They don't think much of Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" law down under in Australia. From the Australian Broadcasting Network:
HAMISH ROBERTSON: Finally to the United States, where residents of Florida have just been allowed to use deadly force at any time they feel threatened.The new law has passed through the state legislature with the backing of the powerful National Rifle Association.
This means that people will be able to defend themselves, to the death if necessary, without any obligation to retreat, which is what the old law required.
As our North America Correspondent Leigh Sales reports, opponents of the change say it's going to turn Florida into a new version of the Wild West.
LEIGH SALES: Eighteen months ago, Greg Drewes lost his teenage son, Mark.
GREG DREWES: That's him, that's Mark. That's about three weeks before it happened.
LEIGH SALES: Mark and his mates were out one night, playing doorknocking pranks. Jay Levin was one of their targets. He was home alone and heard noises outside, imagining it was a burglar. He opened his front door, gun in hand, just as Mark was running away. In panic, Jay Levin shot Mark Drewes in the back, killing him.
Mr Levin was charged with manslaughter because under Florida's old laws, that level of force was considered excessive.
But this week, the law changed, and today, Mr Levin would be innocent of any wrongdoing.
[...]
Now, any Florida resident defend a manslaughter or murder charge by proving that they felt threatened.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush defends the change.
JEB BUSH: When there's a life-threatening situation, to have to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious position defies common sense.
LEIGH SALES: The powerful National Rifle Association lobbied hard for the new law.
Marion Hammer is an NRA lobbyist.
MARION HAMMER: The law is constructed to give law-abiding people the right to protect themselves when they're attacked. I think the message to criminals is going to be – you break into a home, you run the risk of being shot; you attack people on the street, you run the risk of being shot.
LEIGH SALES: Greg Drewes, the father of the teenager who was killed while playing practical jokes, believes the new law is wide open to abuse.
GREG DREWES: If you shoot somebody in anger, what are you going to say? I did it, I made a mistake, I wasn't in danger at all, take me away. They're all going to lie. They're all going to say I did it protecting myself; I was in definite fear of my life.
But more important is the fact that this law became necessary because firstly, the courts were sending mutants back out on the street with little more than a slap-on-the-wrist. Most first and second time thugs and burglars and assaulters never saw the inside of a jail cell after sentencing.
Secondly, very often the victims were "turned into the defendents" by various criminal and civil suit lawyers.
What this law does is give the rights back to the victims, the law-abiding citizens.
And you know what? If mutants are so afraid they might be killed for attempting burglary and rape and assault, maybe they won't do it. They might not fear the courts but maybe now they will fear their potential victims. Just maybe they'll learn to control themselves and find an honest way to earn a living.
As Robert A. Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."
Over at And Rightly So!, Raven feels violated. And rightly so...
And at It Comes In Pints?, Ken has been Photoshopping Air America. What goes around comes around, Randi?
In the meantime, Deb at Accidental Verbosity finds another reason to resist government universal healthcare. James R. Rummel has more over at the Chicago Boys.
Now Michael over at Gay Orbit has found something cool, a contest to design a space elevator. Where's Otis when we need him?
And not lastly, my wishes and prayers go out to Pat Hejny that she came through her surgery okay. I'm waiting for an update. Morgan?
With a hat-tip to Instapundit, here's the story of just how dangerous Mexican food can be, from Yahoo:
CLOVIS, N.M. - A call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school. All over a giant burrito.Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High.
The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.
Of course you've heard the story of the bride-to-be from Georgia who disappeared while jogging? She's been found in New Mexico where she claims a man and woman in a blue van kidnapped her. From Yahoo/AP:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A Georgia woman who vanished just days before her wedding was found in New Mexico early Saturday after she called her fiance from a pay phone and said she had been kidnapped, authorities said.Jennifer Wilbanks, 32, was in police custody more than 1,420 miles from her home on what was supposed to be her wedding day, said Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Ahrensfield. Police were searching for a blue van with a man and woman inside.
The bride-to-be had been missing since Tuesday, when her fiance reported that she went for her nightly run and didn't come home, police said.
Wilbanks called her fiance, John Mason, late Friday and said she had been kidnapped, her stepmother said. "Jennifer said she thought the people got scared because of all the media coverage and just let her go," Ann Wilbanks told The Associated Press.
Update 8:50 AM: See, I should have just waited a couple hours. It turns out I was right. From Yahoo/AP:
A Georgia bride-to-be who vanished just days before her wedding turned up in New Mexico and fabricated a tale of abduction before admitting Saturday that she had gotten cold feet and "needed some time alone," police said.Jennifer Wilbanks, 32, was in police custody more than 1,420 miles from her home on what was supposed to be her wedding day.
"It turns out that Miss Wilbanks basically felt the pressure of this large wedding and could not handle it," said Randy Belcher, the police chief in Duluth, Ga., the Atlanta suburb where Wilbanks lives with her fiance. He said there would be no criminal charges.
I've already written about the Free Staters who want to move to New Hampshire and create a libertarian state. I've written about Killington wanting to secede from Vermont and become a part of New Hampshire. Now there's a movement within Vermont to secede from the United States. It's called Vermont Commons or Second Vermont Republic. They have a monthly newspaper and a website. You should browse the whole site but here's a quote:
And that is where Vermont comes in. For in Vermont one finds a national reservoir of social capital and real democracy. It is time for us to act. Waiting for incremental reform is too dangerous. The political establishment shows no inclination to see the handwriting on the wall. This is bipartisan myopia. When George Bush and Ted Kennedy join forces to wrest control of our education system from us and place it in the hands of that intellectual wasteland we call Congress, it is time for something different.What we need must be radical. It must be dramatic.
We should seriously consider the case for Vermont’s secession from the Union.
My principal concern with such a proposal is that, if successful, a Vermont secession might be followed by other states. We don’t want to destroy America. I, for one, still love it. And I believe that, despite its flaws, America remains our best hope for a peaceful transition from a world of warring nation-states to one of truly united nations. Without stability, democracy is impossible, and until a UN-like institution becomes a keeper of that stability, no other nation on the planet is better suited to bear this responsibility.
The moral underpinning of a secessionist movement is the hope that it will not, in the end, be needed. My hope is that America will give Vermont the opportunity to conduct what Langdon Winner calls "niche analysis.” His hope for societal advancement is to allow certain systems broad latitude in socio-political experimentation. We contribute about one-tenth of one percent of the national tax base. Hence while New York or California could not secede without irreparably harming the Union, Vermont can.
I'm guessing that Vermont Commons wants to start the process of secession not to actually do it but to send a wake-up call to Washington. Naturally I was interested in their thoughts on the Second Amendment. I first found this:
7. Nonviolence. Consistent with Vermont's long history of nonviolence, we do not condone state-sponsored violence inflicted either by military or law enforcement officials. However, we do support a voluntary citizens' militia to restore order in the event of political unrest or natural disasters. We are unconditionally opposed to any form of military conscription.
It is in Vermont that a citizen's Bill of Rights guarantee to keep and bear arms is strongly defended -- not for hunting, not for personal protection against wayward citizens, but for what it was intended: to insure that free citizens always have the means to protect themselves against governments, a protection that takes on special meaning as our civil liberties come under attack from Washington, the center of our own nation, our beloved America.
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Anyway, it's all quite interesting to see and I'll be following it here at Alphecca.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but Countertop Chronicles reports on the latest ruling by the Supremes regarding foreigners with convictions and purchasing firearms.
