Now that the U.S. has established the precedent of sending a hit squad into another country to kill those wanted for planning and implementing acts which resulted in the deaths of our citizens I wonder if the Mexican government will consider that justification for doing the same to those responsible for sending firearms to drug cartels in Mexico.
Category Archives: Politics
Quote of the day—sandwichwarrior
Mr. Huffman is what many liberals would charitably call a Right-wing-militia nut. He is sufficiently infamous that a certain member of this community has linked to news articles about him and others as proof of a nascent right-wing terrorist movement.
sandwichwarrior
April 26, 2011
Democracy vs Totalitarianism: Hiding Godwin in the closet.
[There are more howlers in the comments. I’ll post another tomorrow.—Joe]
It’s about time
The wolves have been devastating both private livestock and wildlife in Idaho for many years now. At the local level people have been taking things into their own hands for quite some time with the consent of the local law enforcement. We now have support at the state and national level to deal with the problem:
Gov. Butch Otter signed a bill that declares a disaster emergency due to the number of wolves in the state — even though he disputes that the Legislature should have the authority to declare such an emergency.
“The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing,” the bill says. “…it is the intent of the legislature to regulate the presence of Canadian gray wolves in Idaho in order to safeguard the public, wildlife, economy and private property against additional devastation.”
Thanks must also be given to the NRA as well for all the effort they put into protecting our families, our livestock and the wildlife of Idaho.
Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy
No. that’s absolutely not true. I’ve been working on gun issues for the last 14 years, since I’ve been in Congress. This is something I’m passionate about, as much as they are passionate about say their Second Amendment rights.
We’re not dealing about guns here. We’re dealing about a piece of equipment that goes to the gun. I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen. They will be available to our military. They will be available to our police officers.
Carolyn McCarthy
January 11, 2011
McCarthy To Propose Ban On High-Capacity Ammo
In response to the question, “What would you say to gun rights supporters who may be listening to you and feeling that you’re politicizing this rather extreme tragedy to push the bill that you’re describing?”
[Notice that she doesn’t answer the question other than, “No. That’s absolutely not true.” No evidence, no logic, just vigorous assertion.
Further notice that she apparently thinks “weapons of mass destruction” should be available to police officers. Or she is lying when she says, “large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction”. And/or she has crap for brains.
And of course the headline writer thinks there is such a thing as “High-Capacity Ammo”.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Mike Barkley
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.
2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’
Mike Barkley
Candidate for Congress
April 17, 2011
Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[As if natural law can be “repealed”.
He also ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and said Bill of Rights was a requirement for the agreement to enter into the Union. Hence if the 2nd Amendment were to be “repealed” would that mean that the states are no longer bound by the agreement to be a part of the union?
Of course he ignores the little problem of the majority of the people in this country support the existence of the 2nd Amendment. And finally he seems clueless that there are many states that would consider such an act sufficient grounds to have another civil war.
This is just a reminder that there are people out there that explicitly say they do want to destroy the 2nd Amendment.—Joe]
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1
This started out as a comment at Tam’s post about target marketing fail while waiting for Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 but grew to the point I figured it should be a post of my own.
Son James made a very similar “target audience” fail remark during the previews about different movies at our location as well.
James has read the book three times and I read it once then listened to the unabridged audio version once (yes, Galt’s eight hour monologue actually takes eight hours). We both liked the movie but had some minor criticisms about the movie skipping over some points too rapidly for “newcomers” to really understand the points being made.
We both really liked that the sex scene with Dagny was not the way Rand always portrayed an ideal man/woman relationship.
The scene wife Barbara liked best was where the guy wanted Rearden’s money but asked Rearden’s name not associated with the donation.
I agree with the commenters who said the casting of James Taggert was a little off.
I was uncomfortable with a train going 250 MPH on those curves with the passengers standing up. Sorry, but I don’t think they ran the numbers through the physics equations before they filmed those scenes. And the curves had better have some appropriate slope to them to keep the train from rolling over or pushing the tracks off the railway bed.
Overheard in bed last night
Paraphrasing just a little…
Joe: So what is the Tea Party protest sign you were talking about with James and Xenia?
Barb: Xenia is going to carry one that says, “Refresh the tree of liberty.”
