Admittedly, he’s probably no fan of President Obama (given his ties to the Clinton’s), but his take on Obama’s problems versus President Clinton’s at about the same time is highly interesting. President Clinton returned to the center after ’94; can President Obama do the same if he loses a friendly Congress in ’10?
(Edit: I should have looked closer – while Dick Morris was a member of the Clinton White House team, he’s currently referring to Republicans as “we” in other posts.)
The Arizona Republic thinks it’s a good thing that the EPA rejected the lead ammo ban petition, not because it’s based on flimsy evidence, or presents serious constitutional problems, but because the Obama Admionistration just doesn’t need a fight with the NRA right now.
Whatever gets it done. Obviously Obama’s people agree, or they wouldn’t so quickly have killed the petition.
When I saw the headline for this article (Midway considers stronger gun laws) I thought we would get the normal blather from the “reasonable restrictions” crowd. When I read it, however, it looks more like what I would consider “time, place, manner” restrictions that would criminalize not an object or a person, but a (potentially) dangerous behavior. The people interviewed for the story classify this as “gun control”. Would you support this kind of “gun control”?
According to a story in Wired, Righthaven LLC has expanded their copyright trolling operation to another newspaper chain. The WEHCO Media chain of newspapers has been added to the target list for Righthaven’s trolls.
WEHCO Media is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas and co-owns Northwest Arkansas Newspapers LLC with Stephens Media. WEHCO owns the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette which is the largest newspaper in the state and the 43rd largest by circulation in the U.S.
A list of their newspaper holdings and a brief history of the company can be found on No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money.
Or was handed it… At any rate, he appears to have done the honorable thing and fallen on it.
On the other hand, that article has been … revised … since I first saw it. The initial version I saw included no mention of the contractors, and had a summation paragraph that stated that the reason the application was in flux at a late date is that Schundler cut a deal with the NJEA that Christie disavowed, having instructed Schundler beforehand that there would be no deal.
High Bridge Arms is fighting for their right to reopen the only gun store in San Francisco. Temporarily closed after 50 years in business, Steve Alcairo is having to fight the North Bernal Alliance and three other neighborhood groups in an effort to reopen. Many in that group feel “a laundry or a wine and cheese shop” would be better.
A couple of Danes are planning to visit the High Frontier using a rocket, catamaran launch platform, and submarine, all of their own design, funded by donations and sponsorship. Wonder if they’ll remember to bring the stamps with them this time?
The judge ruled on August 19th that Steven Hopler may retain the firearms currently in his possession and did not revoke his FID card, as long as the firearms are securely stored and Mr. Hopler completes a firearm safety course and undergoes an alcohol evaluation. Mr. Hopler was not granted his request to have the prosecutor’s office return the other firearms that are in that office’s possession, though he may re-open his petition after completion of the court-ordered training and evaluations.
The original NY Times article from 1994states that Mr. Hopler is “totally blind”. In addition, it states:
Mr. Hopler’s appeal to State Superior Court resulted in a ruling in his favor. But Judge Reginald Stanton, sitting in Morristown, added some stipulations: Mr. Hopler cannot load the weapons, shoot them or even leave home with them. And he must make sure that the guns are secured when they are not on display
So it would appear that Mr. Hopler may have been in violation of the original judge’s order.
I would like to suggest the following amendment to the US constitution:
No person shall be convicted of a felonious crime or subject to lengthy term of imprisonment or loss of civil rights, or ruinous fine, or a sentence of death, save that either:
1)The intent of the accused to knowingly commit the specific alleged crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in open court
2)The felonious actions of the accused be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in open court to have resulted in actual bodily injury, actual physical harm, or death, to another person
The goal here is to require intent for non-injurious crimes; no more strict liability.
(Edited to add the italicized words – the accused must have either meant to commit a crime or the injury must have been serious enough to merit a felony indictment. Please pass the BATFE and Sen Lautenberg some Kleenex)