Comments are Down, and Blogging Will be Light

I’m really busy, and there’s an shoot this weekend, so I’ve got a lot of ammo to load tonight and tomorrow.

Having said this, I did want to mention the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. They don’t fill me with confidence should they grant cert. to Silviera v. Lockyer. The majority has demonstrated that they don’t consider the Constitution as any kind of limit to their power. The 14th Amendment apparenty doesn’t mean what it says (University of Michigan decisions). On the other hand, they’re willing to use the 9th Amendment to recognize an unenumerated right of privacy, and use that to overcome the democratically passed laws of some states. The Founders did fear that, by enumerating some rights but not others, that future societies might denigrate the unenumerated rights.

In the case of the Second Amendment, we have an enumerated right that has been denigrated.

So here’s the question: If Silviera makes it to SCOTUS will they ignore the meaning of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of “public good?” Or will they decide that the Bill of Rights really means what it says, even if an individual right to arms means that bad things with guns can happen?

You can bet your ass it will be a “divided court” again. And O’Connor will probably be the swing vote.

If you wish to discuss this, e-mail me and I’ll put up the interesting ones in a post.

Dept. of “Kill all the Lawyers”

According to the Detroit News, Ford will no longer lease vehicles in the state of New York because of New York’s ah, unique liability laws.

It seems that the law in NY prevents lessors from being held responsible for accidents.

Ford cited a $1-million verdict against its consumer loan unit resulting from a suit by a girl whose father, while driving a leased car, ran over her while she was sunbathing.

Well, hell, that was obviously Ford’s fault.


I Wasn’t Going to Comment on This Member of the Deep Space Nine, But… (Thanks to Charles Austin who’s filling in for Dodd over at Ipse Dixit for the oh-so-apt allusion.)

Well, I won’t, really. I’ll just repeat what Glen Reynolds said.

When Gephardt said during a C-Span televised rally:

“When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.”

I didn’t find it surprising at all. As Glen said:

“Gephardt’s not a constitutional ignoramus, or an incipient dictator. He’s just your standard-model lying politician!”

Woohoo! That gets my vote.


In Other Words, LIE

Our friends at have some Suggestions for Discussing Gun Safety with Other Parents:

Emphasize your child’s curious nature:

“You know, my Timmy is so curious. He has the easiest time opening things that even I have a hard time with. It seems every time I turn around, he’s got the TV remote opened and the batteries are spilling out all over the place.”

Perhaps you should keep a closer eye on little Timmy, then. What if he gets into the kitchen where the knives are?

Localize the issue:

“I just heard the most amazing thing. Did you know that 39 percent of homes have firearms in them? That means a number of houses on our block (may have firearms). It’s frightening to think that there are that many guns around.”

If THAT bothers you, my house would give you the willies.

Set the example:

“My pediatrician convinced me that we had to do something with our gun. It was easy. Now we keep our gun empty, and locked up in a gun safe, with the ammunition locked elsewhere. It feels more responsible.”

Really? Your pediatrician? And he got his gun training from….? What kind of gun to you have? Sporting-clays shotgun? Deer rifle? No? A 9mm handgun you bought for self-protection? Lots of good that bad boy’s going to do you if you need it in the middle of the night, huh? “Sorry, Mr. Burglar, can you wait until I unlock the gun safe, unlock the ammo, and get this thing loaded?” Since it’s useless to you, I’d offer to buy it, but I’m not all that enamored of the 9mm Europellet. Have you considered a quick-access safe? Oh, right, precocious Timmy. Well, how about wearing the gun during the day, and then putting it in the quick-access safe at night while you sleep?

Make it a joint effort:

“You know, I feel good that Timmy and his friends won’t stumble on a gun in my house. I’d never forgive myself if a child got shot while playing here. That makes me realize that I hope the same thing is true at his friends’ houses. So I’ve decided to ask everyone about it even though I feel a little funny (awkward) asking. I hope you won’t feel funny (uncomfortable) when I ask you if you have a gun and if so whether it is properly stored (or how you store it).”

No, I don’t feel funny (uncomfortable) at all. If you’re that worried about it, keep little Timmy at home. I don’t need him prowling around my house, taking my remote controls apart, and looking for my guns. Oh, and here’s a nice sign for your front yard:

Rest assured, if I hear any screaming coming from your house in the middle of the night, I won’t get my gun and come over to see what’s happening. I’ll just let the police handle it. That’s what they’re for, right?

Dept. of Oh for Jebus’s Sake:

From the Seattle Post (lack of) Intelligencer comes this little op-ed, Gun recklessness should be a crime

One of the reasons commonly given for legislators repeatedly blocking a bill to punish adults for unsafe storage of firearms is that the existing reckless endangerment law is sufficient to protect children.

Yes, it’s always for the Children

We’ll see.

The test will come with the case of Amy Levitt, a Kirkland woman alleged to have been so careless with her .357 Magnum revolver that she didn’t note its absence for two weeks and blithely accepted her 12-year-old son’s denial that he had taken it.

Police say the boy had taken the pistol all right — taken it to school, and many times. They say he brought it to A.G. Bell Elementary School, pointed the loaded pistol at other kids’ heads and threatened to kill the principal.

The boy faces 10 criminal charges in juvenile court, including assault and felony harassment. Levitt faces at least one charge herself: reckless endangerment, a gross misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

That would seem the minimum punishment for someone whose behavior is so careless, so reckless, as to allow so many children to be put at risk. Is it enough to deter unsafe firearms storage?

Perhaps the Kirkland case will make the case against the need for firearm-specific legislation. It may also make the case that existing law is deficient.

We know this much: If this sort of reckless treatment of a lethal weapon is not a crime, it sure should be. And the Legislature should make it so.

(All emphasis mine.)

OK, what do we have here? Morons. And so is Ms. Levitt. Let’s get this straight – she can receive a YEAR IN JAIL and a $5K fine, but THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO DETER HER FROM BEING A MORON. Noooooo, we need a bright & shiny NEW LAW that will make it REALLY, REALLY illegal to be a moron. THAT will stop people from being stupid! THAT will make them lock up their guns that we shouldn’t allow them to have, but can’t prevent because of that useless pesky Second Amendment thing.

Get this straight, members of the Seattle P.I. editorial board: Laws like this punish people after the fact. They aren’t going to prevent stupid people from being stupid, even if you threaten them with death.

And they aren’t going to make them good parents, either.

So This Means I Have About 22 Regular Readers?

Of course, there’s probably some regulars among the “Only ISP” and “Miscellaneous” groups, too.

Thank’s, y’all!

What Do You Think Dachau and Auschwitz WERE?

Artist: Mike Ramirez, LA Times.

And what do you think all those mass graves represented?