Bloomberg’s Multi-State Assault on the Second Amendment

from – polizette.com – by Mary Lou Lang-Byrd

Well-funded gun control measures are on the ballots of four states this fall.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun control groups promised back in August, as reported by The Hill, to take their fight to the ballot box. And they have succeeded in four states. They have gotten anti-Second Amendment measures onto the ballot in four states and have financially backed initiatives boosting the measures.

Nevada voters face Question 1, which would require a background check by a licensed gun dealer for any sale or transfer of a firearm. California voters will decide on Proposition 63, which would ban the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and also require background checks for ammo purchases. Voters in Washington State will decide on Initiative 1491, which would allow for temporary suspension of firearm access if a person is deemed harmful to himself or others, and Maine’s Question 3 would require background checks for even private gun sales or transfers.

Numerous law enforcement officials have come out publicly in opposition to the measures, claiming they will be ineffective in curbing gun violence and will potentially make law-abiding gun owners criminals.

Opposition to Nevada’s referendum continues to grow and includes 16 of the 17 elected sheriffs in the state, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, and Gov. Brian Sandoval. The one sheriff who did not oppose the measure has stayed publicly neutral.

Sheriff Chuck Allen of Nevada’s Washoe County told LifeZette in a phone interview that this measure would do little to stop gun violence and would also would put a strain on law enforcement who would have to respond to calls of potential gun transfers.

“It would overwhelm the agencies that are going to have to respond and take them away from responding to real emergency calls,” Allen said.

In an op-ed piece published Wednesday, Allen wrote: “I’m concerned about Question 1 on the November ballot. Largely bought and paid for by billionaire gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, it would do nothing to stop criminals while criminalizing the commonplace activities of many Nevada gun owners.”

Allen called the referendum an “anti-freedom measure,” and indicated if Question 1 passes, “Nevada’s gun control laws on private transfers would be even more restricted than the outrageous laws in California. The measure would force anyone who loans or sells a firearm to a friend, or even a cousin, to go through a government background check, paying a fee each time.”


“A lot of big money is being spent to support the initiative,” and “a lot of commercials are being run against it,” said Allen. He himself has fielded numerous calls from residents who were seeking “clarity on the measure.”

“I’m really hung up on the transfer,” Allen said. “The language is written in a way that it could potentially make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”

Eureka County Sheriff Keith Logan also said in a phone interview he believes the measure if passed would be ineffective. “It’s a mix of federal and state law, which is usually a problem,” Logan said. “It doesn’t solve any problems.”

“We have existing laws that obviously don’t work,” Logan said. “Nobody believes it’s going to be more effective. It doesn’t actually solve anything in the long run.”


Logan recalled that he had two officers shot in his 30-year-career by someone who purchased an antique gun at a pawn shop — who should not have been able to purchase it because of his record. “The same scenario would still happen today and if this measure passes. The two fine young men — who survived — if this passes it wouldn’t change the scenario for them. In my opinion, it is not, as it is written, the solution.”

“Bad people are finding ways to get guns,” Logan said, adding he believes loopholes should be closed. However, he said, “We have to do it in the right manner.”

Law enforcement groups are also opposing California’s measure, including the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens’ Association, and the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, according to the California secretary of state’s website.

The California State Sheriff’s Association did not respond to a request for comment.

Numerous groups joined forces in the Coalition for Civil Liberties to oppose what they call a “deceptive ballot initiative that threatens to criminalize law-abiding Californians and restrict their ability to protect themselves and their families.”

“Proposition 63 is opposed by all major law enforcement groups in California, with none in support. This is because Prop. 63 goes too far and will only result in punishing law-abiding citizens and law enforcement while doing nothing to prevent crime or another terrorist attack,” said David Matza, communications manager of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, part of the Coalition for Civil Liberties, in an email.

“As the California Police Chiefs Association stated, ‘Proposition 63 fails to meet the adequate balance between safety and individual gun rights,” said Matza.

Sheriffs in Maine came out publicly against Question 3, appearing in a video posted Monday to voice their strong opposition to the background check measure. Twelve of the 16 elected sheriffs there are urging a “no” vote on the referendum.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Marchik
4 years ago

The proposal are not good. In Illinois a person has a background check conducted before a gun can be purchased. Then a 3 day waiting period begins. We also need a state Fire Arms Owners Card i(FOID) issued by the state police before a gun or ammo can be bought.
If I sell a gun privately, how could I do a a do a background check?
Our neighboring state Iowa has no FOID card. One can buy ammo there without any restrictions.

