So . . . The NYT is AGAINST Enforcing Federal Laws?

From the New York Times:

"It is remarkable how many people are willing to help illegal gun sellers. Congress all too often takes the side of the gun lobby over victims of gun violence. Last week, in a particularly wrongheaded ruling, a federal appeals court threw out New York City’s longstanding lawsuit intended to rein in illegal gun sellers."

Hmmm . . . if we were talking about the expired Brady ban on certain competition rifles, and it were still in place, I'm sure the Times would be extolling that federal law must be followed. In fact, despite facts -- truth -- that showed the 10-year-prohibition had no impact on crime (by a myriad of studies, some funded by anti-gun, anti self-defense entities) the NYT was among numerous newspapers demanding that federal law not just be followed but allowed to continue despite the fact that it was sunsetting, just as Congress in 1994 had intended when it was originally passed.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by a 2-to-1 vote, ruled that the nuisance law does not count because it does not apply specifically to gun sales. That is a bad reading of the federal law. Congress said only that the state law must be “applicable” to gun sales, and the nuisance law — which prohibits creating a condition that endangers the safety of others — clearly is."

So now, federal law shouldn't be followed?

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg has vowed to continue with separate lawsuits pending against gun dealers . . ."

Whoops! THAT might not be a good choice. Bloomberg desperately tried to escape a lawsuit filed by a South Carolina firearms dealer who alleged that Mayor Mike defamed him. Ultimately he was ordered to be deposed. Many believe he violated federal law himself when he knowlingly set up straw purchases in other states.

Sigh . . . If they only had a brain.

h/t to The Bitch Girls