Month: July 2003

THIS Got the Secret Service’s Panties in a Wad?

(Mike Ramirez, LA Times)

I like this one, too:

Of course, in this one Bush is holding the gun.

Don’t those Secret Service guys have anything better to do?

Civilian Disarmament Proceeds Apace in the UK

According to this BBC story

Gun permits at all-time low

The number of firearms and shotgun certificates issued in Scotland has dropped to its lowest recorded level, new figures show. There were just under 80,000 certificates at the end of 2002, a drop of nearly 4,000 from the previous year.

But the number of legally-held weapons rose slightly from 2001, according to a report from the Scottish Executive.

So there are 4,000 fewer permit holders but more gun owners with “arsenals?”

According to the 2001 census, the population of Scotland was about 5,062,000 of which about 3.8 million were above the age of 19 and eligible for a firearm or shotgun certificate. That means the percentage of legal owners is just about 2% of the eligible population. And declining.

More on the NYC City Council Shooting

According to this KeepandBearArms.com article, Councilman James E. Davis was carrying a concealed weapon, but didn’t have a chance to draw it. The CNN story linked reports

Davis was known to carry a licensed gun, but was unable to draw the weapon

(“See! See! Concealed weapons are useless for self defense!” shrill the gun control groups.)

The KABA.com piece does raise the valid question: If Mr. Davis was opposed to gun violence and in favor of gun bans, why did he have a gun?

The CNN piece also continues with the comments of Mr. Davis’s brother, Geoffrey:

“The system killed my brother,” he shouted. “Just the same way they killed Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, the system knew that my brother would continue fighting for the betterment to stop violence. That’s who killed my brother. The system.”

No, Mr. Davis. Mr. Askew killed your brother.

Unless it was those invisible brain-altering psychosis-inducing waves that guns give off…

More on the D.C. Gun Ban

I covered the introduction of Sen. Orrin Hatch’s bill to repeal the D.C. gun ban here, and pointed you to Publicoa’s coverage of it here. Now the Cato Institute responds. Excerpts:

In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.

—

Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.

—

Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing “to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case,” denied the NRA’s motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch’s D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.

Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he’s so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, “If we can’t control the litigation, there will be no litigation.”

Tuesday in response to a Randy Barnette piece, I said “Perhaps the NRA’s maneuverings aren’t as self-serving as they often appear to be.”

Then again, perhaps they are. Hanlon’s Razor says “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” However, the NRA leadership has never struck me as stupid. The jury, at least for me, remains out.

You Need to Read This

I’m STILL struggling through Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (after the first 350 pages it’s either getting better no other option or I’m getting numb) but one of the points she bludgeons into a bloody pulp makes is absolutely true, and still relative – as illustrated by Randy Barnette’s most recent post to GlennReynolds.com. Excerpt:

As you probably know, the idea that truth is “socially constructed” has been in vogue in academia for some time. I never took it that seriously and only mention it in passing in The Structure of Liberty. I did not think very many people could possibly believe it, or at least believe that, if true, it had any practical implications. Hey, even if the world is socially constructed, if we cannot willfully reconstruct it as we prefer, then it’s pretty much as irrelevant as the old speculations that we are just a brain in a vat or that the universe exists in a drop on some cosmic chemist’s workbench.

Since the 2000 election, however, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world — a world where “truth” is their own construction.

Go read the whole thing.

And think. Hard.

Dept. of Our Collapsing Schools

I found this by way of Caerdroia. Sung to the tune of Gilbert & Sullivan’s “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General”:

I am the very model of an Education Minister;

My arguments are tortuous, my motivation sinister;

But though my plans are ropy, and my reasons even ropier,

I’m laying the foundations of a socialist utopia.

I’m well aware the arguments the Tories use to blame us is

that schools without competition will foster ignoramuses.

But tolerating independent schools will be hypocrisy

since freedom’s incompatible with genuine democracy.

I want to see that everyone learns socialism properly,

and this is only possible inside a state monopoly;

All schools that I don’t recognise will therefore be prohibited

and any private tutors will be flogged or even gibbeted.

