Bloomberg Claims Victory as Georgia Gun Dealer Withdraws From Trial
By ALAN FEUER
Published: June 3, 2008

Saying he could not afford what he feared would be an unfair trial, a Georgia gun dealer accused by New York City of illegally selling handguns that made their way to New York backed out of his federal trial on Monday, the day it was set to begin.

The city will now negotiate with the dealer, Jay Wallace, to allow a “special master” to oversee gun sales at his store, potentially joining 20 other dealers who have settled lawsuits filed by the city.

“This is an important victory for New Yorkers, as good as a win at trial, and a validation of our innovative efforts to hold gun dealers accountable for following federal laws,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said in a statement.

In 2006, the city sued Mr. Wallace and 26 other gun dealers, mainly in the South, claiming their lax or illegal gun sales created a public nuisance in New York City. Two cases have been thrown out of court, two sellers have gone out of business and two more are set for trial in September.

Mr. Wallace, who owns Adventure Outdoors in an Atlanta suburb, presented his decision to withdraw not as a retreat or a defeat, but as a strategy to avoid financial ruin by speeding up the process of appeal. By entering a so-called default with the city, Mr. Wallace can now skirt the costs of a trial and move more quickly to an appellate court with what he claims are fundamental frailties in the case.

“Am I not an American who deserves the Constitution?” he asked at an often angry news conference held in a park outside the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, where the trial was to have begun. “Why am I not allowed to have a jury of my peers?”

Mr. Wallace, 51, was referring to a ruling last month by Jack B. Weinstein, the presiding judge, to put in place what is known as an advisory jury — one whose decision would not be binding and would leave the judge himself as the final arbiter of fact and law. Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, John Renzulli, argued that Judge Weinstein had already made up his mind about the case, making any trial “a mere formality.”

“Unlike the city, which can spend unlimited amounts of taxpayers’ money, Adventure Outdoors is a small retail dealer with limited resources and cannot afford to participate in a four-week bench trial, the result of which is a forgone conclusion,” Mr. Renzulli wrote in a motion.

He later added in a hallway of the courthouse, “The mayor cannot use his bully pulpit to force someone into submission because he has more money and more lawyers.”

From the start, the case has been an often bitter battle between Mr. Wallace, a small-town Southern merchant, and Mr. Bloomberg, whom Mr. Renzulli once described as “the billionaire mayor.” The two men were headed for a personal and (potentially distracting) showdown in the courtroom — at least until Judge Weinstein ruled two weeks ago that Mr. Bloomberg, who was scheduled to testify, could not appear in court.

In his statement, Mr. Bloomberg said: “We have always said that we have no interest in bankrupting gun dealers, only in ensuring that they follow federal laws.”

As early as 8 a.m. on Monday, there was no obvious sign that Mr. Wallace’s trial would be called off. Jurors arrived at the courthouse expecting to be questioned by the lawyers. Mr. Wallace’s three sons arrived from Smyrna, Ga., to stay with Mr. Wallace and his wife, who had rented an apartment in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, for the duration of the trial.

Then Mr. Renzulli filed a motion to withdraw from the case, which Judge Weinstein promptly denied. The judge said he would have to appear before a magistrate judge to work on the terms of the default. Mr. Renzulli seemed almost outraged to have been ordered to remain.

“You’re keeping me captive in a case my client cannot afford,” he testily told the judge. “I find that to be repugnant. I will fight that, and I will fight it hard, and I will not give up.”

But Mr. Renzulli stood beside his client at the news conference an hour later in the park. While Mr. Wallace was contemptuous of Mr. Bloomberg, he had nothing but praise for the ordinary people of New York.

“I happened to have visited Brooklyn Hospital” — with what was described as stress-induced chest pains — “and received nothing but the best of care,” Mr. Wallace said. “The people there are a credit to their industry and an asset to their community. It’s a shame that the mayor and his staff are not the same way.”

Anti-gun crusader Bloomberg salutes Wal-Mart on new tough sales policy
BY ADAM LISBERG
Tuesday, April 15th 2008

WASHINGTON - Mayor Bloomberg's national anti-gun campaign won a big victory at Wal-Mart on Monday - and inserted itself into the presidential race with a new TV ad.

