Rochester Mayor Vowed To Take “Illegal Guns Off The Street”; Police Just Found One In Her Home

10
1000

By Cam Edwards of BearingArms,

Rochester, New York Mayor Lovely Warren is a typical Democrat politician when it comes to gun control. She’s complained about the number of “illegal guns on the streets” of the city, supported the state’s draconian gun control laws, and even announced a gun “buyback” earlier this week, claiming once again that “getting guns off our streets must be a priority.”

“That’s why I’m glad our police department is partnering with the Attorney General’s Office and our churches to host a gun buy-back event next week. I know Chief Herriott-Sullivan and her team are working with their partners in law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal guns into our city. We must continue working together with our citizens to take these guns off our streets so our residents can feel safe in their neighborhoods and live the lives they deserve.”

Turns out Warren should have been more concerned about illegally possessed guns in her home. On Wednesday, the New York State Police raided the home that Warren shares with her husband Timothy Granison and allegedly discovered him to be in possession of 31 grams of cocaine as well as a firearm, which is a no-no since Granison was convicted of armed robbery 24 years ago.

According to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Granison was one of seven people arrested as part of an ongoing drug investigation that’s been going on for months.

New York State Police stopped Granison’s vehicle Wednesday afternoon on Birch Crescent in Rochester and cocaine was found inside his car, said New York State Police Major Barry Chase.

On Wednesday evening, New York State Police conducted a search at the home that Warren and Granison share at 93 Woodman Park.

New York State Police on Wednesday and Thursday executed search warrants at seven locations within city limits, including Mayor Warren’s home. More than two kilos of powder and crack cocaine were recovered, as were three firearms and a semi-automatic rifle and more than $100,000 cash said Doorley.

One unregistered hand gun, a loaded magazine and the semi-automatic rifle were recovered from the mayor’s house, New York State Police Major Barry Chase said. It was not yet clear if the rifle is illegal.

For the moment, the only gun charge that Granison faces is possession of an unregistered firearm, though his felony conviction back in the 1990s makes him ineligible to legally own a firearm, regardless of whether or not it’s registered with the state of New York, as required under the terms of the state’s draconian SAFE Act. During a court hearing on Thursday, Granison pleaded not guilty to the drug and gun charges, and so far his wife has been silent about his arrest and the guns found in the couple’s home.

In the past, however, Warren’s been a vocal supporter of the SAFE Act and other restrictions on legal gun owners in the state, even as she’s sought to cut the Rochester Police Department’s budget amidst a sharp increase in violent crime in the city. Last August, she even lauded the Rochester PD for confiscating hundreds of guns, and vowed to keep up the pressure against those possessing them illegally.

“But we can’t legislate morality,” Warren said. “We can’t… We legislate consequences. So. The thing is. We are focusing on bringing these people do justice that are picking up these weapons but also getting the weapons off the street.

Well, I suppose the good news for Warren is that there are two fewer guns in Rochester today. Too bad for her that they were seized from her own home. I wonder if Warren is still big on ensuring that there are consequences for possessing a gun illegally in the city she oversees, or if she’s suddenly had a change of heart over the past 24 hours.

10 COMMENTS

  1. “We can’t legislate morality” has to be one of the most brain-dead statements in politics. All law is founded in a moral code, and anyone who tells you differently, well, keep close track of the family silver when they are around.

  2. I dunno… I’ve never taken it that way, really. When I say that, and I have said it a lot, I have meant that you can’t make someone a moral person by means of writing legislation telling them to do or not to do something. You can pass all the laws you like in the legislature, but whether or not anyone actual pays attention to them is another thing entirely. Thus… “You can’t legislate morality”.

    It is two different spheres, when you get down to it. Law may tell you that murder is illegal, but when the point of exigency is reached, what you’ll do is going to be far more dependent on what your morals are telling you, vs. your knowledge of the “law”.

    There’s a corollary, as well–In the service, I learned a couple of hard lessons about human beings. One, there’s only so much “Obey” in a person, and once you’ve used all that up, well… Yeah. You’ve lost all ability to influence what they do. Likewise, you’ve only got so much “Do as I say…” as a leader, and that’s a finite resource as well. Think of the two things as separate bank accounts that you can ohsoveryeasily overdraft, never to regain a positive balance again. You have to pay into the “Obey” account with things that justify your order, and gain the individual under question something, such that they think your orders were just and in their interest. Likewise, you have to pay into your “Do as I say…” account with things that justify what you ordered, and again, accrue to the benefit of your position. Let these accounts go dry? You’re done, as a leader–And, likely, the guys you’re working with are going to be that much closer to being done as “followers”.

    The law is a very similar thing. It isn’t “codified morality” so much as it’s a framework for ensuring that everyone plays by the same rules, regardless of reality. You can live next door to someone who’s got no compunction about killing in general, so long as you and he both know that the cops will show up and put him in jail for him killing you the next time your stereo is turned up too loud. His morality and yours don’t enter into it, at all–Law is simply the “rules of the road” for everyone, regardless of how they actually feel about killing or their stereo volume.

    Which is why you can’ t change that guy’s mentality about killing through legislation, nor can he change your ideas about sound levels via the same means. No matter what the law says about killing or stereo volume, you’re both going to have the same ideas about both things at the end of the day–You’re just going to be able to live next to each other without violence because you’ve had those artificial “law” constraints laid on you.