All middle-class morality I promise to eliminate;

Exams I shall abolish, since they certainly discriminate;

A college with a vacancy selecting its own candidate

will quickly wish it hadn’t, when it finds I have disbanded it.

I’ll throw away all covenants and charters international

with which I disagree, and which must therefore be irrational;

I short, in all of Europe from the Parthenon to Finisterre

I’ll be the most intolerant, intolerable Minister.

It would be funny if it weren’t apparently true.

It isn’t Paranoia if They ARE Out to Get Ya!

Sitemeter let’s you look at quite a bit of data for free. One thing it tells me is that about 1% of my visitors come from the server at Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP (Hi there!!) and among the services provided by Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP is “Intellectual Property Litigation.” In fact, they say:

Our litigators also have expertise in the area of intellectual property. Our attorneys in the department have had extensive experience in litigating claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition in both federal and state courts, and claims under the Copyright Act. We have also represented clients in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark office. In addition, we have developed expertise in the areas of false advertising, trade secrets and theft of ideas litigation, rights of privacy and publicity, and libel and slander (both individual and trade libel or disparagement).

Should I be worried?

BOHICA! (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)

It would appear from initial reports that someone, either a council member or someone accompanying a council member, managed to get into the New York City City Hall and opened fire on one or more councilmembers. Security guards returned fire, at least a dozen rounds were fired, and at least two people were hit. One, councilman James E. Davis has died. Mr. Davis was heavily involved in gun control. According to this Fox News report, he was speaking to the shooter when the man drew and opened fire. According to this MSNBC report the shooter targeted one person and shot him several times (I assume the victim was Davis.)

As of this moment, the situation is extremely confused. The second person hit has also reportedly died, and is the shooter. Police are apparently still looking for a man in a blue suit. (In NYC? Please!)

Mayor Bloomberg has stated that the act wasn’t terrorism, but how he’d know is beyond me.

Apparently the shooter was able to sneak a handgun past the metal detectors and kill a gun control proponent.

Wanna bet the gun control groups use this incident to fight for renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban?

Update: Reports are now that the shooter, one Clarence Askew, is dead, and that Davis shot him, or, alternately, a security guard did. Apparently they came in together, and neither had to go through a metal detector. Odd.

I think I scooped Instapundit on this one.

Further update. Reports that Davis fired back are apparently in error. The perp was killed by security.

More: Here’s the AP release on the incident. More of the same.

Oh, Sure. This’ll Work.

Emasculated England Dept.

Reuters reports that those wacky Brits are considering a new tactic in the fight against crime, asking the criminals to apologize in order to avoid court.

Criminals could avoid being taken to court if they agree to apologize personally to their victims, under plans outlined by the UK government Tuesday.

The proposals — dubbed “restorative justice” — could see offenders held to account by their victims, in some cases by-passing the court system, Home Secretary David Blunkett said.

“Supporting victims and witnesses better is not just about what happens in the courtroom, it is also about the impact that crime has on their lives,” he added in a statement.

“Being a victim of crime can be a harrowing and traumatic experience…Restorative justice means victims can get an apology from their offender.

“It (also) provides the victim with an explanation of why the crime was committed.”

Doesn’t that just make you feel good? Isn’t that just caring and spiritual?.

The announcement comes just a week after figures showed a 28 percent rise in violent crime in England and Wales over the past year.

The data also showed a 16 percent increase in drug-related crime, although overall crime dropped by two percent.

The Home Office said the initiative would target offenders guilty of anti-social behavior as part of a wider strategy to put victims at the center of the criminal justice system.

It will be used to keep some offenders away from court, as well as being tied into sentencing and probation conditions, a spokesman said.

The scheme brings victims and offenders into contact, either face-to-face or through a mediator. As well as helping victims, restorative justice “forces offenders to understand the damaging effect their crimes have on their victims,” the spokesman said.

The Chief Executive of charity Victim Support, Dame Helen Reeves, said the strategy was good news for victims of crime.

“This strategy brings the promise of statutory rights for victims…which should bring substantial benefits for people whose needs have too often been overlooked in the past,” she said.

How about caning for “anti-social behavior.” Then the perp can apologize.

Spoons was right.