Surrounded by Republican and Democratic mayors from dozens of cities, Bloomberg announced that Wal-Mart, the country's biggest gun seller, will put tight new controls on firearms sales - including videotaping every purchase - to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

"This partnership has the potential to set a new standard for gun dealers across the country," Bloomberg said. "We want customers and police officers to ask, does this dealer follow the Wal-Mart standard? And if not, why not?"

He also unveiled an ad that compiles old clips of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain calling for an end to the loophole in federal law that allows firearms sales at gun shows without a background check.

Bloomberg has not endorsed a candidate, but spoke out regularly on guns and other national issues when he was mulling a run for President.

"There's been a great deal of discussion among those who are seeking the White House about 3 a.m. phone calls," the mayor said. "When a police officer is gunned down in the line of duty, it is the mayor who gets the 3 a.m. phone call."

The political arm of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is spending more than $100,000 - funded largely by Bloomberg himself - to air theads in the three candidates' homestates, as well as in the presidential battleground markets like Pennsylvania.

The Wal-Mart changes won't have much effect in New York, where the company has been unsuccessful in its attempts to open a store - but they could earn a warmer welcome from the Bloomberg administration.

"Companies that understand they have an obligation to the people that they sell to and the communities that they exist in are the kind of companies that we want in New York City," Bloomberg said, as the mayors around him burst into applause.

Bloomberg is a tool

The Mayors, Governors, Legislatures and Law Enforcement agencies from the states affected are to blame more than the Mayor of New York City for allowing this kind of bullshit to have been perpetrated and not responded to.

I don't blame Bloomberg for being an asshole, I blame the impotent assholes that let him run amok far outside of his scope and jurisdiction.

fuck bloombutt and his pocketed judges

What a fucktard.

Yes he is an ass and I will tell it to him in his face if I see him while his goons beat me.

Smart move to avoid taking this case to court in Bloomberg's court room.  At least he can now appeal in a court that isn't biased.

Mr. Wallace, 51, was referring to a ruling last month by Jack B. Weinstein, the presiding judge, to put in place what is known as an advisory jury — one whose decision would not be binding and would leave the judge himself as the final arbiter of fact and law. Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, John Renzulli, argued that Judge Weinstein had already made up his mind about the case, making any trial “a mere formality.”

Yep, smiling Jack W made up his mind about this case before it was even filed.  Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will smack him around and prevent him from hearing every gun control case ever filed.  

Quoted: SNIP Mr. Wallace, 51, was referring to a ruling last month by Jack B. Weinstein, the presiding judge, to put in place what is known as an advisory jury — one whose decision would not be binding and would leave the judge himself as the final arbiter of fact and law. Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, John Renzulli, argued that Judge Weinstein had already made up his mind about the case, making any trial “a mere formality.” SNIP

Fuck that noise.  What kind of crap is that?  I believe the law says you are entitled to a trial by JURY, not by some liberal piece of waste New York hack judge.

ETA: Yes I know this is a civil proceeding, but still...

Why do New Yorkers keep electing people like Bloomboig and Schoomah?

What pieces of shit, the both of them. You elected them, they fucked your entire state and turned it into the next incarnation of the USSR, and now your moneybags Mayor is exporting his fucked up agenda to our states down here in the South.

How the fuck is this legal?

The bottom line is that you don't agree to go to Bloomcock's neighborhood for his little shows.

Quoted: Why do New Yorkers keep electing people like Bloomboig and Schoomah? What pieces of shit, the both of them. You elected them, they fucked your entire state and turned it into the next incarnation of the USSR, and now your moneybags Mayor is exporting his fucked up agenda to our states down here in the South. How the fuck is this legal?

Why is it the fault of New Yorkers that the governments of Georgia and other states are too scared, too weak, or too stupid to do anything about it?

Bloomberg is just one man and the mayor of a city in a state far, far away.  Why is everyone powerless to stop him or put him in check?

Nobody had this dealer's back?

Not the NRA? Not the GOA? Not the SAF? None of Georgia's state level RKBA orgs.?

Question: Is this dealer a known scumbag, or did our side drop the ball on this play?

Quoted: Bloomberg is a tool

I'd put an "s" in front of that word.

Quoted: Nobody had this dealer's back? Not the NRA? Not the GOA? Not the SAF? None of Georgia's state level RKBA orgs.? Question: Is this dealer a known scumbag, or did our side drop the ball on this play?

