Submitted by alan schultz, May 13, 2008 23:03

The mayor's stated belief, In a recent court deposition, Mayor Bloomberg said he believed "the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives you the right to keep and bear arms." But in a recent brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg argued that the amendment "was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort — either federal or state.", says something else, I do not believe his statement, for his lawyers claims tell another story.

In addition, the mayor is clearly guilty of supporting actions that are plainly a violation of existing federal law, the "sting" operation he and his employees ran, an operation that appears to have crossed the boundaries of actions within the law, and criminal conspiracy. On the subject of gun ownership, Mayor B is entitled to any shade of opinion. He is not however entitled to cause or support actions in violation of the law, which he seems guilty of having done.

In conclusion, I note that actions similar to his, undertaken be anyone else, which is to say by less wealthy and "connected" individuals would long since have seen the doers indicted and tried for felony violations of federal law. That Bloomberg remains unindicted, is, to say the very least, a serious indictment of what passes for our criminal justice system.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.