unconstitutional! Inspiring words indeed, my friends. It’s good to see that the Democrats are at least on board with the idea of coequal branches of government and the need to have the voices of the people represented in such weighty constitutional matters.

Unless, of course, you’re talking about Democrats in Congress when they don’t get their own background check bill passed. Then the tune begins to change a bit. (From The Hill)

Dem senators call for executive action on gun control

Connecticut Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats, have called on President Obama to take executive action to close a “loophole” in federal gun control legislation.

The so-called “default to proceed” rule under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act allows firearm dealers to sell a weapon to an individual if they have not been notified by the FBI of a buyer’s criminal background within three business days.

Wait a minute… you want the executive branch to do an end run around the legislature and make changes to existing gun control law? But… but… I thought that was a bad thing. Your buddy in Albany just said it was blatantly unconstitutional.

It’s all so confusing!