Politics – Page 169 – Shall Not Be Questioned

“Is Rendell French?”

So asks Robin Quillon of the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. I guess not all papers in Pennsylvania are enthusiastic about the Governor’s veto. That was in response to Rendell’s quote:

â€œWhat this would do is expand the Castle Doctrine to outside the home, to a city street, for example, and eliminate the principle of law that weâ€™ve had since English common law: The duty to retreat.â€

As I mentioned in a previous study of English Common Law, the duty to retreat only applied to individuals who had become involved in an affray. Under Common Law, one could use deadly force to stop a felony without having to retreat, so someone trying to rob you, or who had broken into your home by night could be responded to with lethal force without any further qualifications. If Ed Rendell would like to go back to this, I’d have little issue. Many states still use this more traditional standard, such as Virginia.

Shot Across the Bow

The Philadelphia Inquirer is already trying to goad Corbett into giving up his support of self-defense and gun rights right out of the gate:

If the General Assembly returns next year with a similar proposal to expand the so-called “castle doctrine,” the new governor will be faced with endorsing what Rendell calls a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that fails to “protect the sanctity of human life.”

The misguided legislation that Rendell rightly vetoed over the weekend would expand a homeowner’s right from being able to blast away at an intruder to shooting someone if threatened outside a home or vehicle.

Self-defense is one topic where elite opinion is drastically different than what ordinary people think about the subject. That’s one reason this vote was so lopsided. The Inquirer is just going to further distance themselves from their dwindling reader base with positions like this.

Pardoning Aitken

The Daily Caller is noting the growing pressure on Governor Christie to pardon Brian Aitken.

UPDATE: More from Fox News.

Not Something You See Everyday

Lancaster County is taking a look at park rules, and getting rid of some. Among them are the rules banning firearms in county parks:

Currently, the regulations manual outlaws the carrying of firearms in county parks by anyone except law-enforcement officers.

“Obviously, that is not consistent with the Uniform Firearms Act,” Weiss said.

The Act authorizes people to openly carry handguns in Pennsylvania, or to carry them with a concealed weapons permit, anywhere in the state except for a few places, such as schools and court facilities.

Technically speaking, the act doesn’t authorize open carry. There’s just no law against the practice, and the UFA preempts the counties from making one. But that’s nitpicking. Lancaster County is doing the right thing here, and for that they should be commended. Most of the time, government loves to just add laws. You hardly ever see them looking existing laws over to see if they still make sense. We need more of this.

Displeasure Among the Gun Control Ranks

Seems some didn’t particularly care for Ed Rendell’s departing surrender on the issue of gun control. Chief among them Joe Grace, who Kinney reports as “pained by the glum talk about guns.”Â Joe’s pain is my content. It doesn’t look like Representative Tim Briggs thinks to highly of it either:

Montgomery County progressive Democrat Tim Briggs became a loyal CeaseFirePA soldier in his first term, but frets that building a broad coalition might be for naught if Corbett and Co. “try to push an extreme social agenda.” Indeed, Corbett has said he would happily sign the “castle doctrine” expansion.

Broad coalition? 159 Pennsylvania representatives voted for Castle Doctrine the first time, only 38 voted against it. 38 out of 202 seats is a broad coalition? I’d say you were tilting at windmills out of the gate, Rep. Briggs. Second time around he lost two votes from his “broad coalition.”

Ed Rendell sees the writing on the wall because he can count. I have no doubt Rendell did what he thought he could to advance the issue, particularly pushing Democrats who would run on gun control vocally. But that ultimately failed. Having failed, Ed is giving up, and riding off into the sunset, leaving suckers who bought his line on the issue, like Tim Briggs, in the dust.

Tell Me I’m Dreaming This?

Rick Santorum seems to be camped out in New Hampshire. This is not good news for folks like me who got so fed up with him they voted for Bob Casey, who, in sharp contrast to Santorum, seems to keep a low profile. So low I often wonder if he’s still alive. My problems with Casey aside, it ought to be no surprise thatÂ Santorum is stumping on social issues:

Santorum will be heading to Boston to speak on Saturday on religion in public life at the â€œSymposium on Catholic Statesmanshipâ€ sponsored by the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

Hey Rick, I don’t know of anyone’s told you this, but I think people are a lot more concerned about government in private life than they are about religion in public life these days. But I’m sort of OK with Santorum throwing his hat into the ring, if only because he might suck enough of the religious conservative vote away from this guy to prevent that potential disaster in 2012.

I guess the only question would be “Why New Hampshire?” This is a state who’s motto is “Live Free or Die!” not “Love Jesus or Die!” Why not stump in Iowa with this message ahead of the game? He’s probably worried they’ll remember he hates ethanol, and in Iowa, if you hate ethanol, you hate corn, and if you hate corn, you hate Iowa. Iowans might love Jesus, but corn is their true religion.