    Or, so I’ve always taken it. As with anything involving compunction, you have to be careful with it all–Expend all of your “Obey” on silly shit like drug and liquor laws that nobody actually believes in, and well… Yeah. You get a society of scofflaws that ignore the “really important shit” you don’t want them to ignore. Prohibition and the narcotics laws set us on a slippery slope we’re still sliding down, because the simple fact is, being human is such a miserable endeavor for a lot of us that we’ll do anything, anything at all, to blot out the pain. Trying to prevent that is a fool’s errand, and when you apply “the Law” to doing that, it erodes the power of everything else. I mean, if your “Law” is so stupid as to try to force me to give up a beer after work, why should I pay attention to it about anything else…?

    As someone far wiser than 23 year-old me said to me back then, “Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed… Unless you absolutely have to, and are willing to pay the price to enforce it. And, you’d damn sure better enforce it, or you’re done as a leader…”.

    Life taught me he was right. If you play the martinet Captain Queeg, you’re inevitably going to wind up dealing with mutiny and not having any of your orders followed. People are not machines, and there must be a return for them, if you want to lead them anywhere.

    • I’m not sure.

      When talking to people, and I swear I’m not pulling this out of my ass, about issues like illegal firearms possession, sharing of files, age of consent, tax “fraud”, the answer that very often comes up to the question: “why is x wrong” is “because x is illegal”. With no follow up, not even if you press the issue and try to make them come up with the concept of a victimless crime on their own.

      It seems to me that you CAN legislate morality into plenty of people.

      • Here’s a question: Is it morality if they’d do it when forced to, by circumstance? Illegal means you’re afraid of prosecution; absent the threat of said prosecution, as in a disaster a la Katrina in New Orleans, and you’d do it, then it’s not actually a “morality” instilled by the law.

        To my thinking, a “moral wrong” is something you don’t do, no matter what. As in, it’s immoral to molest a child; there’s nothing that would make me do that, and I’d prefer to die rather than be forced by some outside agency or circumstance to do so. That’s “moral”, as opposed to “just illegal”. You tell me that it’s now legal to rape kids? I’m still not going to do it, and I’m likely gonna practice the “three S” principles on anyone I catch doing that.

        Moral standards are a harder stop than mere legal ones, and if you run into someone who tells you they allow “legality” to dictate their morals, you’re dealing with someone you need to keep an eye on, because when the formality of “law” absents itself, they’re likely going to be entirely unconstrained about what they do, as in “Lord of the Flies” or “Mad Max” unconstrained.

        • Yeah I understand what you’re saying and in retrospect I should have specified that it was usually not the fear of punishment or even disapproval from society’s side, it was literally basing morals off of laws, to the point of being ready to shun and report people for victimless crimes. I explicitly asked if it was fear of punishment vs. something else because I was curious.

          Particularly when we did talk about sharing of files in our little informal discussion club of about 15 people from different backgrounds, age groups and of different sex. Internet “piracy” laws are basically unenforceable outside of doing surprise searches of households, therefore the there’s no fear of punishment.

  3. Maybe he just needed a gun to stop evil whites from stealing his cocaine since black men are not allowed to work honest jobs in this white supreme nation. I hope they throw her in jail for maintaining premises to sell drugs and whatever else they can charge and prosecute her for.

  4. It’s understandable. Thanks for being transparent about it. You would think that stuff like this or the 4 year old that was kidnapped and stabbed to death by an “urban youth” would be big news but since mainstream media is controlled by Jewish people, even Fox News, we must rely on each other for getting the truth. From news articles to testing equipment you guys have done a great job of telling the truth even if it upsets some people (m14 lovers) so keep it up. You can edit this last part out but check out “red ice tv” and “therightstuff.biz” sometime because they do a great job of covering the news, especially the TDS and FTN sections of therightstuff.biz some of it is hilarious as well which is nice during these crazy times.

  5. Mayor Warren is just as hypocritical as Senator Dianne Feinstein, who banned handguns in the City of San Francisco when she was the mayor, but had her own concealed carry permit and her own handgun to go with the permit until about 2012.

    Typical liberal politicians, they “want to make things safe” by banning firearms…except for their own firearms. Yup, they try to make it safe for them, yet us “regular” people who don’t live in multi million dollar gated communities with armed security or body guards, get left out in the cold when it comes to legal possession firearms.

    In Mayor Warren’s husbands case, your article states he was only charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. If that is in fact the case, it would make any reasonable law enforcement officer come to believe Mayor Warren pressured the police dept to keep the charges down. In just about any state, a convicted felon of a violent crime against person (Rape, Robbery, Murder, etc.) without an expunged record, that had possession of a firearm would have a complete book of charges thrown at him. Add in the drug enhancement to the illegal firearms possession and we have a telephone book.

    I’m hoping their is an ethics committee that investigates whether or not Mayor Warren interfered with the police investigation. Unfortunately, I know better than to hold my breath.

    It pains me to see that “regular” people like us on this board get the book thrown at us if we are in violation, yet the politicians and people close to them (Jeffrey Epstein is a good example) get a pass or reduced charges for serious violations.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here