Joe: That’s a little over the top. I wouldn’t carry one like that.
Barb: It was John’s idea.
Joe: Xenia’s a big girl and can make her own decisions. That she is a young woman and John is in the military helps some.
Barb: I wonder what sign they will make for me.
Joe: Probably it will be something like, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
Here is a picture of son James and daughter Xenia at the protest in Olympia Washington today:
Quote of the day—Milton Friedman
Inflation is taxation without legislation.
Milton Friedman
[I was reminded of this by David and it being April 15th.—Joe]
Quote of the day—President Obama
I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.
President Obama
March 30, 2011
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
[This was a comment to Sarah Brady as she remembers it. I don’t know if this was accurately related and a serious comment or a platitude from an expert politician. Certainly Obama has the background to qualify this as extremely serious but actions speak louder than words and from the Brady Campaign viewpoint his actions have been minimal at best.
He and his administration deserves to be watched very, very closely.
H/T to Dave Hardy.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Arnold Toynbee
America’s foreign policy is like a large friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.
Arnold Toynbee
[Toynbee died in 1975 but I see no recent evidence sufficient to correct that observation.—Joe]
Bill Clinton
In an interview discussing his support for arming the Libyan rebels, Bill Clinton was quoted:
“We’re trying to build a world in which people resolve their differences
in nonviolent ways,” he said. “And we’re trying to build a world where
no ruler can cavalierly kill its unarmed civilians.”
Quote of the day—Ed Meese
You couldn’t even prove the White House staff sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ed Meese
On the Hinckley verdict regarding the shooting of President Regan.
[I should have posted this on March 30, the 30 year anniversary of the shooting, but I forgot about it.
While there is a great deal of hyperbole in this quote it does have a grain of truth.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Karl Marx
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.
Karl Marx
[In this age with both state and Federal government collapsing from the weight of “entitlements” I find the irony of this funny in a very sad, sick sort of way.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Brad Kozak
Operation Down-Low began over a friendly game of Horse at the White House, between members of the Fox News White House detail, the Secret Service and the President. After several beers and bumps, the President was encouraged to consider the option to offer an olive branch to the right and join the NRA. The following morning, it was made clear to the President that he had indeed bet Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler that if he lost, he would join the NRA.
Goler won the game by three points. While the President strongly protested, NRA negotiators pointed out that there was video of both the bet and the game itself, and that the President would lose his core constituency of black voters if word got out that he not only welched on a bet, but did so with a fellow homeboy.
Brad Kozak
April 1, 2011
Obama Joins the NRA
[I don’t usually get into the April 1st stuff (there are exceptions), but I thought this was pretty good.—Joe]
H222 (Idaho Campus Carry) Senate Hearing
During the hearing on H222 one senator suggested that campus carry was an “intellectual exercise”.
This bill was not an intellectual exercise for any of the people who supported it. I do not believe that I can explain our motivations better than the following excerpt from the case of State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008) (emphasis added):
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The district court sentenced Payne to death for the murder of Samantha Maher after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering Maher.
On July 6, 2000, Payne abducted Maher from Julia Davis Park in Boise. That morning, he left his home as if to go to work, even kissing his wife goodbye, but instead drove to the park. Payne had with him a loaded .22 Ruger and several recent purchases: handcuffs, latex gloves, detailed maps and atlases of Oregon, and camping gear. Payne approached Maher around 10:15 that morning as she was arriving for her class at Boise State University. Carrying the handgun, Payne forced Maher into the front seat of her car. He then handcuffed her wrists and drove her car to an unknown location. After sexually assaulting her, Payne raped Maher, leaving bruises, cuts and scrapes on her face, back, and buttocks. After the rape, Payne placed the handgun at the back of Maher’s head and shot her. Payne then placed Maher’s body in the back seat of her car and drove to his rented home, a former dairy farm, near Nampa. He disposed of her body by dumping it in a concrete drainage tank containing water and debris near one of the barns on the property. He went into his home, ate some left-over pizza, and left a note under a bed pillow for his wife. He took Maher’s keys and purse containing her credit cards and drove to the Oregon coast and then on to Eugene, Oregon the next day.