In other news, it’s time to create a “2012 Election” category. It never stops, does it?

Onorato’s Political Future

Capitol Ideas is reporting on what’s-his-name’s political future. Sounds like he’s mulling a run for Auditor General. I don’t think Onorato is an impressive fundraiser or campaigner. While this was a Republican year, I think Onorato would have struggled even if this election was in 2008. If I were advising him, I’d suggest County Executive was as high as he is meant to go in this game, and that a return to private law practice is probably the best path forward for him. My own political views aside, I’m not sure he has the talent to run for state wide office, absent being able to ride in on a much stronger candidate’s coattails. You can do that as Auditor General, but who is that much stronger candidate going to be?

Pots, Kettles and Secrets

SayUncle doesn’t think the Government that snoops ought to have much to complain about when the tables get turned. When it comes to leaking government malfeasance, even if those documents are technically classified, I agree. I’m a lot less sympathetic to someone who dumps reams of diplomatically sensitive classified information online with the sole purpose of embarrassing the US government and destroying its capacity to engage in diplomacy worldwide. In a world where you have a nuclear armed North Korea itching to start a war, and your documents contain sensitive information about plans to reunify the Korean Peninsula, that kind of crap can get millions of people killed. As far as I’m concerned, Assange (and you can’t spell “Assange” without “Ass”) ought to be charged with espionage (I’ve heard talk of Treason. Treason is when you betray your own country). It looks like the Swedes already want him for rape.

But we’re increasingly living in a transparent society. None of us will have any privacy, but that’s going to be true of the government as well. The only effective ways to keep secrets in a world as interconnected as ours is to keep the number of people who know the secrets down to as small a number as possible. If more than a few dozen people have access to your secrets, chances are one of them will be a malcontent, and your secret is no longer.

Even in a transparent world, the governments still have legitimate reasons to keep secrets, but for better or worse that’s going to become more difficult if not impossible. On the balance, I think that will be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

How Pro Second Amendment is Chris Christie?

I never had very high expectations from Chris Christie on the gun issue. New Jersey has a one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the country, and it’s part of both the New York and Philadelphia media markets, neither of which are known for gun friendliness. But the recent Brian Atkins case has people talking whether a pardon is in the cards:

As for Christie, he seems to have learned a lesson from that loss. By the time he ran for governor last year, he had adopted the position that politicians traditionally adopt when they really, really wish the gun issue would just go away: He said he wouldnâ€™t seek new laws, but would enforce current laws.

Thatâ€™s not good enough for gun lovers, and the case of Brian Aitken shows why. Aitken, a media consultant in his mid-20s, was a normal, law-abiding citizen until January of last year. Thatâ€™s when he moved back to his native New Jersey from Colorado, where he had lived for several years.

It should cost Christie nothing to pardon this guy. I’d be surprised if 10% of New Jerseyans think justice is served keeping that guy in prison. The big risk Christie faces is a Democratic opponent attacking him for “pardoning a mentally unstable man for carrying illegal guns, deadly ammunition, and high capacity magazines,” which unlike other states will actually work in New Jersey on people who are ignorant of Aitken’s plea. But given the Philadelphia media’s sympathetic coverage, I would say this makes it safe politically. It’s an non-controversial, visible way that Governor Christie and stand with us. If you believe in the right to bear arms, even if you believe that right is restricted to the home, that right necessarily has to cover moving arms between residences.

Surprising Daily News Coverage of Brian Aitken

I’ve never seen the Philadelphia media cover a railroaded gun owner so favorably. Fortunately, the Judge who railroaded Aitken was dismissed by the Christie Administration, but the right thing for Christie to do here is to pardon him. I’m relatively appalled the jury, who clearly wanted to find this guy innocent, didn’t just do so, ignoring the judges instructions. I’d hang a jury as long as it took to either get them to relent or at least get the guy a mistrial.

But I’m equally appalled at the attitude of Bryan Miller, even if I’m not surprised. From the Daily News Article:

“What little I can glean about the transportation issue leaves me puzzled, but a person with common sense would not be moving illegal products from one place to another by car,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of CeaseFire NJ, an organization devoted to reducing gun violence.

“If Mr. Aitken did the research he said he did, he would not have hollow-point bullets and large-capacity magazines in the vehicle,” Miller said. “They are illegal, period.”

I say not surprised because I decided years ago Miller wasn’t someone who disagreed in good faith. The guy hates gun owners. He’s a textbook bigot. It’s just common sense, you see, when New Jersey is the only state in the nation which has any kind of restrictions on hollow point ammunition, and if Aitken was moving, he fell under the exception anyway. The big crime they nailed him on was merely having the pistols in the trunk of his car. As far as Miller is concerned, it’s just another gun owner in jail where he belongs. What a hate filled man.