My friend John Lott Jr has a new op-ed on why Congress should pass the gun maker's shield bill.
Also, discussing judicial confirmations, he'll be on Fox News later this afternoon at 5:40 eastern time.
Welcome to the April 26th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias of media as they cover guns, gun rights, and the Second Amendment. It was sort of a hodge-podge this past week but the inestimable Chris Muir saved the day(s) by starting a series of cartoons on gun defense. Chris is a big Second Amendment supporter and he's also the designer of our campaign poster from a couple years ago.
In Walker, police are investigating a break-in that ended with a homeowner shooting a robber. It happened at a home in the 1400 block of Wilson SW in Walker.Police say the suspect broke into the home around 6:30 a.m. Sunday. The homeowner woke up, confronted the robber, and shot at him with a handgun. The suspect also fired his weapon, but missed.
The suspect fled the scene and was arrested a short time later. He was then taken to a hospital to get treatment for his gunshot wound.
Now, what happens when a newspaper writer who has repeatedly railed against guns suddenly finds himself in a similar situation? Thanks to reader Stanley B., I came across this Houston Chronicle op-ed by Rick Casey:
We live in, shall we say, an urban neighborhood, with several popular bars nearby.The house, built by a former Marine, is surrounded by a 6-foot iron fence with locked gates. Occasionally someone going home from a bar thinks it's cute to ring the buzzer.
A few minutes after I hung up, I heard loud crashing, then tinkling of falling glass. Someone was breaking in.
I have one daughter in an upstairs bedroom, which I checked first. Then I headed downstairs, where another daughter and a foreign exchange student, a girl from Paraguay, sleep.
[...]
As I turned at the landing I saw him at the bottom of the stairs. He was not a large man, a skinny 5-foot-7 or so. He was wearing slacks and a T-shirt, but what I noticed first were the tattoos covering his arms.
He didn't appear armed. I decided to act out of my anger, not out of my fear.
"Who are you and what are you doing in here?" I yelled. Then I called to my wife: "Kristen! Get the gun and call the police!"
I was grateful she didn't yell back: "What gun?"
I continued to tell him to get out, but he frantically tried to push by me to get upstairs. He wasn't belligerent, but seemed desperate, as though he thought he was being stalked.He smelled strongly of alcohol and was bleeding from a variety of cuts. I was able to herd him down the stairs and across the living room to a door leading out to a garden. I pushed him out and locked the door.
But what if this mutant then pulled out a gun? The results could have been disasterous for Casey's family. As reader Stanley B. writes:
Rick Casey wrote about his recent home invasion. Being the Liberal he is, he has on other occasions made it clear that he would like nothing better than the uninvention of guns of all types. But what does he shout when he realizes that someone is in his house that should not be? "Get the gun and call the police!" (and hopes his wife doesn't shout "What Gun?") then he goes on to say that he intimidated the guy into leaving on his own accord, and that he is buying a really big dog. His wife then comes down not with a gun (there is no gun of course) but with a clothes hamper and a lacrosse stick. 10 minutes later the Police arrive and he worries that "one of the girls may startle them as they search the house with guns drawn". In the words of Moe from the Three Stooges: "Why I oughtta...."
Some things I think Mr. Casey should remember:
The next guy that comes into his house might not be so whacked out that he is incoherent and he may not be unarmed.
If he is armed, one shot will dispatch the biggest of dogs, as well as him, his wife, his daughters, and his exchange student from Paraguay.
When you come to a gunfight, you don't come armed with a knife (or a clothes hamper and a lacross stick! Or even worse, confronting an unknown intruder unarmed!).
Mr. Casey and his family has recieved a wake-up call, but instead of answering it, he let the phone ring....
Now, while the NY Times might not see fit to publish stories about defensive gun uses, they certainly know how to try to revive -- once again -- the call for the phony "assault weapons ban". From Sunday:
Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.
"The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.What's more, law enforcement officials say that military-style weapons, which were never used in many gun crimes but did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban took effect, seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles.
"Back in the early 90's, criminals wanted those Rambo-type weapons they could brandish," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Today they are much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in their belt."
When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons already in private hands. Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons were produced - legitimately - by manufacturers that availed themselves of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis of firearms production data by the Violence Policy Center.
Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.
But the writer of this piece, Deborah Sontag, keeps on referring to these rifles as "assault weapons" regardless of the fact that she claims 1.17 million of them were sold during the ban that didn't fit the criteria of an "assault weapon". One must therefore conclude that she, as well as VPC spokeswoman Rand, consider ANY RIFLE to be an "assault weapon". Now their agenda becomes clear and Sontag says as much here:
"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available."Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area shootings, for instance, used semiautomatic assault rifles that were copycat versions of banned carbines.
Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990's. But a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not "clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."
Research for the study in several cities did show a significant decline in the criminal use of assault weapons during the ban. According to the study, however, that decline was offset by the "steady or rising use" of other guns equipped with high-capacity magazines - ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds.
While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, it did not outlaw an estimated 25 million of them already in circulation, nor did it stop the importation of millions more into the country.
Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the "flood of big clips" from abroad, calling that the "one big loophole" in the ban. But that would require amending the bill, and Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of Virginia and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio are willing to back it only without amendments, she said.
Some gun-control advocates say it is pointless to reintroduce the 1994 ban without amending it to include large magazines and a wider range of guns. They see more promise in enacting or strengthening state or local bans. Seven states - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and New York - already have bans, most based on the federal one. The model ban, gun-control advocates say, is a comprehensive one in California (referred to as "Commiefornia" on some gun enthusiast Web sites).
The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal ban a legislative priority, either. Mr. Pasco, the organization's director, said he could not recall a single "inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the ban - and we have 330,000 members who are very vocal."
"In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on this ban," said Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "But here we are 10 years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any more significant threat to law enforcement officers than other weapons of similar caliber and capability."
I'll close with this pair of quotes:
Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian hands. "They are weapons of war," Senator Feinstein said, "and you don't need these assault weapons to hunt."Gun makers, however, say the weapons do have sporting uses, in hunting and in target shooting. "People buy these rifles because they're fun to shoot and they perform well," Mr. Luth of DPMS said. "They also like them because you can jazz them up like you can your car. You can custom-paint them, put on a multitude of handguards or buttstocks."
Lastly though, Mr. Luth is correct in that guns such as the AR-15 are very popular at rifle ranges and target shooting competitions. Reader Robert Langham sends us this photo and caption:
Katie Wilkens, a second-year Texas State Rifle Association National Match Team member awaits firing commands at the 200 yard line at the TSRA Highpower Rifle Championship this last weekend at Watt, Texas.Katie holds her personal AR-15 Armalite, the same rifle labeled an "assault rifle" by groups interested in restricting firearm rights. Nearly all competitors in Highpower Rifle shoot this firearm.
Texas lawmakers are considering making Katie Wilkens a felon for pursuing this sport.
Katie is a 15-year old student from Ft Worth. She and her brother are both TSRA National Match team members. Her parents support the TSRA Junior team. She won the High Woman's trophy at the Texas Highpower Rifle Championships this weekend.
You see them every day, shopping or dining with children, stopped at traffic lights next to you or walking alone at night through store parking lots.Chances are, a woman you saw today was carrying a gun.