Quote of the day—Sandro Rettinger
I’ve decided I really am a heartless bastard about it, though. Screw the old people. Kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid entirely. “But we made a promise! We have to honor that!” people will screech. Fuck that noise. Old people made an agreement with the politicians of their day to pay in 5 cents on the dollar on the premise that I’d make up the difference now that they’re at an age where they’d like to retire. They’re welcome to find those politicians and demand their retirement of them. It’s not my problem. They counted on the promises of government when they could have fought to disband the whole fraud before it was catastrophic.
Sandro Rettinger
March 24, 2011
Comment to Our Economic Titanic,
[I’m inclined to at least partially agree with Sandro. There isn’t much else that can be done at this point.
But most of the politicians responsible are dead and there isn’t much money you can squeeze out of a dead politician. I suppose we could put a crater where their grave is and dump sewage into the hole. But as Heinlein pointed out such activities provide “only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about”.—Joe]
Some people are more equal than others
As near as I can determine these people believe that if you can convince your state legislators to assert rights guaranteed to the individual states by the Tenth Amendment you are not a legitimate part of the political process. Apparently only those people that advocate for the infringement of states rights are legitimate.
They haven’t publically proposed a punishment yet but I suspect they have thought about it.
Here is a sample:
The UA researchers identified what they termed the “Commerce Battering Ram Strategy,” a legal-political apparatus that “private lawmakers” – unelected individuals who thrust themselves into the political process – have developed to harness states’ legal powers in an attempt to break open federal laws.
“Using the Tenth Amendment as its core log, a Commerce Battering Ram mobilizes states to challenge the federal government,” Orbach said, adding that legislation and litigation are key to such mobilization.
In effect, individuals within the movement attempt to propel as many state laws as possible toward weakening the government’s control of guns, the research team said.
…
While it would appear that individuals within the movement are merely exercising their legal rights as citizens of the United States and participating in the democratic process, Orbach, Callahan and Lindemenn all argue that that use of battering rams “is not equivalent to legitimate participation in the democratic process.”
“Commerce Battering Ram”? That sounds like a phrase straight from Josh Sugarmann’s playbook like “assault weapon”.
More to the Idaho campus carry story
We lost on bill H222 in the senate committee but there is still a lawsuit in progress.
I received the following email from Michael C. Brown of ISSA this morning which gives us a little more info as to what was said at the hearing. I find it exceedingly interesting stuff:
The Senate state affairs committee voted 6-3 to kill H222. Several senators who had answered surveys saying they would support the bill voted to kill it. I have attached the testimony that I gave since you won’t hear a word about it in the media. More later:
—-
I would like to clarify a couple of points about H222 where there apparently is some confusion:
This bill does not “allow” guns on college campuses. This bill does not change current law about where someone may carry a firearm. The colleges and universities have chosen to implement policies banning firearms on their campuses that purport to regulate members of the university community as well as members of the public with no connection to the institution. They are merely policies and as such have no force of law.
These campuses are public property owned by the people of Idaho not by the regents or trustees and not by the state board. The people, in Article 1 Section 11 of the state constitution have described how and by whom they want carry on their property regulated. That provision states, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged…” The only exception to the guarantee which is pertinent here is a grant of power to the legislature: “this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person;…”.The Idaho courts have not construed this provision since it was amended in 1978 but in 1902 the Idaho Supreme Court found that a statute that broadly prohibited carrying firearms violated both the previous (weaker) language of art 1 sec 11 and also the second amendment to the United States constitution (it took the US Supreme Court another 106 years to reach a similar conclusion). To quote from that opinion: “Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages. The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it.” In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609 (1902).
The purpose of this bill is to clarify exactly what authority public colleges and universities in Idaho have to regulate firearms on their campuses. This legislation represents the first specific grant of authority to an institution of higher education to regulate firearms (in dorms only) since 1889. While the regents of the University of Idaho have been granted general authority to operate the university under article 9 section 10 of the constitution and the various state colleges and universities’ boards have been granted similar general authority by statute, the question remains: if a general grant of authority to run a college authorizes a state institution to abrogate the enumerated constitutional right contained in art 1 sec 11 , then, by that logic, can they also deny the other rights guaranteed by the Idaho constitution on their campuses?
This bill does not “allow” open carry on college and university campuses. In 1978 the people of Idaho voted to amend Article 1 Section 11 of the state constitution to take away the authority of the legislature to regulate the open carry of firearms. Here is the old language:
“ The people have the right to bear arms for their security and
defense; but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.”
And, again, here is the relevant current language:
“The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person…”(emphasis added).
By the plain language of this provision, the legislature can only regulate concealed weapons and it has chosen to do so by passing a law of general application which requires that a license be obtained before a concealed weapon may be carried in public. In a couple of instances the legislature has enacted laws that prohibit all firearms in certain discrete locations (airports and K-12 schools). The courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of these provisions. Note, however, that all of these are very narrow exceptions to the general rule. Likewise the grant of authority to the institutions to regulate all firearms possession in dorms is a very narrow exception and is much more likely to be upheld by the courts than the kind of absolute ban which the Supreme Court struck down in Brickey.
There have been concerns raised about which rules will apply in facilities that house both graduate and undergraduate students. The simple answer is : the institutions all employ attorneys (some of whom are here today) who know how to draft a housing contract. Please note that the bill allows the institutions to regulate as well as to ban. If this is a real concern the institutions can choose to regulate by allowing all residents of a mixed undergraduate/ graduate housing building to have firearms in their apartments.
I do not know if Elton John realizes that he has become a cause célèbre in the Idaho legislature but the concern has been raised that this bill would affect the ability of colleges and universities to lease their facilities to promoters for concerts and other events where the promoter requires that firearms be banned. If we look at what happens in a couple of neighboring states I think this concern disappears. While the courts in Idaho have never addressed the issue of whether a lessee can impose restrictions more stringent than a state actor would be able to, the Oregon courts have. In Starrett v. City of Portland 196 Ore. App. 534; 102 P.3d 728; 2004 , the court held that a promoter who had leased a publicly owned venue could ban guns during the duration of their lease even though the public entity that owned the property would not be able to do the same thing under Oregon’s preemption law (which is similar to Idaho’s). Likewise, in Washington a state statute, RCW 9.41.300, prohibits cities from barring holders of Washington concealed weapons permits from municipally owned stadiums and auditoriums. Despite this statute, Elton John plays the Spokane Arena, a municipally owned facility, on April 8th, the night before he plays Taco Bell Arena here in Boise.
This bill is completely unnecessary. The colleges and universities, as I have pointed out above, do not have authority to ban firearms on their campuses as they purport to do. If they would stop infringing on the constitutional rights of faculty, staff, students, and the public and conform their policies to the existing law, there would be no need for this legislation. Instead they have chosen, in this time of straitened institutional finances, to require individuals and groups to engage in litigation, costly to both sides, in order to vindicate their rights.
Quote of the day—Joe Waldron
The Washington State Patrol is back-pedaling swiftly after firearms dealers, the gun owning public — and nearly three dozen state legislators, led by Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) — raised the alarm over the WSP letter to firearms dealers seeking broad information about the sale or acquisition of AR-15s (and clones) and AR-15 lower receivers a week ago. It seems there may be ONE RIFLE missing, possibly from the State Patrol inventory. Rather than work with the BATFE, who has jurisdiction over federal firearm licensees, they decided to keep it in-house — except for their clumsy outreach to more than 1,000 licensed Washington firearm dealers! The Patrol still seeks cooperation and information from dealers (legitimately so, in my opinion), but acknowledges it has no authority to ask for the records.
As I opined last week, it’s more a case of overzealousness on the part of the WSP’s investigative division and a lack of understanding of federal laws regulating firearm dealers and insensitivity to the privacy concerns of gun owners. No nefarious schemes to create an AR-15 registry in the Evergreen State — for now.
Joe Waldron
March 25, 2011
GOAL Post 2011-12
[This is in regard to the letter to all the gun dealers in the state of Washington that I told you about earlier.
I agree with Waldron. Sometimes people do stupid insensitive stuff without realizing it. Give the WSP a break this time but watch for signs they are unrepentant.—Joe]
University of Idaho students who support concealed carry on campus
Via Nick:
Wife Barbara, son James, and I all graduated from the U of I. Daughters Kim and Xenia are about 3/4 of the way through. Numerous other family members have attend (and are attending) and graduated here. When my brother and I attended we could have guns in the dorms. It’s time for the University to stop infringing upon the rights our children.