Mikeb302000

Disturbing and Possibly Racist

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:00:00 +0000

I am reminded that we are capable of free expression without resorting to violence and lethal weapons to convey ideas. This appears to be particularly questionable from a member of law enforcement.

But then Arizona also has some patently unconstitutional ideas about subjects like immigration, so it shouldn't be all that surprising that images which appear to advocate for presidential assassination would originate in gun-mad AZ.

This cop should be fired for bad judgment. If this isn't hate speech, it comes damned close.

From MSNBC, news services and the NYTimes:

Secret Service to probe bullet-ridden Obama image
'We respect the right of free speech and expression but we certainly have the right and obligation to speak to individuals to determine what their intent is,' Secret Service says

NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 1/27/2012 3:03:03 AM ET
A photograph showing a group of men with guns posing with a bullet-ridden image of Barack Obama's face is to be investigated by the Secret Service, a spokesman confirmed to NBC News.
The New York Times reported that the picture showed seven young men, four with weapons, one of whom was holding a T-shirt with the president's face on it, above the word "HOPE." The T-shirt was covered in holes and gashes.
The Times said the photograph was posted on the Facebook page of a Peoria, Ariz. police officer, Sgt. Pat Shearer, on Jan. 20.
"We are aware of it. Anytime information is brought to our attention that a group or individual expresses an unusual interest in one of our protectees, we conduct the appropriate follow-up," Secret Service spokesman Max Milien told NBC News.
"We respect the right of free speech and expression but we certainly have the right and obligation to speak to individuals to determine what their intent is," he added. "We treat anything (any potential threat) seriously. We can't dismiss anything."
Jay A. Davies, a police spokesman, told the Times in an email that "an administrative investigation into any possible policy violations on the part of our employee" was being carried out.
The paper added that the photograph also appeared on the Facebook page of someone in the picture, who was identified as a Peoria high school student.
Assassination charges On Tuesday, an Idaho man accused of firing shots at the White House pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to assassinate President Barack Obama.
A lawyer for Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez entered the plea on his client's behalf during a brief appearance in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Story: Man pleads not guilty to trying to kill Obama Ortega did not say anything during the proceedings and will remain held without bond. He has another court date next month.
Gunman who shot at federal buildings pleads guilty Prosecutors say Ortega used an assault rifle with an attached scope to fire a series of shots at the White House from long range on the night of Nov. 11. Obama and his wife, Michelle, were out of town at the time.
In the months before the shooting, investigators say, he had had become obsessed with Obama, referred to him as the anti-Christ and told at least one person that he planned to "take care of" the president.
Obama turns attention to energy in key states Ortega, of Idaho Falls, Idaho, was indicted last week on 17 counts including trying to assassinate the president, transporting a firearm across state lines and assaulting officers or employees of the United States with a deadly weapon.
Those charges refer to three Secret Service employees who authorities say were on the grounds of the White House at the time of the shooting.
The hearing took place in the same week that a lawyer for John Hinckley, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, is making his case for extended time away from the psychiatric hospital where Hinckley has been confined.

THIS is what we don't need Government at any level legislating

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:00:00 +0000

There is a long list of stupid laws which SHOULD make us scofflaws. Laws like the one that makes it illegal to put an ice cream cone upside down in your pocket. Laws that really are intrusive, and improperly limit freedom instead of dealing with serious issues that actually involve one person seriously intruding on another.

Laws like this proposed ordinance about pajamas. It gets hot in Louisiana; we should be happy if people even wear pajamas in Louisiana.

So I started looking up strange laws, laws which like this proposed ordinance about pajamas, came into existence because somebody got upset about the subject once-upon-a-time, rightly or wrongly.

The London Times compiled a list of 25 strangest laws, back in August 2007.

25. It is illegal for a cab in the City of London to carry rabid dogs or corpses.
24. It is illegal to die in the Britain Houses of Parliament.
23. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside down.
22. In France, it is forbidden to call a pig Napoleon.
21. Under the U.K.’s Tax Avoidance Schemes Regulations 2006, it is illegal not to tell the taxman anything you don’t want him to know, though you don’t have to tell him anything you don’t mind him knowing.
20. In Alabama, it is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while driving a vehicle.
19. In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk.
18. Royal Navy ships that enter the Port of London must provide a barrel of rum to the Constable of the Tower of London.
17. In the U.K., a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants — even, if she so requests, in a policeman’s helmet.
16. In Lancashire, no person is permitted after being asked to stop by a constable on the seashore to incite a dog to bark.
15. In Miami, Fla., it is illegal to skateboard in a police station.
14. In Indonesia, the penalty for masturbation is decapitation.
13. In England, all men over the age of 14 must carry out two hours of longbow practice a day.
12. In London, Freemen are allowed to take a flock of sheep across London Bridge without being charged a toll; they are also allowed to drive geese down Cheapside.
11. In San Salvador, drunk drivers can be punished by death before a firing squad.
10. In the U.K., a man who feels compelled to urinate in public can do so only if he aims for his rear wheel and keeps his right hand on his vehicle.
9. In Florida, unmarried women who parachute on Sundays can be jailed.
8. In Kentucky, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon more than six-feet long.
7. In Chester, England, Welshmen are banned from entering the city before sunrise and from staying after sunset.
6. In the city of York, it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
5. In Boulder, Colo., it is illegal to kill a bird within the city limits and also to “own” a pet — the town’s citizens, legally speaking, are merely “pet minders."
4. In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.
3. In London, it is illegal to flag down a taxi if you have the plague.
2. In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman’s genitals but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination; he may only see their reflection in a mirror.
1. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast is legally the property of the king; the tail, on the other hand, belongs to the queen — in case she needs the bones for her corset.

