A Legal Smack-down for the NYC "Soda Jerk"

On Monday, Mayor Michael (Nanny) Bloomberg was dealt a stinging blow when a NY-state Supreme Court Judge struck down his ban on the sale of large sugary drinks at the city's restaurants and other venues.

 At a late afternoon news conference, Mr. Bloomberg said "It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives." He also called for other cities across the nation to follow his example.

To "do everything we can to save lives" has no limits:

• Why not ban donuts? Of course, he'd have to get that ban past the police unions. 
• Why not limit the sale of wine to 375 ml bottles to keep people from getting drunk. The consumption of too much alcohol leads to drunk driving and needless injuries and deaths each year in NYC. 
• Also, figure out a way to regulate sleep so that everyone gets at least 8-hrs. of sleep each night. Maybe forcing everyone to turn off their lights at 11pm or face stiff penalties. The list is endless. 
• But if Bloomberg really wants to save lives, he could go after the medical industry which performs 200,000 abortions a yearly, but then again, that would "kill" too many campaign donations from his friends in the medical profession. 

It's quite obvious that Mayor Bloomberg is a 5'7" little man with a lot of money and an obvious Napoleonic complex. Bloomberg's legacy will hopefully be his new nickname, "Soda-jerk."

What Mayor Bloomberg Doesn't Know About Police & Guns

I plan to continue the series on regulation...but I just saw this and wanted to direct your attention to this article in today's Wall Street Journal:

"What Mayor Bloomberg Doesn't Know About Police and Guns"

This article in today's Wall Street Journal is by John Lott whom you may remember from my recent post, "More guns, are you kidding me?" I quoted John Lott and referenced his book, "More guns, less crime." 

In today's WSJ opinion piece, John Lott says that most police chiefs and police officers overwhelmingly support law-abiding citizens having the right to carry weapons. Why? Maybe it's because they know they they can't really protect most citizens; they know they can't be there on-the-spot when most crimes are committed.

John Lott also makes another point that I hear brought up all the time as a "straw man" for not allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. There is NO case on record of a permit holder accidentally shooting an innocent bystander. 

Jeanne Assam, the heroine who shot
and killed the New Life Church shooter.

Finally, John Lott also cites the case of the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs in December 2007. There were 7,000 people inside when an armed gunman came onto the church property and began shooting, killing two people and wounding others. What stopped this killer was a parishioner who had permission to carry a concealed weapon. What might have happened if one or more moviegoers at the Century theater in Aurora, Colorado had been carrying a concealed weapon? Maybe, just maybe, many more lives might have been spared.

Read John Lott's opinion piece in today's WSJ.

When you read about the lunacy of NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, you would hope that he would consider the words of our Founding Fathers: 

"[It is] in the law of nature for every man to defend himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him of those weapons of self-defence [sic]."---Boston Independent Chronicle, 1787. 

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense."----John Adams, in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-88. 

"[T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defence [sic] of themselves and the State, and to assemble peaceably together . . . shall not be questioned."---Providence Gazette and Country Journal (RI), 1790. 

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such [they] are or have been in actual rebellion."---from the Constitutional ratification convention of the state of New Hampshire, 1788.