Because of blatent misuse of the "related cases" rule, all gun control cases in NY federal district court have been assigned to Judge Jack Weinstein (and all cases are brought by gun control advocates in NY because they know they'll get that judge).  Judge Weinstein hates gun makers and gun owners.  He's the judge that decided that the recently enacted federal law protecting gun makers/dealers didn't apply (which was overturned on appeal).  This dealer knew it was gonna get screwed and basically said "screw it, I'll take my chances at the Court of Appeals."  It's not what I would have recommended but it might work.  

Quoted: Why do New Yorkers keep electing people like Bloomboig and Schoomah?

For the same reason they keep re-electing Kennedy, Murtha, and Robert KKK Byrd. They are morons, or they know who butters their bread.

At first I too wondered why the NRA didn't step in to support this dealer, but, maybe it is better to go this route and then file an appeal and take it out of that particular commie licker  judges hands ?

Son of a bitch!  That was one of my favorite gun stores.  Dammit, I don't want to have to start shopping somewhere else, but there's no way in hell I'm letting some New York thug watch over my shoulder and collect records on me for doing something that is perfectly legal.  

Rope, Tree, Liberal- some assembly required.

Weinstein is a piece of shit.  Always has been, always will be.

www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=251

Quoted: At first I too wondered why the NRA didn't step in to support this dealer, but, maybe it is better to go this route and then file an appeal and take it out of that particular commie licker  judges hands ?

The NRA has spent plenty of money fighting that particular shithead judge in his own courtroom. There's no value in throwing money down a hole in that venue, so they probably aren't going to pay to play there anymore.

So what federal laws are they accused of breaking? I'm guessing Bloomberg is saying, someone bought a pistol from the shops and sold it to a New Yorker?

In his statement, Mr. Bloomberg said: “We have always said that we have no interest in bankrupting gun dealers, only in ensuring that they follow federal laws.”

Hmm I didn't know that was his job.  I wonder if his is going to choose to enforce imigrations laws next.

The city will now negotiate with the dealer, Jay Wallace, to allow a “special master” to oversee gun sales at his store, potentially joining 20 other dealers who have settled lawsuits filed by the city.

I fear where this is going.

eta: this is EXACTLY what the Constitution prevents, but here it is.

Quoted: Nobody had this dealer's back? Not the NRA? Not the GOA? Not the SAF? None of Georgia's state level RKBA orgs.? Question: Is this dealer a known scumbag, or did our side drop the ball on this play?

From AO's Bloomberg Fight Back Fund

June 2, 2008 Update Well I’m sure many of you are wondering what is going on. I will do my best to give the details of what & why. What: This morning the Renzulli Law Firm respectfully moved to withdraw as counsel for Adventure Outdoors. Adventure Outdoors has decided that it does not intend to defend itself at a bench trial. Unlike the City, which can spend unlimited amounts of taxpayer’s money, Adventure Outdoors is a small retail dealer with limited resources and cannot afford to participate in a four-week bench trial, the result of which is a foregone conclusion and will result, as this court has acknowledged, in an appeal. This would require Adventure Outdoors to again try the case before a constitutional jury after appeal and remand. Adventure Outdoors has accordingly chosen not to engage in the futile exercise of defending itself at a bench trial, and to appeal from any default judgment that may be entered against it. Why: Adventure Outdoors’ decision is motivated by the fact that it will not receive a fair trail. The City selected the district judge that it desired to hear this case in violation of Adventure Outdoors’ right to due process. Six days before trial was scheduled to begin, the court deprived Adventure Outdoors of its Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury and indicated that it would serve as the finder of fact. Based on its findings of fact and conclusion of law in the N.A.A.C.P. v. Acusport, Inc, the Court has already concluded  that Adventure Outdoors has contributed to firearms-related public nuisance in New York City and a trial would accordingly be a mere expensive formality. Adventure Outdoors was brought to trial in the fine City of New York under the pretence the Court has jurisdiction over a law abiding firearms retailer almost a thousand miles away. I am expected to allow the Mayor whom I have no vote to place a “special master” in my store and tell me how to run my business. The Court has prohibited the Mayor from testifying. He is the very person who is responsible for this litigation and he is not allowed to testify. Is the Mayor not able to speak in support of his decisions? The Court has allowed the City to remove the mention of the Second Amendment. The last thing the Court has done to me is by saying Cecilia and I will not be allowed to sit together along side our attorney. Who could continue in this court under these circumstances? In every sense of the word justice is not being served for Adventure Outdoors, my family, the citizens of Georgia or even the citizens of New York City. Therefore I decided to no longer continue to fight in the District Court of the Eastern District of New York under such unfair conditions. I will take my fight to the Appellate Court of New York and use my efforts there were I can have a fair chance. Do not deduct by our leaving this arena that we are giving up or feel the City is justified in any way of their actions, far from it. I am avoiding an ambush by those who feel justice is best served by those with an agenda rather than the word of law. Adventure Outdoors will fight another day and looks forward to returning under the jurisdiction of the New York Appellate Court. I will post more tomorrow on how the City is spinning my decision to default.

