How to Counter Michael Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Manifesto

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg may not be going anywhere in his quest to become President of the United States but his stand on gun-control may accomplish more than he ever imagined or intended.

Dennis Petrocelli, MD, a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, writing for The Truth About Guns says Bloomberg’s controversial gun control plan should be required reading for every defender of the Second Amendment. “The would-be Democrat presidential nominee has our Second Amendment in his crosshairs and is willing to spend vast (to us, not him) sums of money to strip us of them, law after law, state by state).”

So why should every gun rights advocate read up on Bloomberg’s 18-point plan to “combat gun violence?” Because he offers a great outline for preparing a concise answer to everything that is wrong with his ill-conceived plan.

Dr. Petrocelli offers a point-by-point rebuttal to Bloomberg’s plan that could well-serve as a primer for anyone who wants to defend their right to bear arms. Some of his answers to Bloomberg insanity include:

• The Supreme Court case “has reached a new level of absurdity—and danger”

– All available data indicate that concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than law enforcement officers.

• The New York City law “imposed an unnecessary restriction on gun owners’…” – [A]ll 50 states allow concealed carry.

– This requires careful unpacking. “Allow” shows that he continues to see this as a privilege, not the enumerated civil right that the Second Amendment clearly defines.

• In “may issue” jurisdictions, “local police may object to issuance of a permit if they know the applicant is a danger to themselves or others.”

– At best, someone may be at greater or lesser risk than the general public of doing something very narrowly construed based upon the presence or absence of evidence of objective risk factors. If police “know” someone is “dangerous” and do nothing about it until a concealed permit is applied for, then the level of public safety is far less than we imagine.

• Permit applicants may have to “possess a valid firearm owner’s identification, take a course involving gun range instruction and pass a marksmanship test.”

– Firearm owner identification is very close (and is a precursor) to registry which, based on the historical record elsewhere, enables subsequent confiscation.

• Training and education are vital to the making of a complete gun owner.

– One downside to required instruction is that it leads to thinking that “I’ve passed, so I’m good to go.” No one should ever stop learning.

• Red flag laws help “keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others”

– Even the ACLU is disquieted by red flag laws. When the ACLU agrees with gun owners about the trampling of due process inherent in these laws, it is a good sign that anti-gun activists are going too far.

• “[T]he Second Amendment allows for common-sense limits on gun ownership”

– “Common sense”, according to someone who refuses to comprehend what is at stake, is neither. It is the destruction of the final defensive line against tyranny.

When it comes to limiting the right to bear arms, Bloomberg has no equal. Good thing, because answering his objections doesn’t require being a ballistics expert.