In fact, nearly 50,000 women in Florida are licensed to carry a weapon concealed on their person or in their vehicle.
Whether for personal protection, sport or hobby, women around Brevard County are considering options for pursuing firearm ownership and shooting proficiency.
[...]
While Speed-Isom of Cocoa waits for her carry permit to arrive in the mail, she practices shooting her Beretta 9 mm once a week with the shooting league at the American Police Hall of Fame and Museum in Titusville.
"I wasn't really hitting the target," she says about the early experiences that earned her the nickname, "Ricochet Rabbit."
"I have learned to respect the gun, and I would not be afraid to use it now, whereas before I was," adds Speed-Isom, who has since been designated "Most Improved Shooter" by her league companions.
Women generally make better students, according to Andy Stanford, founder and director of Options for Personal Security, a private training company in Indialantic.
"They don't bring a lot of macho baggage," says Stanford.
And they often are better shots than men.
"Ninety-nine percent of women turn out to be better shooters because they take direction better," says Elizabeth Beckley, an Air Force firearm instructor for 13 years and part-time range master at the shooting range where Speed-Isom practices.
Beckley, with her perfectly French-manicured nails, does not appear to be the typical firearm instructor.
One last piece, it appears that the gun-grabbers have at least partially lost in a Washington DC court. From the AP:
Gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. Monday said a court dismissed all common-law claims, including those of negligence and public nuisance, in a Washington municipal lawsuit against the company and other members of the firearms industry.The Southport-based firearms company said the court let stand claims based upon Washington's "strict liability" act against certain manufacturers of machine guns, used in crimes against city residents.
According to the company, none of the pleadings in the Washington case identify a Sturm Ruger firearm as having been used in any of the criminal shootings.
Okay, I'm way late with this so will post it now. Just a reminder that there won't be a report next week as I'll be sequestered in company meetings all week. Thanks for stopping by.
I've been (finally!) off this weekend. A dear friend gave me a VHS tape to watch. It was my FAVORITE MOVE!!! The Crawling Eye featuring (if that's the right word) Forrest Tucker. Think back, all you SF fans, to that Andes setting with the big eyeballs with tentacles. Oh man, this was Heaven! I watched it last night. Then, I went through my ancient collection of tapes and watched The House on Haunted Hill with Vincent Price.
Folks, I love schlocky SF and Horror movies. They are the best! Granted, nothing exceeds Plan 9 From Outer Space but these two flicks were so satisfying I almost had sex with myself. Okay, that's way more than you wanted to know...
For those of you who love these '50s-'60s movies, tell me what fries your clams... I DARE YOU to be honest. (And NO, I don't talk guns all the time here. Get over it.)
... General Motors, slammed by lower sales and mounting health-care costs, turned in a $1.1 billion, first-quarter loss Tuesday and didn't help its cause in the eyes of Wall Street when it declined to offer a full-year outlook.
Like GM, sales of Ford's most profitable and fuel-thirsty sports utility vehicles have slumped amid record gas prices.
'The shift out of traditional SUVs into cars and crossovers, which we anticipated several years ago, was happening at a rate faster than we had expected,' said Chairman and CEO Bill Ford.
'This hurt us on two counts. First our share in SUVs is higher than in the smaller growing segments, which lowered our overall share. The second, our margins on SUVs are generally higher than our cars and crossovers, which lowered our profits,' he added...
For the past couple years, everyone (certainly the automakers) have had warning that gas prices were rising for a variety of reasons (problems in the middle-east, the rising consumption of China, etc.) but kept building more and more huge SUVs, each larger than the next. Now they are shocked -- shocked! -- that consumers are turning to smaller, more fuel efficient models.
Maybe it's time to end the practice of trying to get the YOUNGEST talent into the marketing department and start rehiring older workers instead. At least they will remember past trends when predicting future ones.
Anyone know what happened to Cowboy Blob's site? It used to be here...
I had thought Australia had pretty much banned all guns by now but Countertop Chronicles reports that there's more on the way.
On the sixth anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado that left 15 people dead, gun control activists Wednesday criticized a U.S. House bill that would protect licensed gun dealers who sell the weapons that end up being used in the commission of crimes.The "Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act" would protect gun dealers from lawsuits because, according to the text of the bill, dealers "should not be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended."
Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the bill "bad public policy" and said "the timing is exceptionally bad taste."
Tom Mauser, the father of Daniel Mauser, who was one of those killed when two students opened fire at Columbine High School in 1999, said the bill would "[take] away the rights of gun violence victims" and criticized the timing of the bill, which was scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee docket on Wednesday, the anniversary of the shooting.
The gun control crowd has become a joke and (to use one of their own favorite expressions) they are out of touch with the average american.
I love tabloids that sport brilliant leaders (headers) such as the famous one from the New York Post: Headless Body Found in Topless Bar.
I'm not a Catholic and don't really care about the "angst" that folks like Andrew Sullivan are feeling over the election of a new pope or Professor Bainbridge's response to that, but my friend Xriq has composed a perfect post to direct you to their blatherings:
The good news, if you’re Professor Bainbridge, is that we have a new Pope. The bad news, if you’re Andrew Sullivan, is that he’s Catholic.
VT Senator Jim Jeffords will not seek re-election when his term expires in 2006. From Yahoo/AP:
Sen. Jim Jeffords, who single-handedly upset the balance of power on Capitol Hill four years ago when he quit the Republican Party to become an independent, announced Wednesday he will retire at the end of his term next year, citing his own health problems and those of his wife.The surprise announcement immediately triggered a scramble for Jeffords' seat, one of several that will be up for grabs in next year's midterm elections.
In recent months, Jeffords' family and his staff questioned whether the 70-year-old senator was physically and mentally up to a statewide campaign for a fourth term. He stumbled in a recent radio interview, and was confused about some of his votes. His wife, Liz, is battling cancer.
Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders is mumbling something about taking a shot at the seat. Hopefully there'll be better candidates than that!
As the Republicans continue to self-destruct and also continue the "war on drugs", along comes Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner who introduced a bill on April 6th that would impose mandatory federal sentences for even the most minor crimes. I heard about this tonight on the Rolley James show and actually dragged myself out of bed to blog about it.
It's called "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005". Thomas.loc.gov moves things around a lot so do a search for HR 1528 here. Please read it. It drastically increases the penalties for violating the federal controlled-substances act.
Here's what could happen. A bunch of folks are at a party and someone 21-years-old passes a joint to a person under 18. Mandatory 10-years in federal prison, no parole. Second offense: Life in prison, no parole. (Mandatory 5 years if they are 18-20 years old.)
Here's another example. In a state where it is permitted, you have been perscribed medical marijuana. If you store or use it in a home where there is someone under 18, 5 years in jail. If you are the parent or guardian of that child, mandatory 10 years in jail.
Look folks, I'm not defending drugs and I have no axe to grind because to be honest, I don't do illegal drugs and I'm allergic to pot. But this is insane. What's more insane is that I did two searches on the web for HR1528 and there was nothing about the bill (the 2005 bill) under news and only two references to it on the web, at Rense.com and at Talk Left.
There is every possibility that this bill could become law. What the hell is happening to this country? Glenn Reynolds quoted an email he received yesterday that said:
"I grow more and more convinced the Republican majority will end itself by 2006 if the Left will just shut up for five minutes."
And didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that federal sentencing laws could only be "advisory"? I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on TV) so if you hit "more" I'll provide some examples from the bill. Keep in mind the bill is still undergoing revisions as it passes from committee to committee...
SEC. 2. PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM DRUG TRAFFICKERS.(a) Distribution to Persons Under 21 Years of Age; First Offense- Section 418(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting `or section 406' after `401(a)(1)';
(2) by inserting `, or attempting or conspiring to do so,' after `twenty-one years of age';
(3) by striking `involving the same controlled substance and schedule' and inserting `without regard to the type of controlled substance and schedule'; and
(4) by inserting `Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by section 401(b) and regardless of any maximum term of imprisonment, a term of imprisonment under this subsection in a case involving distribution to a person under 18 years of age by a person 21 or more years of age shall be not less than 10 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under the preceding sentence.' after `not less than 1 year.'.
(b) Distribution to Persons Under 21 Years of Age; Second or Subsequent Offense- Section 418(b) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting `or section 406' after `401(a)(1)';
(2) by inserting `, or attempting or conspiring to do so,' after `twenty-one years of age';
(3) by striking `involving the same controlled substance and schedule' and inserting `without regard to the type of controlled substance and schedule';
(4) by inserting `or for a felony drug offense' after `May 1, 1971'; and
(5) by striking `not less than one year.' and inserting `not less than 10 years. Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by section 401(b) and regardless of any maximum term of imprisonment, a term of imprisonment under this subsection in a case involving distribution to person under 18 years of age by a person 21 or more years of age shall be a mandatory term of life imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under the preceding sentence.'.
Welcome to the April 19th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias. This is where I scope-out how some in the media are treating gun-rights and the Second Amendment. I thought I'd keep it a little more upbeat today what with the conclusion of a very successful convention by the NRA in Houston.
"We all know the media is biased," said Cam Edwards, an NRA online talk show host who also has worked as a radio reporter in Oklahoma City. "An anti-gun bias is prevalent in the media. But they won't admit it."
Two floors below, the entertainment ran more toward looking at stuffed whitetail deer heads and talking weapons."That is phenomenal," one man said as he checked out one of the animals. "That thing's crossed with a moose."
NRA staffer Monty Embrey, working the booth where 15 mounted whitetail deer heads were displayed, said the animal is actually a full-blooded deer with unusual antlers. Embrey said the exhibit, owned by the NRA, travels to different sports shows.
"People don't get to see a collection of heads very often," he said. "It's a pretty big deal."
Nearby, Joe Bowman, gun coach and bootmaker to the stars, demonstrated his fast-drawing and other cowboy shooting tricks. Bowman was elaborately dressed in a two-tone blue shirt with white fringe and red, yellow, blue and black cowboy boots.
The World War II veteran limped onto stage because of knee replacement surgery, but he could still twirl and juggle guns, firing them so fast the clicks of separate shots were indistinguishable.
Exhibitors displayed their collections of things as specific as guns from the 1870s and Remingtons, and others hawked everything from antiques to the latest in weapons power.
Loon Lake Decoy showed hunting-themed chess sets, with whitetail deer and elk as the pawns in one version and turkeys and pheasants in the other. Camouflaged hunters - with long hair denoting the queens - and hunting cabins rounded out the playing pieces.
It's understandable, in an organization that still divides its convention luncheons into "ladies" and "sportsmen" categories, that publicity about the National Rifle Association's incoming president highlights her gender.
But while Monday's expected election of Tucson attorney Sandra Froman as president of the nearly 4 million-member organization might inject a more civil tone into the arguments over gun control in the United States, it doesn't signal a softening of NRA policies.
"She's not the new pope who's gonna let priests marry," said Mick Rusing, Froman's friend, former law partner and sometime hunting companion. Her election doesn't signal a liberalization of NRA policies, Rusing said, but it could produce a ramping down of its rhetoric.
"She is very comfortable defending gun issues on an intellectual, constitutional level and not the 'Pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers' attitude," said Rusing in a phone call from Houston Friday, where he was attending the annual NRA meeting as a member of its hunting and conservation committee.
Froman said in a phone interview from Houston that she wasn't bothered by the headlines that highlight her gender and hopes her expected elevation to president will entice more women into the ranks. "I'm not insulted. I'm clearly a woman. I enjoy being a woman."
But she said: "There is a lot more to me than just my gender. I'm just hoping that people will underestimate me."
"She will be a tough and articulate spokesman," said Joe Olson, a professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., and the president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. "She will be unbending on the Second Amendment."
Well, there were other gun stories around including some good news in Kansas from the Wichita Eagle:
Gun rights advocates scored a victory when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius made it easier for people to transport firearms in Kansas without fear of being arrested.A new law the governor signed Friday makes it legal to carry a firearm anywhere in the state as long as it's unloaded and in an enclosed container. The law, which takes effect July 1, says local governments can't impose more stringent controls.
"Currently hunters and other law-abiding gun owners traveling across Kansas may unknowingly violate gun ordinances by simply driving through another town," Sebelius said in statement.
Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, a backer of the legislation, praised the governor. He and other gun rights advocates said the bill was needed to protect gun owners from unfair prosecution.
Residents of Illinois and New York State shouldn't get their hopes up, though, for anything similar to counteract the rules in Chicago and New York City.
How about a positive story from New York of a youth club for clay shooters? From the Ithaca Journal:
With the glare of the sun reflecting off his safety glasses, the 17-year-old from Van Etten paused and then yelled, "Pull."From a distance, a small orange disk floated across the sky, from left to right. In a split second, Chaffee located the target and then fired.
The shot hit the clay sphere and shattered it to pieces, another successful hit.
Chaffee is one of 22 kids participating in the Scholastic Clay Target Program. The club, in its second year, meets each Monday at the Newfield Rod and Gun Club.
The program is for kids between the ages of 12-17. While no experience is required, participants must either have completed a hunter safety course or plan on completing one in the next six months.
"The program is set up to teach them gun safety, gun handling and etiquette. And also teamwork," said Dick Lindblad, one of the coaches. "Teamwork and safety, which is the biggest thing,"
Last week I mentioned the story of the great-great-grandmother who fought back against a thug. Here's a quick redux:
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A man accused of bursting into a convenience store demanding money was in the hospital Friday — shot, authorities said, by the great-great-grandmother working behind the counter.Janet Grammer was filling in for the regular clerk Thursday afternoon when a man entered the store waving a gun and fired two shot at the back wall.
"I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer, 64, said Friday. "My life was at stake. I thought he was going to kill me."
So she pulled a pistol out from under the cash register and fired once, hitting the man in the chest. He fell to the ground, dropped his gun and then fled, leaving a trail of blood. Grammer fired two more shots as he was running away.
At one point Brown asked the cop if he approved of her actions and he said (to paraphrase), "Yes, she was within her rights and she feared for her life".
As we all know, Florida is on the verge of passing a "Castle Doctrine" law. In fact it only awaits Gov. Jeb Bush's signature. From the St. Petersburg Times:
The measure passed Tuesday reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense outside their home, workplace or car has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force.It also puts into state law the decades-old "castle doctrine," a common law principle that gives people the right to use deadly force if attacked inside their residence. Under the bill, a person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony."
Gov. Jeb Bush has said he will sign the bill. The law would take effect Oct. 1.
The Florida Sheriff's Association and Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, both opposed to early drafts of the legislation, have taken a neutral stance on the final version.
"We think by and large they have come away with a good product," said Buddy Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
And why should anyone have to retreat in their own home or car? Thanks to Jim D., one of my readers, I was pointed to a nonsensical editorial in the Detroit Free Press by Nichole M. Christian:
You have to wonder whether the Florida Legislature has lost its mind.It's a legitimate question, given the dangerously nutty idea that body recently passed with unusual speed.
Gov. Jeb Bush is expected, any day now, to sign Florida Senate Bill 436 into law. His pen stroke will make it 100 percent legal to use deadly force as a self-defense option in the Sunshine State. Anyone who thinks they're under attack could, as of Oct. 1, "meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death."
If that isn't risky enough, the bill also extends immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her hands, so long as another law isn't being violated.
This is not only a break with sanity; it's a needless break with existing law.
"What's so wrongful about taking the life of someone trying to rob or rape you, or take your life?" [said Hammer]The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry. Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad judgments and deadly mistakes.
Remember the Malice Green case in Detroit? Or Amadou Diallo, the 22-year-old man who died when four New York City police officers fired 41 shots at him as he reached into his pocket for ... his wallet?
Lastly, to compare the shooting of Diallo by cops to the actual situations citizens might find themselves in is ridiculous. I can tell you this though, if some mutant breaks into MY home I'm not going to wait to see if he's just pulling out his wallet.
But wait, there's more! She goes on to quote a Michigan prosecutor:
The idea that any state would sanction near carte blanche use of self-defense when violence is already so much a part of American culture, particularly in Detroit, strikes Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy as irresponsible."The bill assumes that everyone is reasonable and rational. Let's just say someone acts with this law as a defense and the 4-year-old in the yard or the 90-year-old walking down the street gets hit," she says. "A bullet has no name on it. How do you control that?"
To the Detroit Free Press's credit, it did publish readers' letters critical of the editorial. Let me quote from one:
How would empowering average citizens to use deadly force against a life-threatening attack in their own homes lead to more violence? Logically one could conclude that this would only lead to less violence as the threat of deadly force in self-defense may actually deter criminals.You state that "anyone who values human life should find a big problem with government-approved retaliation." However, anyone who values human life should have a huge problem with government-approved penalties against victims who engage in acts of self-defense in their own homes.
I am sick and tired of laws that protect the perpetrator more than the victim.
Why in the midst of being victimized in my own home by an intruder should I have to stop and worry that my actions against my attacker could cause me more harm in our legal system than the bodily harm the attacker could incur on me?
Here's what's happening over at some other fine blogs:
Bill and Denise (from my neck of the woods) actually attended the NRA convention and have been providing continuous coverage over at The Ten Ring. A lot of good reading and inside stuff.
Paul at Right Side of the Rainbow stomps all over the Brady Bunch!
James at Hell in a Handbasket looks at the guns of Battlestar Galactica. And he's got pictures. Lots of them. (I like pictures...)
Jed at FreedomSight has more on the problems in Colorado regarding the problem I mentioned above with cities enacting tougher laws then the state has. Colorado Springs wants to correct that.
Meahwhile, Bruce over at mASSBACKWARDS is doing a little stomping of his own on MA Senator Jarrett Barrios.
Time to get this up. You can listen to me later today on Cam's Show (link at right) and now, the sun is out, it's supposed to hit 80 degrees and I've got the day off. Thanks for stopping by!
Confederate Yankee examines the case against Sgt. Haab for detaining seven illegal immigrants.
And then there were two. I was reading a good feature about the NRA convention in Houston that covered many of the events and exibits and came across this:
Things were a little quieter outside the convention center.Two lonely protesters walked the sidewalk in front of the annual convention, an event that has drawn thousands of protesters over the years in different states.
"I thought, 'There are going to be hundreds, thousands of protesters,' " said Linda Abdmoulaie, the first to arrive. "I looked everywhere."
Abdmoulaie went home for lunch and, when she returned, "Pam was here!" The two had never met.
Pam, holding a sign reading, "Actually, guns do kill people," declined to give her last name.
While gun-control groups acknowledge the NRA's influence in government, those activists say the NRA is out of step with most Americans.
Now let's try it with the Second Amendment!
Our founding fathers were wonderfully brief in their written creations (not so in the conventions that led up to them) but perhaps that brevity has resulted in much of the arguing and court interpretations that have hounded our rights ever since then.
This is the second of a series of posts that will give you the chance to straighten things out. How? Let's think of this as an exercise in "alternate universes" where you are a member of that first Congress held in New York City in March of 1789. But, everyone speaks and writes as we do now.
Here is the original Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A couple rules apply however: All of the amendments are one sentence long (albeit some are rather long sentences). For the purposes of this Second Amendment exercise, I'll allow your entry to be TWO sentences long but you are confined to a maximum of 75 words (total for both); the original is only 27 words long. How would you have worded the Second Amendment so that it couldn't be misinterpreted or could not have it's original meaning twisted by the courts? Would you add anything to it? Just fine tune it for clarity?
You need to get the following points across including:
1) Who is the Militia?
2) Who are the people?
3) What does it mean to "bear"?
4) Who is forbidden to?
5) Define "arms".
6) Should there be any regulation of this right?
7) Why are the people allowed to bear arms?
Think you can really cover all that in two sentences limited to a total of 75 words?
In this alternate universe you can pretend you are visionary and throw in clauses that might cover future developements in our society. Needless to say, your own idea of the original meaning will and should effect your new version.
I'd like to encourage readers from all sides of the political spectrum to participate. I'm not just looking for people who share my viewpoint. If you don't like guns or think they should be heavily regulated or for that matter banned from the hands of ordinary citizens, write your amendment to reflect that and then put your comments about your views following it. I would just ask that everyone respect each other's opinions. I'm not looking for flame wars although I certainly urge you to discuss each other's entries...
Here are a couple extreme examples: Someone who doesn't approve of guns might have composed the amendment thusly:
A well regulated army, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of soldiers to keep and bear Arms, but only while serving, shall not be infringed too much. Ordinary civilians are prohibited from owning guns, knives, nail-clippers, or pork chops...
As the government must be kept in complete obedience to the ordinary citizen, and further, that citizens are responsible for their own protection, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms or explosives of any design and size, shall never be infringed in any way for any reason...
A note on comments: Blacklist is on so if your post gets bounced, look for words of a sexual, pharmaceutical or gambling nature as culprits. If you are still having trouble, just email your comment to me and I'll post it myself into the comments. Also, it is not necessary to use a real email address to post and nothing need be entered in URL.
We'll confine this post to the Second Amendment. The First is covered in the previous post and on Wednesday we'll tackle the Third (in case any of you have had to provide housing for soldiers...) and Fourth.
Good Luck and have fun!
Most folks like myself think our Bill of Rights is almost more important than The Constitution because it actually enumerated the individual rights of the citizens of the new nation. Certainly, critics of The Consititution such as George Mason influenced James Madison to write the amendments that came to be known as the Bill of Rights.
Our founding fathers were wonderfully brief in their written creations (not so in the conventions that led up to them) but perhaps that brevity has resulted in much of the arguing and court interpretations that have hounded our rights ever since then.
This is the first of a series of posts that will give you the chance to straighten things out. How? Let's think of this as an exercise in "alternate universes" where you are a member of that first Congress held in New York City in March of 1789. And everyone speaks and writes as we do now.