On that last one......who owns the middle of the whale? And if the queen DOESN'T want the whale tail bones for a corset, or the king - when there is one - doesn't want the head, do THEY have to pay for the whale's removal?

There is a web site which has 'strange but true' laws alphabetized by state, although unlike the London Times, I don't know how factual they are. I was looking for the law about ice cream cones and pockets, but came across a few which surprised me, two in particular that apply to content here.
I particularly agree that this belongs under strange, I'd even add stupid laws:

Georgia
• Acworth: All citizens must own a rake.
• An old law in Columbus, Ga., made it illegal to sit on your porch in an indecent position.
• A Kennesaw, Ga. law makes it illegal for every homeowner not to own a gun, unless you are a convicted felon, conscientious objector or disabled.
• Atlanta: Against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp;
• Columbus: Can't cut off a chicken's head on Sunday; It is illegal to carry a chicken by it's feet down Broadway on Sunday.
• Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.
• Gainesville: Chicken must be eaten with the hands.
• Georgia has 75 laws on how to build rice paddies, even though the state has only one rice farm left. Rice was the state's No. 1 crop before the Civil War. But right after the war, a hurricane destroyed all the paddies and ponds. It was too expensive to replace them without slaves, so the Rice State began growing peaches, peanuts and other crops.
• Georgia officials were revising their state laws in 1981, and noticed they still allowed pensions for Confederate widows. That week the last widow died. Lawmakers bowed their heads, and deleted the law.
• In Georgia, movie houses that want to show films on Sunday must reserve one showing a month for religious material.
• In Quitman, It is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.
• It is illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down.
• It is illegal to say "Oh, Boy" in Jonesboro.
• It is illegal to take a bath of orange peel.
• It is illegal to use profanity in front of a dead body which lies in a funeral home or in a coroners office.
• It used to be against the law in Jonesboro, Ga., to utter the words, "Oh boy."
• Marietta: Though it is illegal to spit from a car or bus, citizens may spit from a truck.
• Members of the state assembly cannot be ticketed for speeding while the state assembly is in session.
• No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.
• Signs are required to be written in English.
• St. Mary's: No spitting on the sidewalk is permitted after dark.
• You have the right to commit simple battery if provoked by "fighting" words.

Just my 2 cents but I think it would in fact be a worthwhile use of our limited funds to get rid of those laws - like all of the ones above - that really are obsolete (like civil war pensions) and clearly silly.

Tennessee 7-Year-Old Shot in Head

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:06:00 +0000

The Times News reports

Investigators report the 7-year-old boy was playing with his 4-year-old and 13-year-old brothers in a bedroom when the gun went off and struck the 7-year-old in the head.

According to investigators, the three boys thought the loaded weapon was a toy.

The unidentified boy was flown to UT with possibly life-threatening injuries.

Major Michelle Jones said the children reside at the home with their parents and grandparents and the gun was registered to a member of the household.

Don't you think it's funny the way gun-friendly news sources report these things as simple accidents, as if they could happen to anyone. And naturally the gun-friendly police in Tennessee report that "At this time, we have not gotten far enough into the investigation to determine if charges will be filed."

How about this for a plan. Every time a child gets ahold of a gun the owner of that gun goes immediately to jail. Then, the investigators can put together all the details for a judge to render the appropriate sentence.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Another Nut with a Gun in Trouble

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:00:00 +0000

Every nut who has a gun thinks he is right, he is good, he is doing something free and important and useful and valuable.........even when he is nutty as a fruit cake. People who aren't proud of what they are doing, who don't believe in what they are doing don't film themselves doing those things. Believing you're right with a gun doesn't make that true.

This was NEVER what the founding fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment.

THIS is not freedom, it is insanity, an insanity that holds the rest of us hostage.

From MSNBC.com :

Gunman who shot at federal buildings pleads guilty

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Virginia man pleads guilty to shooting at several military-related buildings in 2010. NBC's Pete Williams has the video Yonathon Melaku created one of the nights he was out shooting.

By Pete Williams, NBC News chief justice correspondent
The man who shot at the Pentagon in late 2010 and other military related targets in the Washington, D.C. area pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Virginia.
After the plea was entered, prosecutors released a video he made, which shows him in his car, firing shots from a handgun.
Yonathan Melaku, 23, admitted he committed five separate shootings in October and November 2010 -- twice at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, and once each at the Pentagon and at Coast Guard and Marine Corps recruiting offices in Virginia. He fired the shots late at night or early in the morning, using a 9 mm handgun. No one was hurt, but the government says that repairs will cost over $100,000.
On the tape, which Melaku made during the night he shot at the Marine Corps museum for the second time, he can be heard saying: "That's a military building, and that's the building I'm going to be targeting. ... Last time I hit them, they turned off the lights for, like, four or five days."He can be seen waving his gun at the camera. At another point in the tape, he begins firing. The shots can be heard and the muzzle flash from the gun seen.
Melaku also records himself wearing a mask and then later removes the mask, showing his face.
He was arrested last June near Arlington National Cemetery at 1:30 am. A search of his home turned up what investigators said were potential components of a homemade bomb.

The Courts Protect Us from Gun Nuts

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:00:00 +0000

Another Judicial win, for sane, safer gun regulation, prohibiting bad people, who should NOT have guns from legally having easy access to firearms and ammo.

We need more decisions like this for gun sanity.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

High court OKs gun ban for misdemeanor criminals
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down a Napa County man's challenge Tuesday of a California law that imposes a 10-year ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime involving violence or threats of force.
Rick Delacy's appeal was argued by a lawyer who also represents the National Rifle Association, and supporting arguments were also filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
They contended gun restrictions based on convictions for misdemeanors, punishable by no more than a year in jail, violate the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense that the Supreme Court recognized in 2008.
They also argued that misdemeanor battery, Delacy's previous crime, is not necessarily violent. Although the law defines battery as a "willful and unlawful use of force or violence" against another, it can consist of touching someone in a harmful or offensive way without the person's consent.
The high court denied review without comment. The ruling left intact a February 2011 decision by a state appeals court in San Francisco upholding Delacy's conviction and the California law.
Delacy was on probation from his battery conviction when officers searched his home in April 2008 and found three rifles and a shotgun, said the appellate court, which did not give details of the battery. Another search six months later turned up two caches of shotgun shells. Delacy told officers he used the guns for hunting and hadn't been told he was prohibited from owning them.
He was convicted under a law that prohibits possession of guns or ammunition by anyone convicted within the past 10 years of one of about 40 misdemeanors, all involving either violence, threats or a dangerous mental condition. Delacy was sentenced to an additional three years of probation.
In upholding his convictions, the First District Court of Appeal noted that the Supreme Court's recent gun-rights decisions expressly left room for states to prohibit firearms ownership by convicted felons, including those whose crimes were nonviolent.
By the same reasoning, the appellate panel said, the Constitution allows the government to ban gun possession by misdemeanor criminals, including convicted batterers, "who have shown a propensity to commit violence against others."
The case is Delacy vs. California, 11-290.

Haley Barbour Has Shot Down ANY Chance at a Future Political Career

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:54:00 +0000

For what?

This man is believed to be a danger to the public. Haley Barbour is an ass.

With a pardon, it is my understanding that he can now buy a firearm, along with all those other 100+ dangerous criminals.

I have yet to hear ANY criticism from Barbour's political fans nationally among conservatives. They should be publicly repudiating him, metaphorically crucifying him for this.

Of all the many ways in which Mississippi and other southern states are backward, including education, health care, and gun idiocy, this is easily the worst in recent memory.

from MSNBC.com:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You Don't Need a Gun

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:37:00 +0000

Looks like having a gun, once again, is NOT essential to preventing a robbery, having a gun is NOT essential to overcome a bad guy committing a crime.

From MSNBC.com:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And Another Win in the Courts, for Sane Gun Laws

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:00:00 +0000

This one is from California - halleluja! Another victory against the gun nuts and reactionary, paranoid, dangerous and violent gun culture nuts.