4 years ago

Some years ago there was a news article in the paper in San Diego that told about some LA gang members who managed to get through high school without criminal records. They were selected by the gangs to join the US Army and eventually worked their way into positions in the Quartermaster’s Corps at Fort Irwin, CA. In the supply warehouses, they were able to steal a never determined number of rifles and pistols and smuggle them off the base to take to LA for the others in the gangs. Two of them were caught when the guards at the gate checked their vehicle and found anti-tank rocket launchers in it, The Army has such a poor inventory control system that they were never able to find out how many weapons were stolen or even which types were among the missing. They never recovered any of them. At the same time the gangs were getting military MP-5 machine guns stolen from the Army in Guatemala and smuggled into the US with drug shipments. Bloomberg doesn’t care at all about them. He just wants to disarm us law abiding people so his cronies can get control over us.

5 years ago

Let him spend his monry hopefully/maybe he will go broke,,,he has a right to spend his money.HOPING ALL HIS WISHES LOSES !!

5 years ago

This underscores the importance of having a President who will appoint judges that affirm the second amendment. Unconstitutional state laws can be challenged all the way to the supreme court. Like Trump or not, he is the best bet to stop erosion of our Constitutional rights. Without the second amendment the others are indefensible.

5 years ago

Hey, how about a referendum on the Constitution while we’re at it? That would be true democracy. Maybe it is time to decide if we want a republic or to live under mob rule?

Ron Williams
5 years ago

Very happy and proud to live in Wyoming. We do have crime, but firm believers in the the 2nd Amendment and an open carry state tends to discourage a lot of criminal activity…..

Gary Fanning
5 years ago

Nanny Bloomberg is a dangerous man. He thinks of himself to be much smarter than his fellow Americans. He thinks he needs to save us from ourselves. In doing so he helps to perpetuate the dependency on government by those in need! The assault on the 2nd amendment is just another example of that!

5 years ago
Reply to  Gary Fanning

Hey Gary I agree. He’s one of those self righteous Nazi left over from a gone by era. He and his kind think they are the rulers of this planet, and that all subjects should bow to them Just Like the Clinton’s and Obama’s. So we should work to dispose the so called (What to be Monarchy) and maintain our Republic that was set down by our nations Founding Fathers. Long live Liberty, Our Constitutional Right that God Passed down not the Government. Oh one Last thing.

E. Williams
5 years ago

This is just another civil rights violation by our so called elected Officials who need to be voted out of office for violating the Constitution of The U. S.

J Lee Johnson
5 years ago

I hope the politicians know that many Americans, especially those military, law-enforcement, and even union members, have taken Oaths of Service. I have on two occasions, (not to include the unions I’ve belonged to), for the US Navy and the Dept. of Corrections. The most critical part of my Oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Second Amendment wasn’t included in the Constitution for its “hunting” component. It is there because our Founding Fathers knew that big government would do exactly as it’s doing today – absolutely defying the restraints that are part of the Constitution. Armed revolution is the last thing we want. An option you should look to is the Convention of States. We know that Congress will not call for a Constitutional Convention because of the power they will lose. However, there is an ALTERNATIVE: the Convention of States is that alternative. To Bloomberg and others of his ilk and demeanor – I will never submit to your unconstitutional attempts to deprive me of my God-given rights – EVER!!

Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  J Lee Johnson

Sorry to burst your bubble but the states won’t call for a Constitutional Convention. It would mean the loss of federal ca$h.

5 years ago

We The People should understand what Bloomberg is and how he made his money.Our Constitution was put in place to control people like him.Our Laws do not stop people from doing bad things.Having no job to go to gives us reason to revolt against the system.Laws are ignored but when caught doing what ever will cost you and then you are on the expense of the State.Prohibition did not work and it sure did make some rich.Our next president will have to abide by our Laws and put God and Country First.

Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Don

HiLIARy won’t obey any laws and is clueless about God and country.

disruptive element
5 years ago

They take an inch, they will take a mile. Fact is, you cannot trust them to keep the Second Amendment. They are communists aka Democrats. They are glib talkers and we are seeing they are against we the people. Trump is the only chance so get out there a vote or you can welcome yourself to communism Hillary style.

5 years ago

I know this is a old saying but when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is a true statement. Don’t these fools release there will always be a black market for criminals to get any weapon they desire? How has the war on drugs worked out? Our politicians say they want to stop drugs coming in, but don’t want to secure the borders. Then they try to tell us how much they are looking out for us. What makes them think banning guns will stop criminals from getting guns? Remember when you see politicians spewing this kind of crap, just follow the money trail and see who is paying them thousands of dollars for a speech.

5 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Who is getting the billions of dollars in drug money – the street corner dealers in the ghettos?? The ones “filling our prisons with low-level drug law offenders”? I have a bridge for sale…

Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

The drug cartels. Next question….

5 years ago

This is going to be a never ending battle. So dig in gun owners, and God bless…….

5 years ago

Despite the fact that liberals like to use two other English speaking countries as proof of how population control (excuse me) gun control works, Britain and Australia – two countries that effectively removed guns from the hands of civilians – are the poster children of how gun control does not actually work.

In the late ’80s and early ’90s (following a 1987 killing spree by one man who killed 15 people) 200,000 guns and around 700 tons of ammunition were removed from society. And then gun violence REALLY got bad peaking at 24,000 during 2013 to 2014. Gun violence (but not violent crime itself) has mostly been on the wane since, but it is completely disconnected from any gun control laws, being more than 20 years after the fact, and didn’t end killing sprees by violent criminals (2010 lone gunman kills 12 people in 4 hours).

Australia confiscated and destroyed some 650,000 civilian owned guns right after a 1996 killing spree by one man (35 people killed). Two studies and reports done by the University of Melbourne since then have examined all the evidence and concluded that not only didn’t it significantly affect the number of firearm homicides, it also did not end mass shootings (2002, 2011, 2014…).
“In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the National Firearms Agreement. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” [Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, University of Melbourne]

American politicians (and their media lapdogs) KNOW this, but hope YOU don’t. So they go on with their attempts to “reasonably control” guns. What they want is control, alright. But it isn’t control of inert pieces of machinery, it’s you, the American citizen they want to control.

Don’t let them.

5 years ago

Like Rome, Bloomberg is spreading himself too thin, without actually gaining real ground (more tax paying subjects i.e. more donations from lame-brains). And like Rome, he will over-extend and overspend himself to oblivion. Just can’t happen fast enough.

5 years ago

yea we need to take guns away from some people why don,t we start with the people that are protecting Obama and hilary and if that works then we can see what else we can do.

Howard Last
5 years ago

At a news conference I would like to see a reporter ask Bloomberg or anyone of the other anti-gun elitists, “are those rather large police officers with you armed?”

Tempest Tom
5 years ago

Why? Are you actually going to turn your firearms over to anyone representing the federal government. The first act is to slow walk, ignore, any laws she may place upon us by executive order. Just make sure you have enough ammo in a safe place. It won’t take a lot. After she is ignored for a sufficiently long period there will be plenty laying around to pick up unless you have an offbeat caliber.
At least that’s what I read on the internet, Mr Government.

5 years ago

If Hilary wins…it’s totally over folks…the beginning of total gun controls…then the rest of her agenda of taking over America.

I have fought for this country, so, taking my country back from the elitist with force, will not be a problem. I may be retired, but not retarded to see what condition my country is in.

If Hilary wins my fellow AMAC seniors over 50-ish…retirement will be least of your problems. She doesn’t give a sh*t about or anything about you. I don’t remember the number of retired military veterans in this country, but I know, it’s over the total of the active forces current serving. She will have a fight on her hands…if she wins!

5 years ago
Reply to  eagle-eye


Sharon H
5 years ago

The uber wealthy want to destroy the second amendment because that will put them in total control. As long as we are armed, it is much more difficult for them. These people are globalists who would love to be in control of the entire planet….the Bloombergs and Soroses of the world can never have enough. This includes the Clintons. What happened to the 6 billion dollars that disappeared from the State Department under Hillary’s
Watch? It’s hard for that much money to disappear without a trail! That’s $6,000,000,000.00! She should be
Held accountable for this. I wonder if this is why her computers and phones were destroyed with hammers and
Wiped out with bleach bit…she obviously has much to hide! I don’t think we need a president with a poor memory!

Ron Williams
5 years ago
Reply to  Sharon H

Looking for 6 Billion dollars, Perhaps an audit of the Clinton Foundation may reveal a few misplace tax payer dollars??????

5 years ago

Interesting Facts About Gun Control:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.
Do the math: 0.000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!

What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation – or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.
For example, California had 1,169 – and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault – all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!
So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides …… Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments,

but the criminals will always have guns and couldn’t care less about registration laws.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control”, the important word is “control,” not “gun”.

James D. Mele
5 years ago
Reply to  Don

Don, you have made the best argument for gun rights. Most of the pro gun people including myself have not researched the true facts to use in their response to the uninformed who only see the gun issue from the media prospective. Thank you for an educated and informative response.

5 years ago
Reply to  Don

Thank You. We will never see any facts like that from the liberal media or crooked politicians

5 years ago
Reply to  Don

May I copy your post and put it on another site?

5 years ago
Reply to  Mike


Gary Brennan
4 years ago
Reply to  Don

Don, I have seen this all over FB but where did the data numbers come from? I would like to use the information but I need the source.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x