They Do Need a Checkbox for That

SayUncle gets jury duty, and notes that among the reasons listed for being dismissed does not include, “will judge the facts and the law.” Well, we can’t have that, the system working how it was intended to. That would lead to chaos!

I’ve written in the past, though I can’t for the life of me find it now, about my own views on nullification. It’s really one of those things they ought to teach in civics class, to whatever extent they even teach civics anymore. Juries are a check against the power of the state, and in the United States, it’s generally worked to oppose highly unpopular laws:

In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[23] possibly as often as 60% of the time.[24] This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment.

Of course, the flip side of nullification is that it was also extensively used in the reconstruction era to acquit those who committed crimes against blacks, but were unambiguously guilty.

But generally speaking, I believe in the people judging the law, as well as the facts. The only caveat there is, the legal system has to work, so I would generally frown on  one person hanging a jury because they don’t agree with the law. That has to really be over a matter where there’s a general sense of the members of the jury that the law is unjust, or it’s particular application is unjust. But in order for that to happen more often, people have to know that a jury’s verdict is final.

Reconsidering Illegal Ordinances

Looks like Chestnuthill Township in Pennsylvania is considering repealing a ban on guns in parks, which has been in violation of state law for some time now. A lot of towns and counties have these illegal ordinances still on the books. I’m glad people are bringing these issues to the attention of local communities. Many are unaware the ordinances are unlawful. Now if only we could get people hounding their MAIG mayors, we’d be set.

I Thought This Was America

Apparently you can be arrested for political speech in this country that someone finds offensive, if you get a judge that out of touch and senile enough. See more here from Popehat. This is just outrageous. I don’t think that Judge should ever be allowed to try a case, or sit on the bench again. Sometimes we have to beware of tyrants in robes just as much as tyrants in business suits. Perhaps even more so.

Canadian Gun Owners Used by the Tories

Well, it was either going to go one of two ways for Canadian gun owners once they succeeded in getting rid of the long gun registry: either the Tories were going to discover a new constituency to whose votes they were eager to keep, or they’d figure gun owners had helped them achieve power, were justly rewarded, and now it’s pretty much “Thanks for last night. Feel free to let yourself out.”

Well, it seems the latter is going to be the course. This is the real problem of trying to build a movement only through a single party. It allows that party to get away with being not as bad as the other guy, and not much more. That’s one thing that ought to awfully concern us about the extinction of the blue dog Democrats. There are times when voting the lesser of two evils can be the smart move, and there are other times when withdrawing support is the better option. If I were a Canadian gun owner, I wouldn’t feel like I really needed to get to the polls to help keep the Conservative Party in power next election. If it’s true that that registry was “unpopular with many Canadians, not just gun owners, largely due to its wastefulness,” then there’s not much risk a Labor government is going to want to re-instate it. Plus, you just might find an out-of-power Conservative Party willing to ride back into power on another issue that is upsetting to Canadian gun owners.

But first Canadians gun owners have to start becoming single issue, or damned near single issue voters on the gun issue. That’s the only way toward success, and is a big part of why the movement here has been successful.

OxFam’s Twitter Campaign for Gun Control

I noticed last night that OxFam has been on a big gun control kick on Twitter, complete with a hashtag and a petition fundraising page. The last few days have averaged about two tweets a day on the subject, and they get retweets in the range of 6-50+ per post. Of the posts I checked, most were retweeted by international folks or those who are professionals in organizations related to OxFam.

There’s nothing too exciting about the Twitter push, other than the fact that it is rooted in an effort designed to put pressure on President Obama to support more arms and ammunition control from the United Nations. They are creating snazzy little graphics to attract users on Pinterest. There is decidedly less interest on the predominantly female social network, garnering only 2-8 repins, with individual response rates significantly lower than their Twitter efforts. In fact, their attempt to use rather bloody imagery isn’t going over well on a site mostly known for crafting, recipe sharing, and wedding planning. (To be fair, their attempt to use heartstring-tugging imagery isn’t going over well, either.)