From the order, which is available as a pdf. doc

Proceedings:
I.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Introduction
In California, a person may carry a concealed firearm only if first issued a license by the
sheriff of the county in which the licensee resides. Such licenses are to be issued only upon a
showing of “good cause.” Cal. Penal Code § 12050. Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt applied for a concealed
carry weapons (“CCW”) license from the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department. Each denied his application; this action followed.
Plaintiff has named the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), the Los Angeles County
Sherriff’s Department (“LACSD”), Los Angeles Chief of Police Charlie Beck, and Los Angeles County
Sherriff Lee Baca as defendants in his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
Relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130
S. Ct. 3020 (2010), Plaintiff argues that, as applied to Plaintiff, the LAPD and LACSD policies under
which his CCW license application was denied, violate the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff also claims that LAPD and LACSD policies violate his rights under the Equal
Protection Clause and interfere with his right to interstate travel.
Plaintiff and Defendants have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties
stipulated at oral argument on September 19, 2011 that there are no disputed issues of material fact.
II.
Background
A.
California’s Concealed Weapons Law
California Penal Code section 12031 prohibits the open carrying of loaded firearms in public,
and section 12025 prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms in public, subject to a licensing
process. Section 12050(a)(1)(A) allows “[t]he sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying
is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying
satisfies” other statutory requirements, to “issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.” Without a license, a person cannot carry
a concealed weapon. “Section 12050 gives extremely broad discretion to the sheriff concerning the
issuance of concealed weapons licenses and explicitly grants discretion to the issuing officer to issue
or not issue a license to applicants meeting the minimum statutory requirements.” Gifford v. City of
Los Angeles, 88 Cal. App. 4th 801, 805 (2001).
The LAPD and the LACSD each has formulated definitions of “good cause” to evaluate
permit applications.
The LAPD defines “good cause” in these terms:
[G]ood cause exists if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to
life or of great bodily injury to the applicant, his (or her) spouse, or dependent child,
which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and
which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which
danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant’s carrying of a concealed
firearm . . .
Good cause is deemed to exist, and a license will issue in the absence of strong
countervailing factors, upon a showing of any of the following circumstances:
(a) The applicant is able to establish that there is an immediate or continuing threat,
express or implied, to the applicant’s, or the applicant’s family, safety and that no
other reasonable means exist which would suffice to neutralize the threat.
Tompkins Decl., Exh. 1, Dkt. 56-4. The LAPD does not consider general fear for one’s personal
safety good cause. Id. at ¶ 4.
The LACSD’s definition of “good cause” requires the following showing:
Convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily harm to
the applicant, his spouse or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with
by existing law enforcement resources and which danger cannot be reasonably
avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated
by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm.
Waldie Decl., Exh. 1, Dkt. 55. The LACSD does not consider a general desire for self-defense good
cause; the applicant must “demonstrate a credible threat of violence.” Waldie Decl. ¶ 7, Dkt. 55.

For FWM - Looks Like the Obama Administration Reporting Order WAS Perfectly Legal

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:00:00 +0000

Even if the NRA didn't like it, the NRA isn't the final word, or even a particularly reliable source for legal opinion. I predicted this, and frankly, the assertion that a reasonable requirement equates to any unreasonable requirement at any time as a justification to resist this reasonable requirement is just stupid.

This is just one more example of the NRA supporting the sales of as many firearms as possible, including to illegal and prohibited buyers, on behalf of their gun manufacturer clients that they REALLY represent in court.

From the Washington Post - Local:

Federal judge rejects challenge to gun dealer rules
By Del Quentin Wilber, Published: January 14

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging new reporting requirements for gun dealers that the Obama administration says are needed to help staunch the flow of powerful rifles to violent Mexican drug gangs.

Ruling in a suit brought by gun dealers and backed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation as well as the National Rifle Association, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the D.C. district said Friday that the new rules were a reasonable law enforcement tactic.
The suit stemmed from reporting requirements issued in July that required about 8,500 gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to alert federal officials to sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles to the same person within five business days. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which mandated the reporting, says that many of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels are purchased from dealers along the border and that obtaining sales data will help authorities more quickly trace seized weapons and investigate associated crimes.

Within weeks of the new rules being made public, gun dealers filed suit to block them. They argued that the requirements exceeded ATF’s authority and that Congress never intended there to be a national registration of firearms sales.

Collyer, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2003, sided with the government, writing that the regulations did not “disturb the balance” between ATF’s efforts to regulate firearms and the privacy rights of gun owners. “ATF determined that certain powerful long guns are weapons of choice for Mexican drug cartels,” Collyer wrote, “and that multiple sales of such guns is a strong indicator of gun trafficking.”

“ATF acted rationally” in asking for sales data in the border states, the judge added.

The NSSF said in a statement Friday that it will appeal the ruling. “Today’s ruling will allow ATF to demand whatever information it wants from any law-abiding retailer anywhere in the country for any reason ATF wants simply by sending a letter demanding information,” the organization said in a statement on its Web site.

“While we understand ATF’s motivation is to try to curtail violence in Mexico, Congress simply has not granted ATF regulatory carte blanche,” the NSSF said.

We Win Again

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:39:00 +0000

This is an encouraging trend. Hooray for a rational judiciary that pushes back against conservative activist judges and justices. This judge has it precisely correct, good for him! (bold, large type my emphasis - DG)

From the PR Newswire, United Business Media:

SAF, ANJRPC Will Appeal New Jersey Right-to-carry Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 13, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will appeal a federal judge's ruling Friday that "the Second Amendment does not include a general right to carry handguns outside the home."

