Archive for the ‘mysandry’ Category

Get the evil bastards!

August 31, 2009

Get general Motors for supplying the vehicles that are used by drunk drivers to kill and maim all across the land! While you are at it, get Ford Motor Company as well!

Alright, I twisted a few things. So be it. Beat me with a wet noodle so I can sue a pasta manufacturer into oblivion… When I first read about this I was reminded of a televised debate between Ari Armstrong and the hopeless hopolophobe and criminal Tom Mauser on PBS one evening. The essence is about being able to put the blame on one party, due to the sole actions of another person. I find that immoral to the extreme…

Tracking new cases: Suing gun makers

Sunday, August 30th, 2009 7:39 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Email thisShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInDigg This!

NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court.  This post is one in that series.  Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.

———————————–

Seeking to revive a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer over a teenager’s accidental but fatal shooting of a friend, lawyers for the Illinois parents of the dead boy have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a four-year-old federal law that shields the industry from many — but not all — lawsuits.  The petition in Adames, et al. v. Beretta USA Corp., filed last Monday and docketed as 09-253, can be downloaded here.  That file includes the appendix.  For a link only to the Illinois Supreme Court decison rejecting the constitutional challenge, click here.

The 2005 law – titled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — was controversial when passed, and has been attacked repeatedly since then in court.  The challengers have argued variously that Congress either had no power to wipe out already-filed lawsuits against gun makers, or that it went too far in doing so. So far, the Supreme Court has not been willing to get into the controversy, and the first issue facing the new lawsuit is whether it is sufficiently different that it can not only draw the Justices’ interest, but also overcome likely resistance from the federal government.

Last March 19, the Court denied review in two cases challenging the Act — New York City, et al. v. Beretta (08-530) and Lawson, et al. v. Beretta (08-545).  The federal government joined in both of those cases to defend the law, and successfully urged the Court not to hear either one, arguing that neither one raised clearly the issues it sought to put forward.  In the new case, the Justice Department was not involved as it went through Illinois courts, but because a federal law could be at stake, it could do so in the Court.

The narrower issue in the Illinois case is whether the specific lawsuit by the dead boy’s parents fits within an exception in the 2005 law that permits some cases to go ahead.  The broader issue is whether Congress has intruded too deeply into the way states craft their own laws, barring those that test issues arising under state common law, allowing at least some that test a state statute.  The petition quotes at length from congressional floor debates, with lawmakers blasting juries and judges for fashioning “novel” ways to attack the gun industry while showing respect for laws that emerge from state legislatures.

The tragedy that led to the Adames lawsuit in Illinois occurred eight years ago, when 13-year-old Billy Swan aimed and fired a Beretta pistol at a friend who had come over to play, Joshua Adames, who also was 13. The gun belonged to Billy’s dad, a Cook County sheriff’s deputy. Billy had taken out the gun’s clip before aiming it, believing that would make it harmless. A bullet that had remained in the gun’s chamber killed Joshua.

Billy’s parents sued Beretta, among others, contending that the gun manufacturer failed to warn users of this kind of pistol that removal of the magazine did not make it safe.  Without a cheap device to prevent just such accidents, and without a specific warning about the hazard, the pistol was too dangerous, the lawsuit contended. (There were other claims, but that one is the center of the case now.)

While a lower state court allowed that claim to proceed, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit altogether.  It ruled that, because Billy had intentionally aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, the incident did not come within the exception Congress had made to the lawsuit ban.  But it also went further, and found that the law did not run afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and its protection of state laws, because it did not “commandeer” state officials or processes to carry out some federal order or duty.

Taken to the Supreme Court by some of the same lawyers who pursued one of the earlier challenges, the Adames petition puts its primary stress on the Tenth Amendment issue. That Amendment, leaving states free to create their own laws when the powers have not been assigned to Congress, bars Congress from dictating to states “which branch of state government may authorize  liability against a particular industry so long as the federal enactment does not ‘commandeer’ state officials,” the petition argues.

The Illinois court, like the Second Circuit Court (in one of last Term’s cases), deferred to Congress “when it determined which branch of state government it would recognize as the authoritative expositor of state law, as well as limiting the scope of the Tenth Amendment to its anti-commandeering principle,” the filing contends.  That “cannot be reconciled with our system of federalism,” it says.

On what kinds of lawsuits are affected by the 2005 law, the petition argues that the reach of that law “is an issue of pressing national importance that courts nationwide are continually struggling with and which requires this Court’s definitive construction.”

The Beretta company’s response to the appeal is now due by Sept. 28, unless the time to file is extended.

SOURCE

Violence Policy Center: We told you this was coming

August 29, 2009

I’ve warned here and at other blogs that Gun Control would again become framed as a health issue. Well, it is beginning to appear that I have as much “swami” in me as TexasFred does!

Second Amendment: Beware Permit Holders

Concealed handgun permit holders are the target of a recent report issued by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun advocacy organization that says, “Gun violence is more than a crime issue; it is a broad-based public health crisis of which crime is merely the most recognized aspect.” The report, entitled “Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders,” is quite possibly the shoddiest piece of investigative research available — an obvious effort to manipulate a particular set of circumstances to support the Center’s efforts to undermine Second Amendment rights. The report relies on news stories rather than hard data to support its claims that between May 2007 and April 2009, permit holders were responsible for the deaths of 51 people.

As Bob Owens of Pajamas Media notes in his analysis, “Of the 31 incidents cited by the Violence Policy Center in its report, eight did not involve the use of concealed weapons. One used no weapon at all, four used rifles, one was a negligent discharge, and three were incidents of domestic violence where non-concealed handguns were used.” Owens concludes, “All told, 30 of the 57 people that the Violence Policy Center suggested were killed as a result of concealed carry should not have been included in any study citing concealed carry of handguns as a significant contributing factor.”

The VPC is funded to the tune of $700,000 per year by The Joyce Foundation, where Barack Obama served as director from 1994-2002. In 1999, Joyce began a significant attack on 2nd Amendment rights, a move that ultimately had bearing in the Heller Supreme Court appeal. While Obama maintains that he supports individual Second Amendment rights, the actions of the Joyce Foundation that he directed, and the latest attempt by the VPC to tag concealed carry permit holders as the villains, should serve as a reminder that the Left will never stop trying to subvert our fundamental constitutional rights.

SOURCE

NRA/ILA: The Bloomberg follies continue!

August 29, 2009

I’m a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, and while I do support what follows in the you tube presentation? I’ll take this a bit farther. Call your mayor, and ask why they support ex post facto law. Call your N.R.A. delegate, and ask them why they support ex post facto law. Ask all of them why they support the taking of unalienable rights for life for less than felonious acts, or sever mental disability. If they are not pounding the ears of Senators and Congress-persons about this issue then they are supporting it in a de facto manner.

Ask those same people why American citizens have to pay a tax in order to possess or purchase effective weaponry when dealing with gangs and other assorted types of bad people. Slingshots are a poor choice when facing full auto weapons.

Join, and support Gun Owners of America. They don’t trade away your rights for political expediency!

Ted Kennedy: This is no puff piece

August 27, 2009

Between the blogs and MSM one might think that Christ had risen again, and once again been crucified. I’m not one of those people, not by a long shot. I call the shots as I see them when it comes down to the wire, and Ted Kennedy came down to the proverbial wire. Still, I wanted to do so in an honest and forthright manner. While still recognizing the man’s numerous faults.

Once again, Mark Alexander beat me to the essay. (Punch being inappropriate phraseology at this time, at least in my thinking.) Also, for the left wing preacher that lam-blasted me when I opined about the now late Senator? I’m not a Christian in your sense, I am a cold blooded Libertarian with Conservative tendencies. I refuse to speak well of a man that caused so much pain and death while he lived a life of opulence, and depravity.

Alexander’s Essay – August 27, 2009

Lion of the Left

“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. … Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” –John Adams

Teddy Kennedy

Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won’t be my own!)

I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.

On that note, Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (22 February 1932 — 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.

Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator — behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) — in that chamber’s august history.

Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy’s life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator’s life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.

Let’s take a look at both.

Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father’s considerable political machinations.

But, the mainstream media’s reference to TK’s life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.

Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father’s heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.

In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted’s sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of “mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home.” The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.

Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.

Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon’s 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK’s victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.

The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.

On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party’s nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.

In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to “the island” (Martha’s Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy’s moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.

On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4×4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water — but then, I was not intoxicated.)

Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water’s edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.

Mary Jo Kopechne

Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne’s body had already been discovered.

With the help of Father Joe’s connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, “I almost tossed and turned… I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car.” He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail — sentence suspended.

With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of “immoral conduct and drunk driving” were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.

Kennedy’s political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.

In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.

Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family’s Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman’s charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.

In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy’s public life, his success as a legislator?

According to Barack Obama, “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, “No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, “Ted Kennedy’s dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion’s mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die.”

Oh, really?

Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath “to support and defend.”

Kennedy’s long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.

For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy’s advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.

In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.”

Who can forget Kennedy’s outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy’s vote was among the Senate’s unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy’s vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito’s character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, “If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right.”

Of course, Kennedy was an expert at “borking” judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” Despicable.

No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the “Despotic Branch” stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called “Living Constitution”.

But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label “Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or “rich guilt” if you will.)

And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.

Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, “[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. …[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area…”

How did that one turn out?

Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan’s hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.

But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.

At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, “There are those who seek to divide us. … America needs a genuine uniter — not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer.”

Fortunately, the American people weren’t buying his rhetoric — at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama’s “hope ‘n’ change” chorus: “I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America…. For me this is a season of hope — new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few — new hope. And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy’s grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator’s misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize this either.)

As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.

First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.

In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you,” and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.

Second, a man who can’t govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.

One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, “The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. … In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character.”

In Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of “government” is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.

Despite the Left’s insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in “public service” (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.

Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, “My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life…”

I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy’s eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.

I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Stopping Urban violence Chicago style

August 27, 2009

Chicago has latched onto the method of choice for controlling urban violence. It’s just so simple that it cannot be ignored in fact! How can we all learn this simple lesson? With the stroke of a pen you can get rid of all the violence that plagues America. Who would have thought it would be so simple? Let’s all just follow the Chicago example, and all of our cities across the nation will be just like Chicago!

Shootings rampant despite gun ban
Proponents, critics argue over effectiveness of weapons ban

By TIM TALIAFERRO
Medill News Service

You cannot legally buy a handgun in Chicago, yet the city is the nation’s most murderous city.

You can own one, but only if you’ve owned it since before 1982, and it’s registered every year with the Chicago Police Department. Gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates don’t – or can’t – agree on how a city with a handgun ban can lead the nation in murders. To proponents of owning guns, it means the ban doesn’t work.

“Laws are only for law-abiding citizens anyway,” said John Riggio, owner of Chuck’s Gun Shop and Pistol Range in Riverdale. “Criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.”

But to proponents of regulating guns, it means the ban isn’t big enough.

“Gun control opponents like to look at Chicago and say, ‘They have a handgun ban and look at all their murders,’ but I think, frankly, that’s ignorant,” said Thomas Mennard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “They’re not taking into account that you can get handguns just outside of Chicago.”

Indiana Avenue cuts straight south from the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant into Riverdale, past a row of boarded-up and abandoned buildings. At 143rd Street, on the right, sits Chuck’s Gun Shop, one of the closest places to legally buy a handgun outside Chicago’s city limits.

A trip to Chuck’s on a recent weekday morning saw nearly 30 patrons walking through the door in the span of an hour. They were there for guns. Trade-in, apply for, shop or rent – it’s all available at Chuck’s. In 2006 Chuck’s won the Dealer Recruiter of the Year Award from the National Rifle Association for getting the most patrons to join the association.

Employees wear handguns in hip holsters, and before they’ll let customers see or touch anything, they ask to see their Firearm Owner’s Identification card. According to Illinois law, anyone who owns or wants to own a firearm must apply for a “gun card,” as the FOID is commonly known. Once approved, there’s a 72-hour waiting period from the time you buy a handgun to the time you can pick it up.

You can buy as many guns as you want at once, but at Chuck’s you can only take possession of one every 31 days – a Riverdale law. Most of the customers are blue collar, Riggio said, and most of his business is in handgun sales. But he doubts there is any relationship between guns and gun violence.

“I would think there’s no relationship at all,” Riggio said. “Ever seen a gun shoot by itself? I haven’t.”

Riggio declined to provide shop sales figures and demurred when asked whether the Chicago handgun ban has any effect on his business.

“I don’t know if it has an effect one way or another,” Riggio said. “I just follow the law.”

Chicago passed its handgun ban on April 9, 1982. In the wake of a 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, its legality is being challenged. After the Supreme Court decided that a federal district could not prohibit handguns, the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the Chicago ban. A circuit court judge dismissed the suit but it is currently on appeal before the 7th Circuit.

Jennifer Hoyle, director of public affairs for the city’s law department, stressed that until the courts say otherwise, the city’s handgun ban will remain in effect.

“There have been no changes and it is still being enforced,” she said.

Currently, several hand-gun bills are under consideration in the state legislature. One, for instance, mandates background checks in private gun sales, which currently don’t require them. Another prohibits sales of multiple handguns to one person within a 30-day period. A third bans assault weapons altogether.

The Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which lists gun violence as one of its six priority issues, chooses not to take sides in the debate over gun control.

“What we are in favor of,” spokesman Charlie Boesel said, “is a reduction in gun violence.”

The foundation offers grant money to groups looking to study the problem or with ideas on how to address it.

“We are very concerned about gun violence in Chicago,” Nina Vinik, the Joyce Foundation gun violence senior program officer, said. “We’re based here so it’s a hometown issue for us.”

Analyzing the gun issue

According to a study released in the spring by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and funded by the Joyce Foundation, gun violence costs Chicago taxpayers $2.5 billion a year, the equivalent of $2,500 per household. That’s aside from the emotional costs that victims and their families must bear.

The study also found that, too often, programs addressing gun violence lack the kind measured analysis needed by policymakers and expected by the medical community.

“One of the frustrating things is that the criminal justice system has for many, many years been trying programs to address gun violence, but when you go ask them what works and for whom, there’s very little data,” said Harold Pollack, co-director of the Crime Lab and a public health researcher who worked on the study.

There’s no shortage of people working on the problem, and the Crime Lab offers anyone with an idea the chance to get it rigorously tested. Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor at Saint Sabina’s Catholic Church in Chicago’s Auburn Gresham neighborhood, organizes gun drives and runs the Do You Care? intervention program to teach young people ways to resolve conflicts nonviolently.

He sees the problem as largely a cultural one.

“Kids are armed with guns because it has become part of the wardrobe in America,” Pfleger said. “I’ve never been at a high school in the last year and asked if they needed to get a gun, [or] whether they knew where to get one and not had at least 75 percent of the student body raise their hand.”

Pfleger maintained that the challenge is to create an atmosphere in cities that doesn’t tolerate gun shootings.

“You shoot one of our children, we’re going to put a bounty on your head,” he said.

Law enforcement has its own ways of approaching gun violence. Last weekend, the city hosted its annual summer gun turn-in program. Former Chicago police officer and Cook County state’s attorney John Armellino also suggested that crime is linked with financial destitution.

“Crime is really a function of economics. It is a function of poverty,” he said. “Turf wars are fights over money. Whoever’s got the more lucrative corner to sell drugs is going to protect it.”

The majority of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from Illinois, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Both the mayor’s office of criminal justice and the Chicago Police Department mentioned community policing as among the most important methods of combating gun violence. Sgt. John Delgado, a team leader of the Chicago Police Department’s Community Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), agreed.

“In my experience, the most organized communities have the best ability to change things,” he said. “My job is to make criminals uncomfortable. If the neighborhood is well-lit and clean, and if people look out for each other and take pride in their property, the likelihood of criminals getting a foothold is greatly diminished.

But, Delgado warned: “If the neighborhood doesn’t care, nothing’s going to change.”

SOURCE

note: yes, the lead in was sarcasm.

Incorporation: Beast or Blessing?

August 25, 2009

Incorporation used in this context will apply to legal terminology.

First, I suppose that I will need to go pee in the various swelled headed Lawyers morning bowl of oatmeal. I believe that you simply do not have to be a Lawyer in order to understand the difference between what is right and wrong. Moral, or immoral. Lawyers write really neat briefs and such. However, as I pointed out to a Jury once. They are disconnected all to often with reality.

Now, on to the point that I intend to make. The Supreme Court, and in all the downstream Courts there is a hierarchy. The Supreme Court of the United States is above, or has authority over the Courts of Appeals, which have authority over United State District Courts, which can over rule State Courts, and so on down the line. My terminology may be a bit off here, but, after all I’m not in the business of Law. I am a retired Paramedic, and the son of a dead Marine. So, if any corrections are needed as to the chain of command I will accept them.

The point here is that within the legal community there are big dogs, and then there are bigger dogs, and so on. I was taught that Law operates in the same manner. As in, there is the highest Law in the land the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. All this is pretty logical so far. There is indeed a clear cut chain of command. Not to tough for a kid that attended High Schools in Southern California to understand. Or anywhere else as far as that goes.

However, it seems that some people just can’t figure out that simple principle. Those people are called Lawyers, or at least that is how it appears. No, not all Lawyers. Some actually can think like normal people do. Others though, simply can’t understand normal thinking as an old Scot saying goes…

So now, as a result of illogical and quite possibly immoral action we the American people are about to be Lorded over yet again by a bunch of blithering nincompoops that probably should be tarred and feathered! Oh, I forgot, that they had that made “illegal” so that they can’t be held accountable…

Read on folks, and warm up some tar as you send you children off to the barn for Great grandma’s old feather bed.

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

A few other items:

California Update: I wrote an article three months ago about a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation saying routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Oral arguments on a preliminary motion in that case are scheduled for the same day — September 24 — at 2 p.m. in Sacramento.

In a brief filed on Monday, Sacramento (one of the counties sued) says it wants more time to question the gun owners who filed the case to verify that they’re in a position to sue. “Defendants seek to depose the individual plaintiffs on these issues to determine the basis of their alleged ‘undisputed facts,’ what process each plaintiff has engaged in to the end of obtaining a carry concealed permit in Sacramento County,” it says.

Some Guns Are More Equal Than Others: Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man.

Nevertheless, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory “gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials,” according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.

It’s Official: Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation for being awarded non-profit status by the IRS. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, told me on Monday evening that the group is now officially a 501(c)(3) non-profit; previously, the non-profit status had been pending.

Montana Update: You may remember that a Montana state law seeks to challenge the federal government on the manufacture and sale of guns made entirely within the state. It takes effect on October 1. As soon that happens, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, gun-rights types will have a lawsuit ready to file to prevent federal prosecution of local would-be gunsmiths.

“We have some strong arguments to make, including some that have never been argued before about the (U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as far as I know,” Marbut told me on Monday.

Paging The Ninth Circuit: I just noticed yet another case in which a judge has declined to extend the Second Amendment to state or local laws. The case is called Slough v. Telb and arose out of a gun seizure in Ohio.

U.S. District Judge David Katz ruled on August 14: “The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states by incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other circuits have held that Second Amendment rights are not enforceable against the states under (civil rights laws). As the weight of authority holds that the individual right to bear arms may not be enforceable against the states, the constitutional right to do so is anything but clearly established.”


Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

And here it comes…

August 24, 2009

There are many ways to undermine Liberty. Make gun control into a “health” issue is one. More on that at a later date… Then, as if that isn’t outrageous enough. The anti liberty and freedom crowd are making traditional human things into First Amendment arguments. That’s right, hunting and fishing are on the table for the Black Crow Cowards. As a First Amendment issue no less...

Full Story

What next? Will WordPress become a Tenth Amendment issue because some bloggers here post things that some people take offense too?

2009 Firearms Law and The Second Amendment Symposium

August 21, 2009

The 2009 “Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium” will be held on Saturday, September 12, at Northwestern University Law School, in Chicago, Illinois.  This event will be hosted by The NRA Foundation and the Northwestern University chapter of the Federalist Society.

Capitalizing on recent developments in our nation’s federal courts regarding the Second Amendment, panelists will discuss and debate current Second Amendment scholarship and related issues. Featured panelists at this year’s event will include scholars on the Second Amendment such as Professors Nelson Lund and Michael O’Shea, and other scholars including Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, and others.

This event promises to present a thought provoking discussion of one of the most relevant and important freedoms in the Bill of Rights.  Each Symposium registrant will receive a packet containing the panelists’ written materials on the subject- an excellent source for future reference.  For guests who are attorneys, this year’s event may once again meet state requirements for continuing legal education. The event, including all materials, food and beverages, is free.

The Symposium will be held:

Saturday, September 12, 2009
Northwestern University School of Law
Thorne Auditorium
375 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
(Registration and continental breakfast from 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.)

To register, please visit http://www.nraila.org/workshops/Symposium.aspx?ID=09chicago or call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683. And please be sure to invite your fellow law students and legal colleagues!

Can you say scaredy cat? I knew ya could!

August 20, 2009

Any government that fears the people that it leads, has reason to fear. Because what that means is simply that they are ruling the people, not leading them, or, heaven forbid, representing them. Cloud an issue, then bury it with rhetoric and call it anything but what it is seems to be the playbook being used by today’s politicians…

Norton Calls on Homeland Security Officials to Restrict Gun Carrying Outside Public Events Where President and Federal Officials Appear in D.C. and Nationwide

August 19, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, today called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan to restrict the carrying of weapons openly or concealed in or around the areas where the President of the United States and cabinet officials are appearing, following reports, photos, and videos of people carrying guns outside of  an Obama town hall meeting in Arizona earlier this week.  Norton said that this restriction is particularly necessary in the nation’s capital, where recently filed litigation seeks to overturn D.C. law in order to allow residents and visitors to carry concealed guns in public.

The President, cabinet officials and other top foreign and domestic officials regularly travel in motorcades in the nation’s capital.  The risks of public shootings, which threaten homeland security, have been minimized by gun laws in the District that restrict both open and concealed gun carrying in public.  After a Norton hearing last session that revealed that a similar bill would have allowed the open carrying of weapons in the District, even the National Rifle Association voluntarily withdrew the dangerous provisions.

Norton said that a reported 10 to 12 people were carrying weapons in Arizona on Tuesday in the vicinity of President Obama’s appearance.  “I seek no change in the local laws of other jurisdictions, and ask only respect for gun laws in my own district,” Norton said.  “However, it is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the President is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that is even closer to the President.”

The Congresswoman said that she hopes that increasingly brazen NRA attempts to nationalize its no-holds barred approach to guns has finally gotten the attention of federal authorities.  “The NRA’s most recent actions show that the NRA intends to go national on the Ensign amendment approach, the amendment attached to the Senate version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill that would abolish all gun laws in the District,” Norton said.  She cited the recently defeated Thune amendment to permit the carrying of weapons openly as evidence that the NRA is pressing nationwide its view that there should be no local limits on guns in the nation’s capital or elsewhere.  “The NRA is using the District as a test case because it is uniquely subject to Congressional dictates.  Both in the courts and in Congress, beginning with the violation of D.C.’s home rule right to enact its own gun safety laws, the NRA is on a national gun campaign,” she said.  However, the NRA suffered a surprise setback in the defeat of the Thune amendment to the defense authorization bill, which would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines, violating restrictions in other jurisdictions.  A similar but even more radical section in the Ensign amendment would make a unique exception for the nation’s capital to become the only U.S. jurisdiction where people could cross state lines to purchase handguns and bring them back, facilitating gun running by criminals, terrorists or gangs intent on breaching homeland security in the National Capital Region or public peace in neighborhoods.

SOURCE

Bloomberg Wants to “Counter” the NRA

August 15, 2009

It’s bad enough when, under color of authority, one commits federal felony’s (attempting to set up straw purchases; denying civil liberties under color of authority) while at the same time using armed body guards is a hallmark of elitist ideology; Now Bloomberg has the gall to go after those that seek liberty and freedom. Read on…

It is old news to gun owners that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not a friend. As one of the leading proponents of new gun laws, Bloomberg has already earned his place in the Second Amendment rights hall of shame. But apparently, Hizzoner does not believe he is doing enough to destroy our rights.

On an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Bloomberg announced that he would raise money to counter the influence of the NRA. Bloomberg was on the show to trumpet the 39 votes he was able to muster to squeak out a narrow defeat of national Right-to-Carry reciprocity. (To read more about the Thune/Vitter amendment, click here.) He took the opportunity to lament that the NRA has so much influence — and took upon himself the role of countering that influence.

Of course, as anti-gunners regularly do, Bloomberg ignores the fact that the NRA only has clout because we represent the beliefs of tens of millions of Americans who oppose the anti-gun agenda. Recent polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Americans support the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And though it must be very frustrating to mayor Bloomberg, that support is growing. A recent poll by Zogby International revealed that 83% of Americans support Right-to-Carry laws. Bloomberg will no doubt continue to trumpet the 39-vote procedural “victory,” but the reality is, the American people are on the side of Second Amendment freedoms.

Perhaps part of the problem is the inherent dishonesty of Bloomberg’s position. He claims to be opposed to “Illegal” guns, but his latest effort targeted the rights of law-abiding people who already carry a gun legally. To Bloomberg, any gun he does not like is an “illegal” gun.

Mayor Bloomberg and his group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” represent a serious threat because of the attention the media will give them and the resources a billionaire like Bloomberg has at his disposal. That’s the money he is once again promising to use to fight against our Second Amendment rights.

Fortunately, America’s law-abiding gun owners know how to fight the misinformation and anti-gun rhetoric of Mayor Bloomberg and his allies. NRA will continue to closely monitor Bloomberg’s anti-gun activities and will keep you informed about his efforts.

SOURCE