Quoted: Weinstein is a piece of shit.  Always has been, always will be. www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=251

Anti-Gun Judge Shoppers Love Weinstein

Judge Lands at Center of a New York Legal Mystery
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 3, 2007

The docket of Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn has long been a magnet for big lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake. In case after case involving guns, cigarettes, Agent Orange, breast implants, typing keyboards, asbestos, and pharmaceuticals, manufacturers have defended their products before the now 86-year-old federal judge.

Around the courthouse, Judge Weinstein is best known for his unpretentious courtroom manner — he rarely wears a robe and addresses convicted murderers with the same courtesy he extends toward partners at major law firms. Across the country, the judge is known for having "a big strike zone" for plaintiffs, according to an expert in mass torts, David Herr, a Minneapolis attorney. Judge Weinstein's willingness to shepherd class actions built on novel legal theories toward trial has made him a hero to trial attorneys and a foe to corporations.

The latest interest in Judge Weinstein doesn't stem from any of his Page 1-worthy rulings but the more arcane question of how some of his cases got assigned to the judge in the first place. At issue is how more than a dozen lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry — and several suits against firearm manufacturers — ended up before the judge.

By and large, these suits, about 20 in all, against the tobacco and firearm industries didn't arrive on Judge Weinstein's docket through a "spin of the wheel" — the random case assignment process by which suits are sent to judges. Instead, plaintiffs in the know have long used an administrative shortcut to maneuver lawsuits against the same set of defendants into the courtroom of their choice. Their choice is often Judge Weinstein.

In response, defense attorneys for the firearm and tobacco industries have alleged judge shopping and long tried to get their cases yanked from Judge Weinstein's courtroom and reassigned, with mixed results. On Thursday, the issue will come again to a head when a lawyer who has long represented the firearm industry, John Renzulli, will ask Judge Weinstein to recuse himself from a high-profile gun suit. The case was brought by New York City against out-of-state gun dealers who have sold handguns later recovered at crime scenes in the city.

It isn't the first time Mr. Renzulli has made this sort of motion — that was back in 1996. In the meantime, Judge Weinstein's docket has drawn increasing scrutiny. There's even a judge on the 2nd Circuit, Jose Cabranes, who makes a habit of quizzing lawyers about the matter when Judge Weinstein's rulings come up on appeal. "Is there a rule or practice in the Eastern District of New York that Judge Weinstein is assigned to all mega-cases?" the Judge Cabranes asked several years ago. The comments came during oral arguments reviewing Judge Weinstein's decision to try a case brought by Blue Cross and Blue Shield against the tobacco industry. The question has stuck with Judge Cabranes over the years. This September, he asked why the city's lawyers had taken a suit against firearm manufacturers "across the Brooklyn Bridge" to where Judge Weinstein sits, when the court in Manhattan was nearer to the city's law offices.

Plaintiffs have a good chance of picking which judge will hear their case simply by checking off a box. When filing a case in federal court, plaintiffs can indicate that their case is "related" to another case already in the court. The new case is then automatically assigned to that judge, instead of being randomly assigned.

The firearm and tobacco suits in Judge Weinstein's courtroom are there because plaintiffs have said they were related to earlier tobacco and firearm suits that Judge Weinstein has handled. This practice was first reported in a National Law Journal article from 1999. The first tobacco case Judge Weinstein heard ended up before the judge because of his involvement in asbestos litigation, according to one lawyer. That suit was on behalf of the Manville Trust, which was established for those with asbestos-related illnesses. Judge Weinstein had previously been involved in overseeing the trust. When the trust sued tobacco companies in 1999 on the theory that they were responsible for some of the respiratory illnesses among asbestos workers, the plaintiffs indicated that the case was related to the earlier litigation, the lawyer who filed the suit, James Stengel of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said in an interview.