Federal Judge William H. Walls, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a case filed by both organizations challenging New Jersey's handgun carry laws, which have all but eliminated the right to self-defense with a firearm outside the home.

"The Second Amendment Foundation and ANJRPC are prepared to take this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where SAF has already won a landmark case defending the rights of gun owners," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

In upholding the New Jersey law, which effectively denies the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, Judge Walls wrote "the protection of citizens from potentially lethal force is compelling."....

It turns out the state of New Jersey sees it as a reasonable limitation that carry should be on the basis of need, a premise with which I heartily agree. There are individuals who have a legitimate need to carry; the rest of us do not, and we are more in need from protection FROM those who wish to carry without a genuine justification than we can expect protection BY them.

Texas Sanity in Limiting Concealed Carry

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:25:00 +0000

Texas is not where I usually expect to find sanity and reasonable restraint in gun laws, but perhaps this is better in this case because it is a ruling by a federal judge who operates in a larger national context.

From Protect Minnesota and the Statesman.com:

Judge dismisses suit challenging Texas' concealed carry law

A federal judge in Lubbock on Thursday threw out the National Rifle Association's move to overturn a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying concealed handguns.
In dismissing the case that had drawn national interest, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ruled that "Texas has identified a legitimate state interest — public safety — and passed legislation that is rationally related to addressing that issue."
Under current law, Texans must be 21 or older to get a concealed-handgun permit. Members or veterans of the armed forces who are younger than 21 can also be licensed.
The ruling was seen as a win for the state, gun control advocates and university groups — including two student-government groups at the University of Texas at Austin — who had argued that Texans younger than 21 should not be licensed to carry handguns.
The case was filed by three Texans between 18 and 21 — Rebekah Jennings , Brennan Harmon and Andrew Payne — and the National Rifle Association, which argued that the Texas handgun licensing law was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
In his decision, Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — "does not confer a right that extends beyond the home." He noted that under current law, Texans can possess guns in their homes without a state license.
Cummings noted in his ruling that a 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court underscored that the Second Amendment right to bear arms "was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Texas' licensing law "does not burden the fundamental right to keep and bear arms," Cummings wrote.
The opinion suggests that the age issue raised in the case should be settled at the state Capitol — "either to petition the Texas Legislature for a change in state law or, on a national level, to rally for a constitutional amendment."
Last September, Cummings dismissed a lawsuit filed by the NRA challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the sale of handguns to people younger than 21.
Representatives for the NRA and several Texas groups that had intervened in the case in support of the state law — Mothers Against Teen Violence and Students for Gun-Free Schools in Texas — could not immediately be reached for comment.
Daniel Vice, a senior attorney at the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence's Legal Action Project in Washington, hailed the decision.
"We are pleased the court rejected the NRA's extreme claim that the Second Amendment means that we must allow armed teens on our streets," Vice said. The Brady Center, an intervenor in the lawsuit, had cited studies concluding that 18- to 20-year-olds often lack the same ability as adults to "govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, and foresight of consequences." They are also within the age range of offenders with the highest rates of homicide and criminal gun possession, according to court filings.
mward@statesman.com

Dangerous Gun Law Proposals

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:48:00 +0000

ALL of these need to be opposed, in Minnesota, and in every other state where they appear in whatever form they occur.

I particularly object to rearming violent offenders and domestic abusers. Once you cross that line, you should never get access to a lethal weapon again. Period.

Today is the date scheduled for the hearing to arm prosecutors. We have law enforcement, we have sheriffs and deputies and bailiffs. We do not need to arm prosecutors, we don't need to arm more people; we need to DISARM more people. The solution to gun violence is fewer guns, and less reliance on lethal force, a turning away from our deadly, destructive, evil gun culture.

From MPR and Protect Minnesota:

To reduce gun violence, stop guns at the source
by Heather Martens ,
Mary Lewis Grow

January 18, 2012

Heather Martens is executive director and Mary Lewis Grow is a board member of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence.
In Minneapolis, Duluth and 70 cities nationwide, community members gathered Jan. 8 in solemn commemorations of the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shootings. These events followed by less than a week the funeral of three-year-old Terrell Mayes Jr., killed by a bullet that went through the walls of his north Minneapolis house as the little boy and his brother were running for cover from the too-common sound of gunfire. Later in the same week, thousands attended the funeral of Officer Shawn Schneider of Lake City, shot in the line of duty as he responded to a domestic violence call.
Yet 2011 was a year with fewer gun homicides in Minnesota than the year before. About 32 people still die every day in this country from gun homicide — about one a week in Minnesota. The toll is simply appalling. To grasp this in a way statistics cannot convey, watch the video below. It was taken at the Minneapolis event, as grieving relatives and friends read name after name.

The nationwide "Too Many Victims" vigils demanded that public officials commit to stopping these needless deaths. We must start with the source of the guns.
Weak U.S. gun laws play a key role in allowing access to guns by kids and others who should not have them. Easy access to guns means violence often turns lethal. A respected scholar of gun injuries and deaths, David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, compares U.S. gun deaths to those of other developed countries and shows that despite comparable rates of violent crime, our homicide rate is seven times higher than those of comparably developed countries. This is driven by a firearms homicide rate that is 20 times higher.
The difference, Hemenway points out, is gun laws. Even in those countries such as Canada where gun ownership rates are high, it's much less likely that unsuitable people will get guns and take lives with them, thanks to background checks, training requirements, waiting periods and limitations on high-capacity magazines. Minnesota has a partial background check requirement; people buying from licensed dealers must get background checks, though buyers from individuals at gun shows need not.
The Minnesota Legislature has failed to close this "gun show loophole," even though the ATF has reported that gun shows are a "major trafficking channel." Some argue that criminals get guns no matter what, but that's not the case. All guns start out legal. The way guns get to the streets is through legal private sales, gun trafficking and theft. New York City has successfully shown that interrupting gun trafficking makes guns less available on the streets.
We would support a bill making gun trafficking illegal under state law, not just federal law. The ATF, leaderless for years and understaffed, needs more help from local authorities. There is broad agreement that we should "enforce existing gun laws." So let the Legislature actually help make it happen.
What must stop is the effort in the Legislature this year to ram through several gun bills that appeal to the extremes and decimate our existing gun laws in order to expand the gun market. This year's efforts include:
A constitutional amendment to rearm violent criminals and domestic abusers, and open up the state to expensive lawsuits under the guise of a "right to bear arms."
A bill to legalize the sale of silencers by gun dealers — making silencers more widely available and profitable for gun dealers.
A bill to legalize the shooting of another person, anywhere, as a first resort if the shooter feels threatened; and to create a legal presumption that the killing of any trespasser, even a nonthreatening and unarmed one, is justified. This would expand the market for "self-defense" gun instruction by dispelling any fear of being held responsible for one's actions with a gun.
A bill to allow any person with a carry permit from another state — no matter how weak or poorly administered that state's law — to carry a loaded gun in public in Minnesota. This would be a bonanza for gun traffickers.
A bill to arm prosecutors in courthouses. This bill would begin to absolve public courthouses — and the sheriffs' departments that currently provide security — of responsibility to ensure public safety through the only rational means, weapons screening. Instead, it would deputize prosecutors and assistant prosecutors to be their own security detail.
The sad truth is that more guns in more hands doesn't lead to more public safety. The National Academy of Sciences, after an exhaustive review of the data, found in 2004 that making concealed carry permits available to more people does nothing to improve public safety. But interrupting gun trafficking does. Let's resolve this year to act where the common ground is.

Inspired by the Repetitious and Mendacious Gun-Rights Advocates

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:22:00 +0000

via Criminal Wisdom

Pennsylvaia Mass Shooting

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:37:00 +0000

So far we appear to be hearing the elderly gentleman's side of this story. While I emphatically agree that it is a terrible thing for this man to have been knocked down while enjoying his trail ride, I have to wonder if a fatality was really necessary in this situation.

Cops: Man, 65, kills teen who knocks him off bicycle
Cyclist is released by police, who say two teenagers assaulted him

msnbc.com
updated 1/26/2012 3:19:04 AM ET

A 65-year-old man who was knocked off his bicycle by three teenagers on a Pennsylvania trail shot two of them, killing one, police said according to reports.

The Reading Eagle newspaper said the wounded teen, 16, was taken to hospital and the third, aged 15, was taken in for questioning and was later committed to a youth center.

The paper said the mother of the slain boy, 16, asked officials not to release his name until she had been able to tell other members of the family what happened.

The incident happened on the Thun Trail near a bridge over the Schuylkill River, between Reading and West Reading just after noon Wednesday.

"There was one juvenile who was shot and is deceased [and] another juvenile who was shot and is in surgery," Police Chief Jed Habecker said, according to a report by the WFMZ-TV station.

According to police, the 65-year-old was riding his bicycle when the teens knocked him to the ground, the station said.

Police said two teens then assaulted the man, who drew his gun and shot them.

The man was released by police after they consulted with District Attorney John Adams late Wednesday, WFMZ reported.

Police Shooting in Monterey Park

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:15:00 +0000

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

They talked about this one over at The Truth About Guns. As is usually the case, the comments run the gamut from "the guy needed killing," to more reasonable reactions which I myself could agree with.

What's your opinion? Was this a justified shooting?

Please leave a comment.

The Glenn Beck Message Against Liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:51:00 +0000

via Gawker

Glenn Beck produced this pretty spot-on right-wing parody of those infamous spooky Anonymous video manifestos. Instead of overblown anarcho-revolutionary rhetoric, it's overblown ultraconservative rhetoric.

We hope Glenn Beck ripping off Anonymous is the signal everyone needs to finally stop taking every bullshit Anonymous video seriously. In other news, Glenn Beck still exists, and is doing things.

The Future of the Democratic Party

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:39:00 +0000

via Towleroad

Elizabeth Warren on the Issues says this under the Gun Control category:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

For Our Colleague Laci, Best Wishes for Your Robert Burns Supper Celebration

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:02:00 +0000

A long-held tradition, and an informal national celebration for the Scots.

We wish him joy in his haggis, tatties and neeps, and most of all his nip of highland scotch to wash it all down.

I'm sure he will do it properly, beginning with the Selkirk Grace.

Some hae meat and canna eat,

And some wad eat that want it;

But we hae meat, and we can eat,

And sae let the Lord be thankit.

And the salutation for the Haggis entrance:

Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o' the puddin-race!
Aboon them a' ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o' a grace
As lang's my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o' need,
While thro' your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see rustic Labour dicht,
An' cut you up wi' ready slicht,
Trenching your gushing entrails bricht,
Like ony ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sicht,
Warm-reekin, rich!

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an' strive:
Deil tak the hindmaist! on they drive,
Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve,
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
"Bethankit" hums.

Is there that o're his French ragout
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi' perfect scunner,
Looks down wi' sneering, scornfu' view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him ower his trash,
As feckless as a wither'd rash,
His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro' bloody flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!
But mark the Rustic, haggis fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread.
Clap in his wallie nieve a blade,
He'll mak it whistle;
An' legs an' arms, an' heads will sned,
Like taps o' thristle.

Ye Pow'rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o' fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinkin ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu' prayer,
Gie her a haggis!

And this should serve to properly pipe in the feast, and to honor Burns.

Real Freedom Has Nothing to Do with Guns

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:38:00 +0000

Freedom isn't about guns. REAL freedom in a civilized society is about the press not being knocked around and respect for peaceful, lawful protesters expressing their dissent. THAT is the kind of RIGHT that belongs in Bills of Rights and National Constitutions, not guns so people can kill each other.

From the Huff Po:

Press Freedom Index: Occupy Wall Street Journalist Arrests Cost U.S. Dearly In Latest Survey

The Huffington Post Jack Mirkinson
The targeting of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street movement has caused the United States to drop precipitously in a leading survey of press freedom.
Reporters Without Borders' latest Press Freedom Index was released on Wednesday, and the list reflected some of the tumult that took place in the world in 2011, as well as the impact that those events had on journalists across the globe. Reporters became targets over and over again throughout the year, both in the Middle East and on the streets of New York.
Some examples of the change wrought by the Arab Spring could be found in Tunisia, which the compilers moved up 30 places on the list in the wake of that country's democratic revolution. Not so lucky were Bahrain and Egypt, both of which cracked down on journalists and on the popular movements pressing for further change in their countries. They fell 29 and 39 places, respectively, on the scale.
But the U.S. tumbled almost as far as Bahrain did in the wake of the repeated crackdowns on journalists covering Occupy movements. Reporters Without Borders was explicit in its summary of its report, saying that "the United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests."
The treatment of journalists by police was well documented throughout 2011. Reporters were beaten, arrested and prevented from covering police action against Occupy protesters. Tensions heightened so much that the New York Police Department had to meet with journalists and remind its officers not to mistreat them.

Another Mass Shooting, this one in New Mexico

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:50:00 +0000

Some of our gun nuts don't believe we should have any firearms restrictions.

Clearly we do need restrictions, and better enforcement to prevent prohibited individuals from getting armed, as shown by this example from the current news cycle. We have too many guns, they are too easily available, and we should end our gun culture that glorifies violence and lethal weapons.

Because, clearly, while there is undoubtedly good in all human beings, it is not always the part of an individual human being that is in control of a dangerous lethal weapon.

Another Faux Nuissance report from the Murdoch Propaganda machine, by way of aol.com news:

Manhunt under way for landlord who allegedly killed tenants over rent money
A nationwide manhunt was under way Wednesday after cops said that a New Mexico landlord shot dead two of his tenants following an argument over rent money.
An arrest warrant for Arthur "Arturo" Anaya of Santa Fe was issued on two counts of murder after Theresa Vigil, 51, and her daughter's boyfriend, 16-year-old Austin Urban, were shot dead Monday, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.
The two victims lived in a mobile home on Anaya's land in Santa Fe, along with Vigil's 17-year-old daughter Natalie, according to the newspaper.
Anaya, 54, is accused of arguing with Vigil on the phone about rent she owed before walking to the mobile home armed with a handgun, the arrest warrant states.
He then allegedly punched Vigil and her daughter in the face, before shooting Austin in the mouth. He then shot Vigil in the forehead, according to the police document.
After the shooting, Anaya reportedly told Natalie to put the bodies of her mom and boyfriend in the trunk of her car and threatened to shoot her when she argued that they were still alive.
Natalie eventually persuaded Anaya to let her take her mother to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Her boyfriend was reportedly left at the scene, and Anaya fled.
Anaya, who previously was convicted of numerous crimes, including assault, false imprisonment and armed robbery, is described as having graying hair and brown eyes and is around 5-foot-6.
It was not known if he remained in the Santa Fe area.
"He is considered to be armed and dangerous and violent, according to his prior criminal history," a statement from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department said.
Newscore contributed to this report.