Here is the original First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A couple rules apply however: All of the amendments are one sentence long (albeit some are rather long sentences). For the purposes of this series, I'll allow your entries to be TWO sentences long but you are confined to a maximum of 75 words (total for both); the original is only 45 words long. How would you have worded the First Amendment so that it couldn't be misinterpreted or could not have it's original meaning twisted by the courts? Would you add anything to it? Just tweak it for clarity?
You need to get the following points across including:
1) Freedom of or from religion.
2) What about the "seperation" of church and state often mentioned in modern court cases?
3) Freedom of speech and the press and all that it might cover.
4) In fact, what IS "speech" and "press"?
5) Freedom of protest.
6) What of any future government regulation of these ideas?
That's a lot to cover in just 75 words!
In this alternate universe you can pretend you are visionary and throw in clauses that might cover future developements in our society.
Let me give you an example or two. Someone on the far-right might word it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or the prevention of the discussion of our Christian roots in our schools and government buildings; or abridging the freedom of non-obscene speech, or of the legitimate press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, as long as it and any variation of it is never mentioned in our classrooms, our public venues, or our government institutions; or abridging the freedom of speech in any possible form of any possible subject, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, hold violent protests, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A note on comments: Blacklist is on so if your post gets bounced, look for words of a sexual, pharmaceutical or gambling nature as culprits. If you are still having trouble, just email your comment to me and I'll post it myself into the comments. Also, it is not necessary to use a real email address to post and nothing need be entered in URL.
Put your example at the top of your entry and then follow it with any comments you'd care to add.
I'd like to encourage readers from all sides of the political spectrum to participate. I'm not just looking for people who share my viewpoint. I would just ask that everyone respect each other's opinions. I'm not looking for flame wars although I certainly urge you to discuss each other's entries...
We'll confine this post to the First Amendment and immediately following it I'll have a post covering the Second Amendment.
Good Luck and have fun!
From my "Here's How It's Done" department, first the details From WFIE TV (FL):
A Florida great-great-grandmother says she's "not feeling real perky'' after shooting a would-be robber in the chest.Janet Grammer was filling in for the regular clerk Thursday in a Jacksonville convenience store when a gunmen burst in demanding money. The man waved his gun around and fired two shots at the back wall. The 64-year-old woman says he probably thought she "was an old woman and would just give him the money.''
But, she pulled a pistol from under the cash register and shot him in the chest. She fired two more shots as the man fled. A sheriff's report says the suspect went to a hospital a short time later. He's being treated for chest wounds and faces robbery charges.
I do think Campbell Brown tried a couple times to cast a story in a less than good light first by asking Grammer why she fired again after the suspect had started to flee. Grammer said (rightly) that she was still scared and let's face it, everything happened in a matter of seconds so it's not as if the she had given chase and followed the mutant out through the parking lot.
Campbell then asked the police officer with Grammer if he approved of her actions. He confirmed that it happened very quickly (the defensive shooting) but pointed out that -- yes -- she believed her life was in jeapardy and she had the right to shoot the criminal and he pointed out that she was the mother to ten children (etc.) and he understood her fear and actions completely.
Anyway, the story is in the 8:00 o'clock segment so those of you on the west coast can still catch it.
I am WAY behind in emails and stuff. Sorry about that.
Along with a spate of recent high-profile (media wise) shootings, there have also been a bunch of baseball bat attacks. We already know about the 13-year-old boy who killed a 15-year with one at a ballgame.
I was doing a search for "assault weapon" on Yahoo News and within the first 20 stories find one from Canada (#2) of a man killing his 78-year-old mother with a bat.
Then there was the story (#7) of two white skin-head gang members accused of attempted murder with a baseball bat on another gangbanger.
I was thinking (yeah, yeah, for a rare change) hmmm...; let's try a search for "assault baseball bat". I found incidents all over the country.
So... Should we register or license baseball bats? Should we make our schoolyards baseball bat-free zones? Should Chicago and Washington DC and San Francisco have outright bans on them?
Poor Mayor Daley of Chicago. He keeps trying to disarm law-abiding citizens and the Illinois Legislature keeps, er, shooting him down. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
Illinois lawmakers Thursday mowed down a series of major gun-control bills favored by Gov. Blagojevich and Mayor Daley during a marathon day of legislative sausage-making.[...]
By a 37-21 vote, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a National Rifle Association-backed package that would require purchasers at gun shows to undergo criminal background checks, force the State Police to destroy those background records after 90 days and scrap most local gun-control laws outside Chicago. That bill moves to the House, but its fate there appeared in doubt after House members rejected an identical NRA-backed bill by a 63-50 vote with 71 votes needed for passage.
The same lack of legislative choreography stymied a stripped-down bill favored by gun-control advocates that dealt strictly with the gun-show issue. By a 63-51 vote, the House approved and sent to the Senate legislation requiring criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, but the Senate shot down an identical measure 26-29, four votes shy of 30 needed for passage.
Separate efforts to hold gun makers liable for shooting deaths and injuries and to give towns the ability to declare gun shops public nuisances also lost in the Senate by 24-31 votes, six votes shy of the minimum needed for passage.
And finally, a bid to limit gun purchases to one a month collapsed on a 20-34 Senate roll call, with 30 votes needed for passage.
Attempts to institute an assault weapons ban, an initiative being pushed aggressively by Blagojevich, remained in legislative dry dock.
"Chicago Democrats run everything, and yet Chicago has prevailed on nothing," NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said.
Blagojevich praised the House for passing the gun show loophole bill and blocking the NRA's attempts to destroy background check information and undo local gun-control laws.
Do any of you have the specifics on that bill -- what it uses for definitions?
Sorry for the light posting. Hectic schedule at work and personal life have me on the run (and on the road). The Weekly Check will return next week. In the meantime, check out all the terrific blogs on my blogroll down the right side.
After that last rant, I need a good lie-down with a good book or magazine. I'll be back soon and until then: Thanks for stopping by!
Warning: Rant ahead...
I was in such a good mood and then I read a bunch of crap in the Boston Globe: A gun was stolen from a gun factory. By a mutant. A garbage-can writer for the Globe, Alan Wirzbicki, is either a liar or the most incompetent researcher reporter in the country. He writes this:
The facts of Danny Guzman's death are beyond dispute: The 26-year-old father of two from Worcester was cut down by a stray bullet fired outside of a nightclub on Christmas Eve in 1999.The gun used to kill him, police determined, was stolen from a local gun factory by an employee, a crack addict who supported his habit by trading half-finished guns for drugs and cash. The weapon was taken from an assembly line before it was stamped with a serial number, making it a hot commodity in the criminal underworld.
But while most of the details of the case are known, for Guzman's family, the search for justice in the shooting has been harder to find. The suspected gunman, Edwin Novas, remains at large. Kahr Arms, the small Worcester-based company that made the weapon, is fighting in court over whether it should share the blame for the homicide.
And a bill before Congress would shield the company, and others in the gun industry, from civil lawsuits like the one brought by the Hernandez family, on behalf of Guzman, the son of Juana Hernandez.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, would exempt gun dealers and manufacturers like Kahr from virtually all liability lawsuits involving gun deaths. Backers of the bill -- including most Republicans, several Democrats, and Senate minority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat -- say the law is necessary to protect the legitimate gun industry from an onslaught of what they consider baseless lawsuits.
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party,
but shall not include--(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions enumerated under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy.
So Alan Wirzbicki is apparently one of those liberal lying journalists who try to mislead the American public by leaving out important facts of the stories he "reports" on. He clearly said:
...would exempt gun dealers and manufacturers like Kahr from virtually all liability lawsuits involving gun deaths.
THIS is what we're up against, folks! Total LIES spread by the Fourth Estate about gun rights, gun legislation, and the Second Amendment. Most of the Main Stream Media is populated by leftist-liberal garbage that is LYING to their readers and listeners.
When totally biased writers like Wirzbicki misuse their journalistic writings to mislead and distort the facts of the stories they are reporting on, they are NO DIFFERENT than the crap that lies to people in mutant backworld nations such as China, Iran, Sudan, and any other totalitarian-ruled country.
Sorry for the rant but damn them to hell. If you are not telling the truth, you are a LIAR. It's that simple.
The weather is beautiful and I have a rare weekend off. So I'm throwing open the windows and having a sip of wine and curling up with my cats. Okay, that's way more than you wanted to know but what I really like to do on days like this is try to catch-up with the pulps. Pulps are those precious-few magazines left (mostly digest size) that still print sci-fi and mystery stories. Here's a photo from a post of mine from almost two years ago:
Magazines such as Ellery Queen and Alfred Hitchcock in the mystery field, and F&SF, Asimov's, and Analog in the sci-fi field represent the only remaining outlets for aspiring writers in these genres. They all print excellent short fiction and are a great deal for the money. All of them are struggling. In their hayday some of them had circulations of over 100,000 but now most of them are lucky to sell 50 thousand copies a month. Where else can you find a book-sized collection of first-rate fiction for only about $4.00 an issue, less if you subscribe, arriving in your mailbox 10 times a year?All of them welcome submissions (no agent needed!) and all have other features as well. I invite you to visit their websites:
The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction
Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine
Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine
Personally, I like the feel and pace of leisurely reading a book or especially a magazine. I urge you to pick one of these up at the local magazine shop (if they carry them) or at major chains such as Barnes & Noble which do distribute them. Support genre writers!
One other thing... Some (especially ex-smokers) might blanch at the cigarette pack in the picture. T.F.B. I smoke. I like to smoke. I will not apologize for smoking. Indeed, after eating a big, delicious, steaming chunk of lasagna, there's nothing like kicking-back with a cigarette. The only other blogger besides myself that is crazy sophisticated enough to smoke (or at least admit to it) is Acidman.
You know, I hate marching lock-step with all the goody-two-shoes of the world. I like to go my own libertarian way. And just as Kim du Toit sponsors National Ammo Day, I was thinking I'd do something for the radical smokers among us. If there can be a National Smoke-out Day then why not a National Smoke-in Day? Maybe I'll do that on my birthday this October (24th) and encourage folks to buy 'em and smoke 'em...
As for my taste in vodka, give me Smirnoff or give me death... And no sissy mixers please, just on the rocks with a slice of lemon.
Folks, you will be getting great reading by some of the very best authors in these fields delivered every month. They don't get much pay because these magazines can't afford to pay much. But they provide a much needed outlet for short fiction. Please visit the websites above and consider subscribing. Do you really want to only read stuff from a computer screen consuming who knows how many watts of power or would you rather lie-back on your sofa and relax with a friendly magazine of exciting fiction? Don't lie to me...
Please support the few remaining pulp magazines. I'm doing it this weekend.
My younger brother spends most of each year in Hawaii and he's back there now. That always makes me think of My Wide Blue Seas. I wish I could get in an airplane; I'd be there in a hurry...
Well, that's what I said a few posts ago. One of my valued readers emailed me to verify that -- not as a challenge, just for his peace of mind. I can't remember exactly where I had read that but I did a casual search this morning and came up with two sources that certainly indicate that the shooting sports are VERY popular indeed. From the NSSF:
1. How many individuals participate in target shooting each year?* There are 17.8 million active target shooters in the United States. Active target shooters are defined as having participated at least once in the past year. (Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 2001 ñ a nationwide survey of persons 6 years old and older).
* The most popular shooting sport among the general population is target shooting. Target shooting is defined as the net number of rifle and pistol target shooters.
* Over the last 10 years, there has been a 13.8% increase in overall participation levels in sporting clays. 3.3 million persons participated in sporting clays at least once in the past year. (Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 2001 ñ a nationwide survey of persons 6 years old and older).
* According to the SGMA, slightly older adults participate in pistol target shooting than participate in rifle target shooting. Most pistol target shooters are between the ages of 25 and 44 years old (SGMA, 2002).
Further confirmation, though, comes from a statement from the official site of the 2004 Olympics in Athens HERE:
Shooting is considered one of the most popular sports internationally. It requires good physical and psychological condition, as well as technical perfection. It is open to men, women and children of all ages for recreation. On the championship level, it is the only sport where you will see a great difference in age between competitors. For instance, Konstantin Lukashyk, a 17 year old competitor representing the Commonwealth of Independent States, won the gold medal in the Men’s 50m Pistol event at the Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992. The runner-up was the 58 year old Swedish competitor, Ragnar Skanaker, who had won the gold at the 1972 Munich Games and silver medals at the Los Angeles and Seoul Games (1984, 1988).
And I'll tell you something else, I'm sure such statistics about the number of folks who enjoy target shooting don't include all the "plinkers" like me. (Granted, most statistics also don't include every "pick-up" game of basketball...)
I realize that Alphecca sometimes seems like gun-bias all the time. I try to moderate that with other posts, not that they generate much comment, usually. I'm actually interested in lots of things besides media bias against firearms. Anyway, here's some interesting stuff I found at other blogs that DON'T involve guns...
One of the more unusual sites on my blogroll is Au Lait, a blog about what is happening in Japan (mostly) and the culture there.
Entropy Manor is afraid of violating Hosting Matters TOS if he reveals what he really thinks about Windows. Come to the light, Will, buy that MAC you've always dreamed about...
Over at Live From the Guillotine, a post that many women will identify with. And some gay guys too!
Meanwhile at Gay Orbit, Mike points out the Connecticut Governor's hypocrisy. Exactly. I slam "the left" pretty good here but it's "the right" that has been trying to twist our Constitution lately.
I'd encourage you all to randomly click the various bloggers on my blogroll and visit them. It's just to the right, scroll down and you'll find a bunch of folks who are much better than I am at this.
I own an S&W model 65 .357 magnum. I like it but it is "hard shooting" both in flip and recoil. Still, the .357 magnum is one of the most highly rated cartridges in terms of stopping-power.
I also used to own a Glock (I think it was a model 32) chambered in .357 Sig (a necked-down .40). I liked it because it seemed very easy to shoot. I eventually sold it because I needed money and because the ammo was so expensive. The "gelatin" statistics were comperable.
Just curious, which do you prefer?
Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has an op-ed in the Union Leader (NH) which says in part:
The message that more guns will solve our problems has been promoted relentlessly by the NRA and other elements of a fringe culture that believes not only in the right to bear arms as the most important bulwark against violent crime and government oppression, but that every citizen should prepare for armed confrontation.
The NRA alone has four million members. For each of them, there are ten more who don't belong but do own and in many cases carry firearms for self-defense.
How's it feel, folks, to be part of "the fringe"?
I've been told (I never use it myself) that my RSS feeds aren't working. This could be because I turned on Hosting Matter's Hot-Link protection. If you other bloggers in similar situations have any advice, such as which URLs I should be including in my "allowed list" to fix things, let me know here or via email. Thanks.
Once again the Christian Science Monitor has a totally illogical editorial concerning gun control. From yesterday's edition:
Gun violence remains a national tragedy. Look no further than the recent Columbine-style shootings in Red Lake, Minn. The FBI reports gun deaths in the US are rising - 14 percent between 1999 and 2003. Eight children a day are killed in this country by guns, according to the Centers for Disease Control.Yet even with such startling figures, and just six months after Congress shamefully allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains committed to supporting bills now pending in the House and Senate that would grant broad immunity from liability in civil lawsuits to gun manufacturers and dealers. Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island rightly calls that "an unprecedented blanket protection that no other industry enjoys." And worse, the bills apparently are on a fast track, with a vote expected soon.
In addition, the shotgun and handguns stolen and used were ordinary ones that fit absolutely no one's definition of an "assault weapon".
So the first paragraph of this editorial is totally gratuitous.
Then the CS Monitor DOES mention a story with some tenuous connection to the legislation:
One of the many problems with the bills: They include granting immunity to gun dealers who are reckless, some of whom even supply the criminal gun market. What's more, the civil damages claim brought by the families of victims in the 2002 D.C.-area sniper shootings could not have moved forward had these bills been law.The gun dealer who allowed the sniper to get an assault rifle paid $2 million in compensation to the victims families' when the case was settled, and the manufacturer paid half a million. The company that manufactured the gun agreed to improve its dealers' sales practices - to help prevent criminals from obtaining guns - an effort they'd not made before.
Further, the gun used in those shootings came from a Washington-State gun shop, which had no record of the sale or a background check, neither had it reported the gun missing. US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) audits showed the shop had somehow "lost" 238 other guns over a three-year period. Hardly a frivolous matter.
Suffice to say, once again the CS Monitor's argument falls apart when you shine a light (composed of the actual FACTS of the matter) upon it. Another disingenuous attempt to mislead or distort things in order to "scare" the public into calling for defeat of these bills. Shame on them.
[Note: The Thomas legislative website keeps changing the placement of bills so you might just want to go to the home page and search for bill S397 to find it.]
So I guess there's a big scandle up in Canada. Captain Ed has been providing wall-to-wall coverage of it and has become a source of information and commentary to many Canadians as well as Canadian Bloggers. That's important, you see, because the Canadian Attorney General has banned that country's media -- including bloggers there -- from commenting on the scandle.
Imagine if the Bush administration had tried to do that when everyone on the left in the media, blogosphere, and Democratic Party were going after Bush's "National Guard story"?
I was just wondering what all those leftist patriots who moved to Canada following Bush's re-election thought of their new homeland now?
Of course, the FEC is busy trying to make up for lost oppression here...
As if I didn't blather about it often enough, a good friend (blog-wise) of mine, Acidman, shows the confidence that comes with firearm possession when facing an unknown situation.
On the move, the new address for Pajama Pundits is here. So there!
Welcome to the April 5th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias by media against gun ownership and the Second Amendment. This report can't possibly be all inclusive; I just scan around to see what some news stories and editorials are saying about the issues involved.
To me, the big story was an article in Sunday's New York Times basically admitting that recently publicized shootings have actually increased the call for allowing less restrictions on civilian concealed carry. The story was certainly NOT anti-gun ownership. I discussed this a bit on Sunday of course but I'd like to examine some other points now. For instance:
Even supporters of gun control acknowledge that the atmosphere is sharply different than it was in 1999 when the nation's deadliest school shooting took place at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colo. Those shootings inspired gun-control proposals in Congress and in state legislatures, and forced gun advocates to retreat from legislation they hoped to pass, including a Colorado bill to allow concealed handguns.[...]
Supporters of gun control express hope for some of their legislation, particularly in Illinois, where Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, both Democrats, are pushing for background checks on all weapons sales at gun shows and a ban on assault weapons.
But they say their best chance now is to try to hold the line against more laws allowing concealed handguns. "We were very much more on the offensive after Columbine," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "It's just the way politics have worked. I hate to be in this position, but we are."
Instead of calling for new restrictions on guns after the Minnesota shootings, the coalition, which includes 45 groups, simply asked for "a dialogue on the role of firearms in America."
The Negatives:
The Positives:
One reason posited by the gun-grabbers for more states passing legislation to permit concealed carry is that "the atmosphere is different" these days. Yes it it! The American people who have eyes have seen that when you take away the guns from the normal, law-abiding residents, only the mutant criminals have guns. They are no longer buying the crunchy-granola line that "if we just ban all guns...". But some are still trying. Here's the opening paragraphs from the Times story:
Paul Bucher, the district attorney for the Wisconsin county where a man opened fire in a church service last month, killing seven people and himself, has one answer to the deadly mass shootings around the country in recent weeks: more guns."The problems aren't the guns, it's the guns in the wrong hands," said Mr. Bucher, a Republican who recently announced his candidacy for Wisconsin attorney general. "We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether having that would have changed what happened is all speculation, but it would level the playing field. If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."
Sometimes when you check which way the wind blows, you can get spun so fast you end up dizzy.I thought I'd check the wind conditions after reading Paul Bucher's remark in Sunday's New York Times:
The article begins by saying that Waukesha County District Attorney Bucher's answer to the deadly mass shootings around the country in recent weeks is more guns.
"Ridiculous," Bucher told me. "That's her (the reporter's) view of what I said. I never said that. It's not in quotes."
OK, he's right about that.
The first paragraph was followed by the second paragraph, which was in quotes:
"The problems aren't the guns, it's the guns in the wrong hands," said Mr. Bucher, a Republican who recently announced his candidacy for Wisconsin attorney general. "We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether having that would have changed what happened is all speculation, but it would level the playing field. If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."
Accurate? Yes, Bucher said.
Wouldn't the playing field be level and non-lethal if everybody stuck to fists and forgot about the guns altogether?
Laurel Walker's Barney-like statement that maybe if we all "stuck to fists" ignores the reality that criminals rarely if ever stick to their fists. Now, I'm not exonerating Bucher because his statements of the past (quoted in the article) clearly indicate that either HE knows which way the wind is blowing these days (and it isn't for stricter gun control laws) or he has had a genuine change of heart. He was against allowing concealed carry in Wisconsin just three years ago. Now he isn't:
"If I'm sitting in a room with 10 people and they don't have guns, I feel safer," he said then.My thoughts exactly. Everybody probably would be safer without fists, too, but even somebody who thinks we'd be better off with stronger gun control, not less, knows when she's gone too far.
Bucher said he doesn't recall the context of that 2003 statement, but "I favor concealed carry legislation. I have all along." Then, adding an "if," he said legislators should "stop and pause" and include a way to incorporate a warning system to protect police officers stopping gun-toting drivers.
Feeling a bit windblown by now, I told Bucher I thought it made more sense taking guns away from bad people than giving guns to every potential victim.
"I'll go along with that," he said. "If you can do that, I'm with you."
Now, this was interesting: In Arizona, the legislature passed a measure to allow what I interpret as a pro-gun course offered to that states' schools. From KVOA TV:
PHOENIX -- The Leg