As you know, New York is among the states that have passed some of the nation’s stricter gun control laws. Kingston is city of about of about 25,000 people that lies about 90 miles due north of New York City. It seems the Kingston city leaders are trying to follow the anti-gun example of their neighbor to the south in passing a resolution that can only be described as being so anti-gun that it could easily be deemed unconstitutional.
The city’s Laws and Rules Committee gave their unanimous approval for a resolution that not only calls on state and federal politicians to pass more and stricter gun control laws, but the resolution would also ban political donations from any gun rights group.
(Hudson Valley 1) – A memorializing resolution calling on state and federal lawmakers to enact stricter gun laws and refuse donations from gun rights groups will go before the Common Council after receiving unanimous support in a committee vote last week. Meanwhile, city Republicans have blasted the resolution as overblown and undemocratic.
The Laws and Rules Committee took up the resolution, drafted by council Majority Leader Rennie Scott-Childress (D-Ward 3), at its March 21 meeting. The resolution cites statistics on gun violence and makes the case for stricter gun laws at the state and federal level.
Scott-Childress’s resolution does not call for or enact further restrictions on firearms in Kingston. Instead, the non-binding resolution calls on state and federal officials to push for stronger gun laws, including licensing and registration, insurance coverage for firearms, a ban on assault-type weapons and the repeal of a federal law that prohibits federal funding for research on the causes of gun violence…
Note that the resolution doesn’t ban politicians from receiving donations from gun control groups, only from gun rights groups. This obviously gives anti-gun Democrats an unfair financial advantage over pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Republicans are already criticizing the resolution pointing out that it was written by one anti-individual and run through the committee without any public opinion or debate.