Month: May 2003

Wait…That Didn’t Come Out Right…

On a lighter note, the Associated Press reports that Kelly Hu, last seen as Lady Deathstrike in X2: X-Men United, is now performing “The Vagina Monologues”. Says Hu:

“I don’t even move off the stool. It’s a totally different thing going on for me – a totally different muscle to exercise…”

Ahem. There goes one fantasy….

I Thought School was OUT for Summer

According to Sitemeter, the last four visitors came from the servers of: Michigan State University, Southern Illinois University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes, and Washington State University.

Am I a source of interest to academics for some reason?

Steven Den Beste Weighs in on the Dimensions of Political Belief

In another excellent logical analysis, Den Beste disassembles an essay by Michael Totten that expounds on the “Left/Right” divide, by explaining that Mr. Totten’s linear scale is erroneous. Political beliefs are multidimensional, and in Steven’s piece he tries to analyse just how many degrees-of-freedom (ain’t that an accurate term) describe the space of political belief.

Money quote:

This is where Michael’s argument, based on a single axis, breaks down. The people he refers to as “liberals” aren’t liberal. For lack of a better term, we’ll have to call them “leftists” for the moment. The vocal leftist movement which has been revealed in the last year in the US manifests as being elitist (i.e. not liberal), idealistic (not realistic) and conformist (not tolerant). There’s a lesser dedication to equality (over inequality) but it’s not totally consistent because it is a side effect of a basic choice of groups over individuals and to some extent of socialism over capitalism. And within the US right now, they’re revolutionaries because they strongly disagree with the status quo. It is because they are revolutionaries that we tend to categorize them as being “leftist”; it has nothing to do with liberalism as such (especially since they aren’t liberal).

Excellent piece. Go read.

And You Should Rely On the Government that Disarms You….Why? Followup.

Another nod to Kim du Toit for this link concerning recent shootings in New York City

FEELING LUCKY, PERP?

That’s the choice New York’s mindlessly enforced gun laws force upon otherwise law-abiding people.

Consider:

* Mohammed Dramy, a 40-year-old Gambian immigrant, was shot dead Tuesday during an apparent robbery in Harlem.

The perpetrator is still at large.

* Meanwhile, two bodega employees, Jose Acosta, 69, and Victor Alejandro, 23, are alive following an attempted armed robbery the same day.

And it’s a perp who’s dead.

Sadly, Acosta and Alejandro are now charged with criminal possession of a weapon.

As three armed would-be robbers entered their store waving guns, Acosta pulled out a .22-caliber pistol, fatally shooting one; the others escaped.

Now, Acosta and Alejandro are looking at jail time.

Which is better than being dead.

But is it fair? Of course not.

Should they have sought a gun permit?

Yes, but the complicated application process in New York City dissuades people from applying.

At best, it takes six months to get a so-called “premises” permit for one’s home or business. And now it appears that the city has sharply reduced the number of licenses it approves.

Meanwhile, the bad guys have no trouble whatsoever finding weapons – and they never will, no matter how many gun-control laws are passed.

Acosta and Alejandro face a trial for using an unlicensed weapon to defend their business – indeed, their very lives.

Even so, they’re better off than Mohammed Dramy.

All things being equal, Acosta and Alejandro need to be let off the legal hook.

And New York needs to reform its gun laws.

And this doesn’t even mention the case of Ronald Dixon. The prosecutor in that case made sure that Mr. Dixon wouldn’t get a jury trial by reducing (but not dropping) the charges to a point at which Mr. Dixon is not entitled to a jury trial. I guess he’s still afraid of jury nullification. Mr. Dixon’s story has dropped into oblivion since March. I have no idea what the outcome (if any) was.

Last Entry on the Johns Hopkins Gun Lawsuit “Fact” Sheet

I started this series here, and continued it here. I thought I’d go ahead and finish it. I’m only going to discuss one last “Myth/FACT” from this “striver”:

Myth:The Lawsuits are simply designed to bankrupt the gun industry.

FACT:The lawsuits are actually designed to change the way gun makers design and market their products.

I guess no longer designing or marketing qualifies as “changing the way” it’s done.

In fact, the lawsuit filed by the NAACP doesn’t even ask for money damages, just changes in the way manufacturers do business.

But as I’ve pointed out, it isn’t necessary that the gun control groups win. The gun manufacturing industry isn’t that big. The NAACP lost its lawsuit, but not before the trial ran FIVE WEEKS. How much did the legal fees run? All the case preparation? And that’s one trial.

The gun-control lawyers have deep pockets – yours. Remember, 13 cities sued the gun industry. Your tax dollars at work. Suits brought by individuals and organizations are funded either by lawyers already rich from tobacco settlements or funded by chairitable organizations (according to Overlawyered.com) such as: The George Gund Fund, The Joyce Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott, Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, Eugene & Agnes Meyer Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the YWCA, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the National Urban League. The gun manufacturers don’t have those resources. How would you like it if your business was sued in 13 different jurisdictions? How long do you think you could keep your doors open under that kind of financial stress? Even getting to the point where the cases get thrown out is expensive.

Go ahead, pull my other leg. That hound don’t hunt. But it drops a fine striver.

Give Up Your Guns. It Will Make You Safer. No, Really!!

Safer for the guys who are coming to oppress or kill you.

Instapundit provides a link to this Strategy Page report:

Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe is surreptitiously arming his war veterans and violent youth brigades with guns so that they can crush the planned street protests to topple his regime next week.

Army sources promised chaos and bloodshed on a scale never seen before, if protesters tried to march into Mugabe’s official residence in Harare.

And the eUNnuchs will sit and wring their hands and, at most send in some people to take a guess at how many died. If Mugabe lets them in.

Yup. We should really get behind the UN’s plans to ensure that only legitimate governments have small-arms. Sure we should.

Q: Shouldn’t it be illegal?

A: Only if you are a Puritan and afraid that someone, somewhere is having fun.

This looks like WAY too much fun: The Palouse Practical Shooters Boomer Shoot!

Great website, too. Thanks to reader Ry for the link.

At the quarterly Arizona AR15.com shoots a lot of binary Tannerite gets used, but nobody uses ANFO.

Idaho, eh? I don’t have a 700 yard capable rifle – yet. But when I do, I might have to make a road trip.

You Like Me! You Really Like Me!

Or at least I’m apparently not yet loathed.

Perusing my Sitemeter data, I see I’ve gotten 36 hits just today, and some of you have spent some not inconsiderable time perusing the site. I also note a significant fraction of visitors come from .edu sites. Interesting. College students? (STILL curious as to who’s repeat visiting from the Johns Hopkins server.) I’m still waiting for my first hatemail for true validation, though.

Is anybody besides me and Jack reading our debate over on The Commentary? (Permalinks aren’t working there.) Jack pointed out in his last post that my two-part “Blog that Ate Poughkeepsie” post ran over 10,000 words. Oy. Please tell me I’m reaching a wider audience than one. Please.

And You Should Rely On the Government that Disarms You….Why?

Kim du Toit links to this story:

CS SPRAY MAN FACES LEGAL ACTION

I acted in self-defence says disabled robbery victim

A DISABLED man who used CS spray to fight off a robber is now facing the threat of legal action.

Wheelchair-bound Nicholas Ashworth, aged 22, sprayed his alleged attacker in the face with the CS spray.

He then climbed out of his wheelchair and limped across the road as the man screamed in pain. A passing police patrol spotted him in distress and stopped at the scene. Officers then arrested both men.

Why arrest both, you might ask?

A police spokesman said that they were investigating the illegal use and possession of CS spray.

That’s right! You can’t carry mace! Or pepper spray! Or anything else the State considers an “offensive weapon” – even if you use it in self-defence as this poor guy did. England – where it’s safe to be a mugger, or a home invader, or a carjacker, or…

Read the whole story.

Dig Out Your Wallets

I’m not going to do this except on extremely rare occasions, but here I feel I must. Keepandbeararms.com has a fund drive for the Silveira v. Lockyer appeal to the Supreme Court, and here’s their 10 reasons SCOTUS should hear the case:

(1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 — 64 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard.

(2) There are conflicts between federal circuit courts that need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore, six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they thought Judge Reinhardt’s ruling on the Second Amendment was wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one hundred years.

(3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused primarily on the commerce clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

(4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete but for minor edits and additions. Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense. It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation.

(5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles, and develops the points succinctly.

(6) Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and constitutionally wrong be overruled.

(7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v. Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the “individual right” amendments have been ruled as applying to the states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens freedom of the press, because they are protected by the First Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against themselves, because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.

(8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most-reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt.

(9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e., what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously calls “assault weapons”, are reserved for trial by the Silveira certiorari petition, since there has been no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions raised by the Silveira certiorari petition — that is, does the Second Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states? And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years. The Court will have to deal with them — and we believe they will deal with them now, rather than later.

(10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made no progress at all for individual Second Amendment rights until Emerson. Every effort is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that maximize prospects for success.

If this means anything to you, go over to their site. Go to the bottom of the page AND DONATE.

This is the best chance we have to get the question answered – are we or are we not still a nation of the rule of law? SCOTUS can, once again, dodge the bullet, but this is the best case we’ve ever had. And the NRA isn’t being helpful here.