Obama is “Constrained” – Cuomo? Not So Much…

April 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM

When he can use it to his advantage, Obama refers to the Constitution.  He recently stated that he is “constrained…by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.” [1]  Great words.  Hear, hear.

Obama stated this recently in Colorado with a group of police officers as a prop. The comments reflect his admission that the government cannot simply come in and take a law-abiding citizen’s legally owned guns.  It was Obama’s way of pooh-poohing the idea that some believe we “need a gun to protect [ourselves] from the government.” [2]

We’ve also heard Biden say that nothing the federal government is trying to do will infringe on the 2nd Amendment.  Unfortunately, this is Leftist speak (a lie) because every time the government adds more laws to the books that have to do with buying guns or ammo, they are infringing on the 2nd Amendment.  They do not see it that way, of course.

However, saying something and meaning it are two different things.  The natural question in response to Obama’s statement is this:  does he really mean and believe what he says?  We have no honest way of knowing for now.  Because he has either stretched the truth or outright lied so often (Leftist speak), we truly cannot know what his intentions are until time passes to see what will happen.

But, while Obama is telling us that he is constrained by a specific system that protects law-abiding citizens from government overreach, other Democrats don’t seem to share that same sentiment.  I’m referring to Cuomo and other Governors who are Democrats and see no difficulty in passing laws in their state that either go up to or include gun confiscation.

In fact, in case you haven’t heard, Gov. Cuomo (D-NY) actually used the word “confiscation” referring to new gun control laws shortly after the Sandy Hook tragedy.  His exact words on a radio program were, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” [3]

My question is if Obama says he is constrained by the system, why isn’t Cuomo also constrained by this same system?  Moreover, I have not heard or read anywhere that Obama has stepped up to the plate to point out that Cuomo is wrong in the direction he is headed, have you?  If you have a source that shows I’m mistaken, please let me know and I will gladly correct myself here.

We have Obama saying he is constrained.  Cuomo says gun confiscation could be an option.  Obama has not publicly corrected Cuomo.

But the other question is this:  has Cuomo made good on his potential threat to confiscate guns?  Why yes, he has.

According to The Blaze, Cuomo has – in fact – begun taking away guns from law-abiding citizens.  “On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.” [4]  The guns were turned over and the gun owner was given a receipt.

This is patently illegal.  The government cannot simply force law-abiding citizens who have no criminal record to turn their guns over to law enforcement, yet it is happening.  So how did this happen?

Apparently, the gun owner in question had a “short-term health issue that required medication.” [5] The man’s lawyer is trying to determine how and by whom that information was forwarded onto the authorities.

Under the recently approved NY Safe Act (MHL 9.46), the law mandates that “mental health professionals [are] to report to their local director of community services (‘DCS’) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is ‘likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others’.” [6]  The attorney for the gun owner has filed a request for a local hearing and expects his client’s 2nd Amendment rights to be fully restored.

Since this will most likely be ruled an illegal confiscation, it’s too bad that the gun owner has to pay for an attorney to prove it.  The state should have to pay for creating asinine and illegal laws.

So, Mr. Obama, what was it you were saying about a system that constrains the government from simply taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?


[1] http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/04/04/obama-i-am-constrained-by-a-system-that-our-founders-put-in-place/

[2] Ibid

[3] http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/22/confiscation-could-be-an-option/

[4] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

Entry filed under: Gun Control, Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics. Tags: , , .

Screams of an Aborted “Specimen” Emory University’s Racial Divide?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13,062 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,025,902 hits

%d bloggers like this: