Saturday, March 15, 2008
The law didn't save her
She tried a court order. She had him arrested. She took all the legal steps she could right up to the day her ex-boyfriend shot her dead in a parking lot.
When will these organizations stop taking a passive approach to personal safety?
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
That has not lessened puzzlement over Clement, who has tried to explain his course to the White House by claiming he feared Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's current swing vote, would join a liberal majority on gun rights if forced to rule on Silberman's opinion. The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in.
The cause needs help from Clement in his 15 minute oral argument, but not if he reiterates his written brief. The word was passed in government circles this week that Clement would amend his position when he actually faces the justices -- an odd ending to bizarre behavior by the Justice Department.
I'll believe it Tuesday when/if I hear it.
Friday, March 14, 2008
We need your help to defend America's gun laws
Brady Gun Law Defense Fund [image]
This Tuesday, March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country's history — and your Brady Center will be there.
Thanks to your support and the support of members like you, we will be in the courtroom on Tuesday — and then speaking to the press on the steps of the Supreme Court immediately afterwards. We've already contacted ABC, CNN, and Fox News and have done advance interviews with other media outlets.
The Brady Center's team of lawyers have been hard at work preparing our arguments and providing in-depth expertise to those involved with the case over the past twelve months since a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history.
And in November, when the Supreme Court decided to take the case, thanks to your support, we put together an amicus brief that was co-signed by nine national law enforcement groups. In addition, the Brady team helped to coordinate and support other friend-of-the-court briefs that were filed by doctors and nurses, law professors, historians, and others who believe in sensible gun laws.
In the past few weeks, a barrage of national and regional media requests have come in to the Brady Center. These will continue — beyond when the Supreme Court's decision is announced later this spring. And our goal is to use the media's coverage of the case to educate the public on what the Second Amendment means for gun laws in our country.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety. The Brady Center will be there — for you — to defend America's gun laws.
We will keep you posted on what develops — and updates will be available Tuesday afternoon at www.BradyCenter.org, including links to the courtroom audio.
Sarah's Signature (100x43)
Sarah Brady, Chair
Translation: We will continue to lie and distort the issue using the media and every other method at our disposal because, if we lose, this could be our death knell.
Send us money.
In 4 days the US Supreme Court justices will hear arguments. March 18 is the day a ruling is likely by the end of June.
Fact is three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, this is according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.
Couple of things, when interacting with our anti Freedom friends they are forgetting that the right to arms is a Right, not a privilege at the pleasure of the government. Crime control is a proven effective method. Gun control is and has always been a failure.
Ask them, are you willing to give up the freedom of speech? Freedom of the Press? Or, Freedom of religion? How about the right to a trial?
Remind them, regardless of what some seemingly well meaning people will tell them, giving up your any of your rights as a citizen never is a good. I would point out history in the last 150 years an what gun control has produced...
I am keeping my fingers crossed, for a good verdict.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Now the question is, is this an actual housecleaning to bring in fresh ideas and eliminate some corruption or is the 'new boss same as the old boss' and these are the ones that had the clout?
The first part begs the question then that if we're supposed to rely on the "Only Ones" for our protection because they are screened, highly trained, and more qualified to do so, why would they need to clean house?
The second part needs no qualifying question. This is Chicago.
Is this universally true? Is Russia not industrialized? They have a homicide rate 4X that of the US. Mexico? 3X. South Africa? 10X. All three have strict gun control and are considered industrialized.
Perhaps they use a different definition to determine whether a country is "industrialized" or not? Is there a list of objective qualifications out there that they use?
Why do they have to include the qualifier "industrialized" at all? Does that make them "more like us"? Does "industrialization" somehow instill improved moral values? What about the countries that aren't industrialized? Are the citizens of these somehow less developed morally and ethically than the others?
That sure seems like a discriminatory way to defend ones ideology.
We will possibly split this story into a two part event…either way we’ll be running something tonight in the show…airs 7P-8p EST on CNN…unsure of the hit time for this piece, but expect it in the first half-hour.
So it may be one segment tonight and another segment tomorrow. Anyway, plan on watching this, or else program your recorder if you can't. Expect legal and technical issues to be explored that you have not seen on "mainstream" television before. At this point, we have every reason to believe the coverage will be fair and comprehensive.
The Lautenberg-King bill seeks to close the "terror gap" in federal gun laws by giving the Attorney General the power to block gun sales to those on the federal government’s terror watch list.
The same list "riddled w/ errors" .
The Lautenberg-King measure specifically:
• Provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism;
Translation: Whomever he/she feels like denying.
• Includes due process safeguards that afford an affected person an opportunity to challenge a denial by the Attorney General; and
Translation: As long as they choose to fund said "safeguard".
• Protects the sensitive information upon which terrorist watch lists are based.
Translation: We're going to keep it secret so you don't know if you're on the list or not, then, when you try to buy a gun and are denied, we're going to arrest you for committing a felony permanently denying your ability to own. Unless you can afford to resurrect and hire Johnnie Cochran.
Nothing surprising from a group funded by the Joyce Foundation.
Hattip to SIH.
If you think you believe that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but see nothing wrong with Chicago or DC imposing an absolute ban, you're not in the middle. When you tell the gun nuts you do, you're either lying to them or you're lying to yourself, and either way they won't listen to you.
If you think that we should require licenses for gun owners, and see nothing wrong with jurisdictions in which the officials in charge of issuing carry permits have full discretion as to who they will and will not issue to, with no objective standards, and no consequences, then you're never going to get the gun nuts to listen to you.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Where were the ICHV, BC/MMM, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Pfleger, et al. ?
Photo blatantly stolen from IllinoisCarry.
Why would they ignore this? It isn't because they didn't know about it. Press releases were sent out as well as letters sent by individuals. It must be something else. What could it be?
Update: Apparently they did do a short cutnpaste from the AP. The same one that's been published in the small papers adn about 1/4 the space of the anti-gun articles on the same day.
No more worries about group rankings and endorsements. Just a nice simple list of people to campaign and vote against in the elections. Thanks Bloomie.
Apparently the new "Coalition" of six individuals includes Illinois Rep. Elizabeth Coulson.
I sent her an e-mail regarding their use of trace data to justify their position. Will she respond? I've also put a post up on Illinois Carry and contacted the ISRA.
This Communication Revolution thing is great.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to take a moment to remember “Solitude” we knew him well. We all must remember his laugh and charm, in a way “Solitude” was a part of many of us. Perhaps he will show himself one more time at the big pancake house in the sky.
Bow your heads……..OK then don’t
Thanks to War on Guns for the link.
#1, #2, #3
Once again, more people showed up in support of state gun rights than showed up for the national protests organized by the Brady Bunch and Rev. Jackson. Last year we had between 1,200 and 1,500 people.
To put things in perspective, I've had as many or more visitors on this blog today (174), a day I didn't even post anything till evening, than Rev. Jackson had followers at his Aug 28th non-event.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Second Amendment. Defender of the rest.
Update: Yep. The same guy that prosecuted prostitutes and their houses was at the same time frequenting them while probably telling his wife and kids he was "working". Hypocrite. Maybe he should sue himself as a public nuisance.
Not even going into the "Terrorist Watchlist" or BATFE fiascos, here's my recent experience w/ bureaucracy and lists. We're on state insurance. I need to go for an outpatient procedure so my wife called our family Doc. Doc says they don't do it there so we need to get referred through the state. Wife calls the state office. After being transferred several times, she finally is connected to the right office and is given a list of area Doctors who do said procedure and accept the insurance.
EVERY SINGLE NUMBER SHE WAS GIVEN WAS WRONG OR NOT IN SERVICE!!!
So instead she talks to a relative who had the same procedure done and calls that Doctor. He accepts the insurance and is local but his name wasn't even on the list given.
But they'll be able to accurately keep registration, medical, and suspect lists on millions of individuals.
Sure. Pull the other one.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
They were originally done for Keep and Bear Arms and archived here w/ his other works also available. Clicking on the Cartoon link at the top of the KABA page has more from other artists.