Why Lethal Weapons Are Not a Good Idea

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:40:00 +0000

This is just one more example of the bad judgment of people with their firearms, of impulsive over-reaction, of abuse of lethal weapons. Gun nuts ask us to 'trust them'. Displays like this are why we don't. Another example of gun 'show and tell' gone bad, despite every reason that this woman should have known the law, known the importance of telling the truth to the cops, and had a grip on proportionality rather than the trigger of a firearm.

I did find myself wondering if her concern that her gun should not be confused with a barbie doll toy might be because it was pink, a detail not provided in the story, but the woman's own words raise the question.

From aol.com news and Faux News :

Former New York prosecutor arrested for holding teen at gunpoint after doorbell prank
A New York mother and former Bronx prosecutor was reportedly so enraged with someone constantly ringing her doorbell and running away that she fired a round from her pink 9mm pistol and held a teenager at gunpoint until police arrived.
Former Bronx prosecutor Bernadette Greenwald, 37, of Rockville Centre, Long Island, told Nassau County police she felt she "had balls" after firing the gun for the first time after the game of "ding-dong ditch" caused her to snap, the New York Post reports.
Greenwald initially told cops that a neighborhood teen rang the bell twice, and on the third time threatened to rape her and kill her children. But police said the teen, who was not charged, had nothing to do with the prank and the young man’s mother insisted he was walking home from a friend’s house after watching the Giants game and drinking beer.
Greenwald, who served as an assistant district attorney in the Bronx from 1989 to 1994 before resigning, was later charged with second-degree menacing, reckless endangerment and unlawful use of a weapon after her statements to cops changed. She was released without bail after her arraignment on Monday, the Post reports.
“It was just kid [expletive],” Greenwald said, adding that she pulled the trigger only to scare the boy.
“He thought it was a Barbie gun," Greenwald told police, referring to Nolan LeBlanc, 17, a South Side High School football star who lives across the street. "I wanted to show him that it was loaded.”

Mitt's Full o' Cash

noreply@blogger.com (dog gone) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:21:00 +0000

Real freedom is not being poor and carrying a gun everywhere.

Real freedom is opportunity in a safer society that does not embrace the violence which characterizes our gun culture.

We have lost our position, our success at upward mobility, we are at record breaking levels in our history of economic disparity, compared to other countries, notably Europe.

The economic policies put in place by the Republican governor of Indiana while working in the Bush White House were disastrous, they are in large part why we are in the current economic crisis. Those are the exact same disastrous policies advocated by the current crop of Republicans, doubling down on bad ideas that create that economic disparity.

And nobody points that out better than the Daily Show, which is factually consistently more accurate than the right wing media like Fox News, Rush Ludicrous, and the rest.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2012 - I Know What You Did Last Quarter

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

New Commenting Mechanics

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:59:00 +0000

I've changed the commenting setting to allow comment threads to build on previous comments, or you can simply comment at the bottom as before.

Please let me know what you think.

Also I've done away with that supposed spam-detecting word you have to type in. I never really believed in that one. Let's see.

The Pennsylvania Gun Shop that Gets Broken into Every Six Months

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:16:00 +0000

The Times Leader, a small news outlet in Wilkes-Barre PA, reports on the incredible and reprehensible irresponsibility of a certain gun shop owner.

Gun Hippo owner Norm Gavlick said Tuesday that about $5,000 worth of merchandise was taken.

“A cinder block was used to bust the glass, and they blew the rest out with their hands,” Gavlick said, noting the whole incident was caught on surveillance video. “I could see immediately they took a bunch of handguns.”

Gavlick’s store was the site of an attempted break-in a few weeks ago, he said, and of another burglary in July.

In the July incident, according to police, 10 handguns were taken. The ATF also assisted in that investigation that led to arrests, Gavlick said.

Can you smash the window of a bank and grab a bunch of money in the middle of the night? No? Why, then, can you do a smash and grab in a gun shop, and not one time after which they take proper precautions, but twice?

Here's the best part, talking about taking responsibility.

Gavlick said he believes his and other gun shops in the area are targeted because people convicted of certain crimes cannot buy or possess guns legally.

Get that? This guy must read The Truth About Guns where they continually blame the cruel and unusual gun control laws instead of the poor persecuted gun owner who breaks them.

What's your opinion? Do you think gun shops should be required to take special precautions against break-ins?

Please leave a comment.

Cenk Says Obama is Tremendously Disappointing

noreply@blogger.com (mikeb302000) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:12:00 +0000

via SUPGV