The first industry-wide suit against firearm manufacturers for negligent marketing to arrive before Judge Weinstein in 1995 had been marked down as related to two earlier cases, one from about 15 years earlier. One of cases claimed that the trigger pull on a shotgun had been too light. The other case was against manufacturers of the drug DES, which was once prescribed to prevent miscarriages, and involved a similar theory of market share liability as the firearm litigation. Lawyers for the firearm companies have long claimed that the lawyer who filed the suit had stretched the related case rule so that Judge Weinstein would get the case.

Since then, "the assignment of this entire chain of firearms cases to Your Honor can only be characterized as a poisonous tree," Mr. Renzulli, the firearms lawyers, wrote this month to Judge Weinstein. "The misuse of the assignment process is wholly improper." The related case rule is designed to prevent a whole slate of judges from reviewing the same evidence in a series of similar suits against the same defendants.

"The related case rule is a good thing," the lawyer who filed the gun suit in 1995, Elisa Barnes, said, "because judges are completely busy and there is insufficient time for every judge to learn all there is to be learned on complex issues."

Ms. Barnes cautioned against " jumping to the completely erroneous opinion that Judge Weinstein is completely for the plaintiffs." She noted his dismissal of her later lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP against gun manufacturers.

So far none of the juries in the two trials against the firearm industry and one trial against cigarette makers that have occurred in Judge Weinstein's courtroom have leveled a significant award against either industry.

If there is some disagreement on how plaintiffs have actually fared before Judge Weinstein, there is little dispute that the related case rule has given a single judge an outsize influence in lawsuits against the tobacco and firearm industries. Because of Judge Weinstein's presence, the U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn has become the focal point of litigation against those two industries — even though no major manufacturer in either industry is headquartered in the borough and the alleged harms are generally nationwide.

One of the country's top tobacco lawyers, Theodore Grossman, described the moment when he realized that the system for how judges are assigned to cases "had broken down." He was in Los Angeles for a deposition of the lead plaintiff in the "Simon II" tobacco litigation — in which Judge Weinstein certified a class of nationwide smokers seeking punitive damages. The lead plaintiff was Californian, his lawyer was Tennessean, and Mr. Grossman was representing R.J. Reynolds, whose headquarters are in North Carolina.

"This was for a case brought in the Eastern District of New York," Mr. Grossman, who is with the Cleveland office of the firm Jones Day, said. "And the only reason the case had been brought there was to have the case before the chosen judge."

Asked how so many major cases ended up on his docket, Judge Weinstein said in an interview, "I'm lucky."

"We don't reach out for cases, we wait until they come to us," he said.

Judge Weinstein said some of his largest cases, such as ongoing suits over the defoliant Agent Orange and an anti-psychotic drug, Zyprexa, first came to him via the court in Washington, D.C., that assigns multi-district litigation. He said that to the best of his recollection, the first gun case and tobacco case that he handled came to him through the wheel.

At times, Judge Weinstein has let some cases go. Just last year, Judge Weinstein approved Philip Morris's request that a suit demanding the company pay the medical monitoring of smokers be reassigned to another judge. Philip Morris had argued that beyond the subject matter of cigarettes, the case involved "different parties, different causes of action, different facts, different expert evidence, and different legal questions" from the other tobacco cases already before the judge.

At other times, Judge Weinstein has referred motions for his recusal to other judges. In one instance, another judge, Eugene Nickerson, ruled that defendants didn't have standing to litigate over a related case designation, because it was merely an administrative tool for the court's benefit.

Another judge, faced with deciding a motion to reassign one of Judge Weinstein's tobacco cases, in 1999 wrote that "the inference that plaintiffs have 'judge-shopped' in this case is neither overwhelming nor inescapable." The judge, Charles Sifton, said many of the tobacco suits being filed as "related" did indeed rely on the same evidence — such as records of meetings between tobacco executives — as other cases Judge Weinstein had before him. There are signs that other judges are concerned that plaintiffs have steered cases towards Judge Weinstein. At a 2004 memorial service for Judge Jacob Mishler, one former colleague, Judge George Pratt, had some unusual praise for the deceased. With Mishler, there were "no manipulations of the related-case rule," he said.

Judge Pratt, who is retired from the bench and in private practice, declined to talk about his comments. Two people present said those remarks can only be interpreted as a swipe at Judge Weinstein.

