Bloomberg Wants to Take Your Guns When You're Drunk

"When was the last time Bloomberg was in a bar in NYC? "

When he was surrounded by his armed guards.

Why carry a firearm when you can carry a cop, right Mike?

"If you are in a bar and you see somebody intoxicated..."??

When was the last time Bloomberg was in a bar in NYC? He was probably working the trading floor at a brokerage house and the drunks were his co-workers..

so he probably does know just how violent drunken Wall St traders can be, and they shouldn't be trusted with guns when they're drunk because they'll only shoot each other.

Hey???

Only the rich can get a permit to carry in NYC. If you are a millionaire like Howard Stern or Don Imus,who is a recovering("a day at a time")alcoholic and drug addict or like Imus,you have a "Rabbi" in the NYPD like Bo Deitle,to grease the rails. Supposedly,according to the NYPD,if you have a history of drugs,booze or other mental illness(addiction is considered a mental illness)you cannot OWN a gun in N. Y. much less carry one...Imus does and he frequently will playfully tell you,"I will shoot you",Ha Ha Ha. If I am wrong, get an application from NYPD or the N. Y. State Police and check it out. Placido is a dope, don't use that jerk as an example.I wonder if Rush Limbaugh carries???

I would love to legally carry a gun. :(

How else am I gonna open my beer?

Just do what I do: sit behind a corner table with your back against the wall....waiting.

Come on, wake up! I know that there are lots of responsible and legally-gun-toting citizens out there and I’m rarely in favor of governmentally imposed restrictions, BUT… Ever since we were kids watching Clint Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns on television, it’s been obvious that concealed weapons do not belong in bars. Whether you are a bar owner that worries about trouble or a supporter of gun rights, common sense tells you that many people who drink (especially in saloon-like environments) are substantially more likely to act violently... leading to fights, rapes, killings and even suicides. The likelihood of any of these results is amplified by the availability of a gun whether it is legally carried or not. Just as drinking and driving, guns and alcohol are a very dangerous combination.

The National Guard is the militia, QED

"QED"? When and how was this demonstrated? Until you show otherwise, I'll consider myself and my friends a militia.

I am fine with this law, but is this even a problem? When was the last time they found a drunk legal gun owner in a bar in NYC?

Plaxico!

He was carrying the gun illegally.

While I think this law is fine, the penalty is strict

Carrying a licensed gun with a blood alcohol content above 0.08 percent — the legal limit for driving — would be punishable by a year in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

So the penalty while carrying over the limit is greater than driving drunk? Come on.

Possession of any ammunition that can piece cops’ bulletproof vests would be a felony carrying a minimum sentence of one year.

Which is just about every type of rifle ammunition.

Yes, complain about McDonald's having to admit that their food is nutritionally bankrupt. HOW DARE people be given information to make their own choices. Really I'm appalled; what is next, "warning" people that smoking is bad for pregnant ladies? NO THANKS, "MOM."

Under what circumstances are non-drunk citizens permitted to carry firearms in the City? As far as I know, only police (on-duty or otherwise), military personnel, and licensed private security agents are permitted to carry.

the list is even more exclusive than that.

I don't think mil. personnel can carry concealed in NYC.

Concealed carry is only for the mayor's rich and connected class. I'm only talking NYC here so don't bring up VA or AZ.

but I bet city marshals get to carry because evicting people is dangerous. oh, I checked the price of Pb, expensivo.

Exactly, I think Bloomberg wants to create a platform as the MAYOR anti-gun crusader since he failed miserably on his education and Small business and Job Creation and Financial Markets and etc platforms

Alcoholic profiling!

If Bloomberg really wants a third term, may I suggest he get serious about stopping graffiti which seems to be making an unwelcome comeback.

I'd settle for the graffiti instead of a drunk with a gun.

I'll take drunks with spraypaint. Hell, I'll take drunks asking me to critique their tribute to Robert Rauschenberg.

Maybe, but the drunk Cy Twombly tributes are enough to have me packing heat.

Its "art"! How dare you!

*shakes fist* >=)

does this apply to the NYPD? because they're usually have a gun on them while drinking off duty.

We'll give you our guns if you let us smoke in bars again.

Aww, no valeriob, don't say that :-(

:) I actually don't own a gun and don't even smoke

He wants to take away our guns when we're not drunk. I wish there were someone running for mayor, or any public office in this city, who would vow to do away with the unfair and unconstitutional restrictions that make it very difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.

The constitutional amendment you refer says clearly" "WELL REGULATED." This sounds like a great regulation, and we need more of them.

This debate was made obsolete by Heller. The introductory clause to the 2nd amendment means nothing.

This clears the 2nd amendment right up!

http://twurl.cc/1jsi

"Well regulated" means "efficient" in the language of the time.

The militia is the people. It was regular people like you and me that won our freedom from the British. The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The current restrictions on sober, law abiding citizens are unconstitutional and wrong.

Sorry, you can't ignore the words of the Constitution to suit your ideology. You either obey it or you don't. WELL REGULATED.

I believe my interpretation is true to the wording. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. A militia is made of regular people - citizens like you and me. In order to put one together, you need people with guns first.

Why would we need any militia? Isn't that what the US Armed Forces are for? Tell you what. When you are allowed to show up for active duty bringing your own firearms, then you can talk about how essential privately owned weapons are for the security of this country.

to shoot anyone who breaks into my house. seriously.

Why would we need any militia? Isn't that what the US Armed Forces are for?

One more thing: It seems ludicrously ironic that right wingers like you are the first to say, "Support the troops!" Yet you wouldn't hesitate to let the lead fly from your precious barrels if those same troops were somehow miraculously ordered to go after you. Mighty fickle.

right wingers like you

Defend yourself from what? All you ever bring up is a vague threat of a rogue government, like every other nutjob out there.

Why would we need any militia? Isn't that what the US Armed Forces are for?

Yeah, right. Right-wing paranoia at its worst. If the government -- which can't even agree on health care, never mind turning its armed forces against society at large -- wanted to attack us, I'm sure your little guns will be very useful against Bradleys, Strykers, Abrams tanks, smart bombs, etc. And I'm sure our guys in uniform will likewise march in lockstep to enforce such illegal orders.

The people should be able to own any kinds of weapons, not just guns.

Wow. Spoken like a real wingnut. I'd sure feel safer if people on the street had RPGs, dirty bombs, grenades, 50 caliber sniper rifles, Hellfire missiles and the like.

I don't want to support one side or the other of this issue, i just wanted to point out that actually, i seem to remember some college in ohio called kent state, where US soldiers fatally fired on unarmed US civilians. but you know, what's a couple of hippies in the grand scheme of things.

If you actually knew anything about the Kent State incident, you'd know that the government did not sanction the violence. In fact, the guardsmen involved claimed in court that it was self defense and they did not receive any order from superiors either on site or off to start shooting. If the administration had ordered it, you would have had many more deaths on many more campuses, like the recent Iranian protests.

I'm on neither side of the debate -- but "well-regulated" means "in good order," in the language of the time. (A well-regulated militia would be in contrast with a ragtag group of unarmed farmers, for example.) It doesn't mean "with a lot of regulation."

The most reasonable reading of that language in the Second Amendment is therefore: "A properly-equipped militia being necessary..."

my extended family can be a well regulated militia.

see Korean store owners during LA riots.

Half the off duty cops would wind up in prison.

hehe very true!

Good point. The city will save some money on pensions though!