Bloomberg won’t dance, but will pay the piper
Acknowledging the difficulty of competing in an increasingly crowded and competitive Democratic primary, media mogul billionaire Michael Bloomberg will not be running for president in 2020, he said in a Mar. 5 post.
“I know what it takes to run a winning campaign, and every day when I read the news, I grow more frustrated by the incompetence in the Oval Office,” Bloomberg wrote in an opinion piece published on the Bloomberg publication website.
The former mayor of New York City had become a registered Democrat last year in anticipation of a presidential bid. He stressed in his recent post that his decision not to run is not because he believes he cannot defeat President Donald Trump. Instead, he wrote that he is “clear-eyed” about his chances of winning in a packed Democratic primary as a moderate pragmatist.
But he will still be a force in the run-up to the 2020 election. The Midas of anti-gunners is preparing to spend at least $500 million from his own pockets to deny President Donald Trump a second term, according to Democratic operatives briefed previously on his plans.
That report from Politico.com said that the half-billion sum represents a floor, not a ceiling, on the billionaire’s potential spending to defeat the president in 2020.
The amount is said to be roughly $175 million more than the Trump campaign spent over the course of the entire 2016 election cycle.
Democrat mathematics: 16 to vote, 21 to buy guns
The Democrats who are now the majority in the House of Representatives are having trouble dealing with the age of majority, which has generally been the age of 18. Maybe they have a problem dealing with numbers.
Some want to change federal law so that 18, 19 and 20 year-olds cannot buy or possess shotguns or rifles—especially AR15-style firearms—until after their 21st birthday. Others want to lower the voting age to 16, claiming that young people have shown the necessary level of maturity trough their anti-gun activism.
` During a recent committee markup of H.R. 1, a massive voting rights/election security/campaign finance/ethics bill now making its way through the House of Representatives, two Democrats offered an amendment that would allow 16-year-olds to vote.
Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Grace Meng (D-NY) introduced their amendments before the House Rules Committee. Both lawmakers pointed to the activism of young gun control advocates as one of the reasons for lowering the voting age:
“I am here tonight…because across this nation, young people are leading the way, which has been the case for every social movement throughout our history,” Rep. Pressley told the Rules Committee, according to CNSNews:
Pressley pointed to one of her young constituents who “has been at the forefront of the March for Our Lives Movement to stem the tide of gun violence.”
“It is young people…who march, organize, and remind us daily in the halls of this institution what’s at stake and just how high those stakes are,” Pressley said.
Rep. Meng, a cosponsor of Pressley’s amendment, also pointed to student gun control activists in making her argument for 16-year-olds to vote:
Both Pressley and Meng argued that 16-year-olds are permitted to drive cars, get jobs, and pay taxes, and therefore, they should be permitted to vote. Their amendment was not adopted, but could return when the bill goes before the full House.
While H.R. 1 may pass the House, it is unlikely to become law with Republicans in control of the Senate and the presidency. It does show how Democrats would — or perhaps someday will — change voting procedures to their advantage.
Legal pot use counter to federal gun statute
A GunMag reader in Massachusetts, where recreational marijuana was recently legalized, reminds fellow gunowners that while pot may be legal in some states, users who own or would like to own guns could be breaking federal laws, regarding both pot and guns.
The federal government still considers pot an illegal drug and federal gun laws prohibit pot users from purchasing or possessing firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 also includes a question about drug use that is disqualifying if answered affirmatively.
While medicinal and recreational use of marijuana may be a cash cow for states where it has been legalized, it is also an avenue for gun confiscation, which may be another reason why New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo seems so eager to have the Empire State join the pot legalization movement.
It doesn’t matter where you live, if you use marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes—legal or not—you are violating federal gun laws, until or if the federal laws are changed; which doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime soon.
Group questions CA college about gun banner removal
Another First Amendment kerfuffle over gun pictures.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a national civil liberties watchdog based in Philadelphia, is calling on administrators at a public California college to explain why they told students to remove a pro-Second Amendment banner because it showed an image of a firearm.
In February, Orange Coast College administrators reportedly told students tabling for Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) to remove the banner, in violation of the students’ First Amendment rights.
In a Feb. 21 letter, FIRE told OCC Interim President Kevin Ballinger that:
- The First Amendment, California’s Constitution, and the California Education Code broadly protect students’ First Amendment rights.
- The cited policy does not authorize the regulation of displays of images.
- Displays of images of firearms are protected political expression.
If administrators directed students to remove the banner, OCC “violated its students’ First Amendment rights and must take steps to assure its students that their rights will not be infringed in the future.” In the letter, FIRE also noted that administrators can be held personally responsible for monetary damages if they violated students’ constitutional rights.