Quoted: The city will now negotiate with the dealer, Jay Wallace, to allow a “special master” to oversee gun sales at his store, potentially joining 20 other dealers who have settled lawsuits filed by the city. I fear where this is going. eta: this is EXACTLY what the Constitution prevents, but here it is.

Don't worry, the more gun laws and regulations exist the safer America will get, according to many people H E R E

Maybe I don't understand the law correctly, but doesn't Bloomberg claim the "crime" occurred in the Gun Store with their sales?   How can he get a venue in NYC in that case, and why couldn't the gun store Atty. get the Venue changed?

Quoted: Maybe I don't understand the law correctly, but doesn't Bloomberg claim the "crime" occurred in the Gun Store with their sales?   How can he get a venue in NYC in that case, and why couldn't the gun store Atty. get the Venue changed?

It's a civil trial.  No crime need be committed.

Quoted: Maybe I don't understand the law correctly, but doesn't Bloomberg claim the "crime" occurred in the Gun Store with their sales?   How can he get a venue in NYC in that case, and why couldn't the gun store Atty. get the Venue changed?

It is based on "contacts".  Basically, I think, in this case, a gun ended up in NY from this store, hence the contact.  

The reality is, this is a travesty.  Justice goes only to the wealthy, and the wealthy can use their wealth to extract whatever "justice" they want.  Bloomberg is evil.

things like this will not stop until people are made an example of.

Fuck Bloomberg.

How the fuck in America can you not have the right to a jury trial? How can a judge over rule what a jury decides?
I can accept that the man may not be able to afford the trial, But why isn't the NRA/ILA helping him, isn't this what they are for?
I have bought a few things from Adventure Outdoors over the years, their staff was always professional and went by the rules, I can't understand how they can go after the retailer unless they can prove that they were allowing straw purchases.
Fucking Bloomberg!

So when does the revolution start?  

hrtme, thanks for this link.  I have updated the Wikipedia article on Jack Weinstein: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_B._Weinstein

We have to capture and record this kind of stuff so that it eventually catches up with him.

Quoted: things like this will not stop until people are made an example of.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing ..

Where was the nra?


// snickers

height=8

Quoted: I can accept that the man may not be able to afford the trial, But why isn't the NRA/ILA helping him, isn't this what they are for?

The NRA is becoming more and more irrelevant. My membership expires this year. I am seriously thinking of not renewing, even though it is an election year. My vote does more for gun rights than the NRA does.

Just a sign of things to come

Quoted: How the fuck in America can you not have the right to a jury trial? How can a judge over rule what a jury decides? I can accept that the man may not be able to afford the trial, But why isn't the NRA/ILA helping him, isn't this what they are for? I have bought a few things from Adventure Outdoors over the years, their staff was always professional and went by the rules, I can't understand how they can go after the retailer unless they can prove that they were allowing straw purchases. Fucking Bloomberg!

You have the right to a jury trial in most criminal cases.  If this is a Civil Trial, your ability to have a jury trial depends on the STATE laws covering CIVL trials.

Quoted: Son of a bitch!  That was one of my favorite gun stores.  Dammit, I don't want to have to start shopping somewhere else, but there's no way in hell I'm letting some New York thug watch over my shoulder and collect records on me for doing something that is perfectly legal.

If I find some New York piece of shit watching over my shoulder as I purchase a gun, I'm going to make damn' sure to elbow the shit out of him every chance I get, and before I leave I will piss on his shoes.

Fuck Bloomboig and his "special masters".

Quoted: Where was the nra?

From www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/:

NRA gave $1000 to the guy's legal defense fund, SAF donated $5000.

Quoted: Quoted: Where was the nra? From www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/: NRA gave $1000 to the guy's legal defense fund, SAF donated $5000.

Noticed that. I wrote NRA/ILA a letter about that very fact, and they responded with much vagueness. We can do better than $1,000.00.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where was the nra? From www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/: NRA gave $1000 to the guy's legal defense fund, SAF donated $5000. Noticed that. I wrote NRA/ILA a letter about that very fact, and they responded with much vagueness. We can do better than $1,000.00.

NRA-ILA is a 501c4 org that funds lobbyists.  NRA's Legal Defense Fund is a 501c3 org that funds lawsuits.  You wrote to the wrong folks.

Oh, and color me surprised at the response.  Not.