One of the OxFam talking points on the subject kind of made me laugh. They claim that arms “keep people in poverty.” Really? I do believe that my guns have managed to keep people gainfully employed. In fact, NSSF even released a study looking at the number of jobs offered by the firearms industry – that seems to be quite the opposite of keeping people in poverty. NSSF’s study should even make OxFam happy to see how much tax revenue the gun industry is generating since they are all about taxing the hell out of the American economy to fund domestic projects of other countries.

The funny thing about the efforts of OxFam and other gun control groups is how they are both demonizing NRA to build support while also saying that domestic gun rights groups simply don’t comprehend the UN arms treaty efforts. Take, for instance, this highlight from an article (emphasis added):

Predictably, the UN negotiations have attracted the attention of gun rights organizations. And that in turn has got some folks on Capitol Hill engaged. For the most part, the fears articulated by these voices are untethered from the actual substance of the negotiations, which will not include domestic arms productions and transfer. …

At the New York roundtable, I had an exchange with Jeff Abramson, who coordinates the civil society effort on the issue. While insisting that NGOs would not support a deeply flawed treaty, he argued that even an imperfect document may change international norms and facilitate domestic steps against dangerous arms transfers.

Got that? Gun rights groups are wrong because it isn’t about trying to control domestic transfers of firearms. However, the hope is that even a weak treaty will create a slippery slope to control domestic transfers.

The sad thing is that just like domestic gun control groups selling false promises of a crime-free society if we would only pass one more anti-gun law, the international groups are handing out false promises to gather names and contact information they will no doubt ultimately use for fundraising. One group has a setup that allows people to auto tweet their “signature” for the petition with a claim that their online click “just set a child soldier free.” No, it didn’t.

It’s all really quite sad in some ways, but far more interesting to observe than the email chains that often transmit the pro-rights information to pro-gun networks.

The Problems of the Internet

Jim Geraghty links to a pretty good bit on how the Internet is making it a lot easier for crazies to find each other, and how it’s probably responsible for the emergence of the new crazy in our political discourse:

Enter the Internet. The good news is, if you really want to talk about obscure bits of history, or political issues, or sports, or pop culture, chances are, there’s some online community for you. Of course, this applies to every interest, including the bad ones — hate groups, child pornographers, extremists of every stripe.

I don’t think there’s a good way to deal with this. Public social pressure doesn’t seem to work effectively on Internet communities, because enough of them find each other they feel comfortable in lashing back at the people criticizing them. In fact, there’s probably a great deal of feeling like persecuted outsiders that probably strengthens resolve among the adherents to whatever weirdness you want to speak of.

Humans are tribal my nature, and if your a member of the crazy tribe, the Internet has allowed you to find the rest of your tribesmen.

What Memorial Day Means to Our Opponents

An opportunity to bash the National Rifle Association and those of us who defend the rights and liberties they died for. And how are these people good Americans again, exactly?

The Inevitable Result of Shooting a Face Eating Zombie

From Miguel (graphic link, just to warn), you’re always going to have the bleeding hearts:

The same somebody at work who passed the drug info on Rudy Eugene, complained loudly that the first officer on the scene “did not have to shoot him four times.” When I asked what would have been the right amount of shots required to stop a drug-crazed individual who was ripping off the flesh of a fellow human being (according to what I just heard on the news, a 60 year old homeless guy) he refused to answer.

When it comes to using deadly force against people who are unarmed, if being naked and eating someone’s face off doesn’t quality as justification, I don’t think the world can help you. Four shots is what it took to stop to the threat. End of story. It makes me think if there was ever an outbreak of face eating zombies, you’re going to have people like this running around trying to stick up for the rights of the zombies. Well, at least until it’s their face getting eaten off.

Double Standard of the Left

I recently came across this cartoon by Khalil Bendib:

Replace GOP with Dems, replace Voter ID laws with gun control laws, and tell me why it no longer works. Both voting and buying firearms are a fundamental right, according to the Supreme Court. It’s apparently horrible to require ID for one, but perfectly fine for the other. Perhaps the left would like to agree that neither is fine?

More on Cities Funding MAIG Employees

All Nine Yards takes a look at a recent round of belt tightening by the City of Orlando, which apparently  included laying off 400 city employees. This did not include the MAIG coordinator.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »