Obama just put a big sign on this country that basically tells all the criminals that we might have a gun, but don’t worry, we won’t use it. Â Our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent, and part of its power of deterrence is your enemy not really being sure under what circumstances you would and wouldn’t use it. The irony is it would actually make the need to use nuclear weapons more likely, rather than less. I wonder whether President Obama makes a habit of walking into poker games, announcing beforehand which hands he will and will not play.
Category: Politics
More L&S Ordinances
NRA is alerting on Baldwin Borough as the next jurisdiction considering Lost and Stolen, which is in Western Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh. CeaseFire PA and MAIG had concentrated their resources here in the Southeast recently, so now it looks like we’re seeing some action in the western part of the state again. It should be noted that the Mayor of Baldwin Borough is a member of MAIG, which has been the case with most towns that take up these illegal ordinances.
Newark’s Murder Free Month
I figure there will probably be some dopey gun control folks that will credit one-gun-a-month for Newark’s drop in crime, but this article from NJ.com suggests it was improved police methods that are responsible. Imagine that.
Kookery on Parade
Capitol Ideas is reporting that Governor Rendell is getting a letter demanding he restore the Constitution from a fringe group, or be removed from power. Restoring the Lost Constitution is the title of a pretty good book, and a subject I’m generally very much sympathetic to. But a look at this issue by Salon, and a visit to the group’s page by me has convinced me this is the kind of kookery America would be a very dull place without. I mean, all you have to do it go down to the copyright section in the footer:
Private non-negotiable freeholding, Guardians of the Free Republics. Private web site under non-corporate venue. This seal conveys immunity from public scrutiny, discretion, regulation or trespass. Trespassers beware. Co-claimant fee applies to impairment. By using this site agree to the Terms of this site.
That’s 100% pure Grade A crazy there folks. Go take a look at their youtube video. This sounds a lot like the admiralty court fun from tax protesters. The FBI is investigating, but I doubt they have much to worry about. This kind of thing has been around a long time, and these groups are mostly interested in drawing attention to their kookery, in hopes of finding fellow travelers, than they are about actual action.
Much of their language about “Federal Corporation of the United States” seems to hinge on this definition in the Judicial Procedure Code, which is in the chapter on collecting debts owed to United States. For purposes of debt collection, “United States”, which usually refers to the Federal Government in other contexts, is redefined to include Federal Corporations. They take this to mean that the United States is a corporation, acting unlawfully as the Federal Government. This isn’t a new idea, but it’s utter nonsense. An example of a federal corporation is Amtrak, and this section defines how Amtrak, as well as the Federal Government, may collect its debts.
Reading statutory language is a bit of a skill. It’s difficult for people with no legal training to figure out. I can’t say I understand it 100% of the time, but knowing computer languages is a pretty good basis for understanding law. In fact, that makes for a pretty good analogy. It would be kind of like if you handed someone who’s barely literate in computers some technical specifications, some 6502 assembly code, and told them they had to debug all this code because their lives depend on it. Some folks may actually be able to figure it out, and fix things. Others will never really understand it, but they will keep trying and stay in the game. Others are just going to get angry at the whole thing and proclaim the program and specs are rigged, and it’s only through “du jure” specifications and new assembly that we can make everything the way God intended it to be. I think a lot of this phenomena is exactly that kind of thing. These folks know the law has an important impact on their lives, so they try to understand it. Failing, they become angry and blame the system.
Will Guns be an Issue in the 2010 Elections?
There’s not a lot happening at the national level in the political sphere of our issue. Yes, we’re waiting on McDonald & Stevens, but those aren’t things we can control directly at the ballot box. (Though with Obama likely to get 2 or more SCOTUS appointments, pay close attention to your Senate candidates.) With so much uncertainty in the economy, it seems hard to imagine that guns will play a significant factor in 2010.
So imagine my surprise when the Second Amendment is getting some play out in Pennsylvania’s 12th district – the race to replace the late John Murtha. It’s been tweeted and is now appearing in commercials. Both candidates in the special election discuss it on their website. Our issue has not gone away, and politicians are still rushing to embrace gun owners in many areas. What can I say, other than it’s nice to be winning.
Parallels
Dave has another interesting post on Obamacase here, which are follow ups to discussion here and here.
Comparisons to Kristallnacht are Greatly Overblown
Jonah Goldberg doesn’t much like the righty violence, but thinks the comparisons to Kristallnacht are greatly overstated, and that the left is just as guilty of the right when it comes to fear mongering.
Talking About Militias
The New York Times is running a series, which isn’t too bad. They at least talk to Robert Churchill, who understands the differences between the various groups. One other thing I’m happy to see is academics acknowledging that the government missteps, crimes and cover-ups at Ruby Ridge and Waco contributed to the rise of militia groups. The left shouldn’t just outright dismiss the concerns about criminal actions by law enforcement as just a bunch of right-wing nuttery. That’s something every American should be concerned about. When the people see their government commit crimes, and then not only fail to see the perpetrators held accountable, but so see them promoted while misdeeds are covered up, it undermines people’s faith in the system to the point where they believe drastic action is necessary. Given that pool of anger and resentment, you’re always going to find charlatans and opportunists willing and able to pour gasoline over the fire.
Democratic Disconnect
When you’re a Democratic gubernatorial candidate running in the state with off-and-on the highest number of NRA members, it’s generally a bad idea to endorse gun control. It’s doubly bad to be fighting fights on guns that even the Brady Campaign won’t embrace any more. But Joe Hoeffel is just that kind of man.
We already know that Hoeffel created a wish list of gun control he wanted to bring to Pennsylvania if elected – one gun a month, ending state preemption, rifle bans, mandatory locks, and lost-and-stolen – but his latest attack actually represents an assault on the original Heller decision. This puts him to the left of the Brady Campaign because even they won’t embrace outright handgun bans anymore. But Joe Hoeffel will!
How out-of-touch do you have to be as a politician when the one serious constituency organization you have for gun control even considers your position to be too far? If, God save us, somehow Hoeffel won the Democratic nomination and won the general election, how would he justify supporting such a radical agenda? “Not a single gun control organization asked me to introduce this gun ban, but damnit, I know better than all of them! And the Supreme Court, they can go to hell!” It’s something we’ll never see, but I’d love to try and understand his logic on the issue.
I might add that Hoeffel’s former running mate who signed a joint statement with him on gun control is running for State Senate against a B rated incumbent. If she remains on the ballot through the primary, I might just check in with her to see if she still agrees with Joe Hoeffel on gun control – and whether she plans to try and draw Pennsylvania into a fight that would re-argue Heller.
Southwest’s PR Nightmare
So anyone who has ever flown Southwest with a particularly gregarious flight attendant knows that the airline is pretty fast and loose with what they allow their staff to say on the PA system – usually in a very good way with humor and spirit injected into the announcements. As someone with a friend who had family working for Southwest, I know some of the amusing antics that are supposed to entertain, but are also used to convey relevant information to the flight. (Example: “This is a non-smoking flight and you may not tamper with the smoke detectors. However, if you must smoke, you may step out onto the wing and become our feature film, Gone with the Wind.)
Little did we know that the Southwest definition of amusing antics included electioneering for animal rights groups trying to shut down hunting and farming.
HumaneWatch has a story of a flight to Ohio on Thursday where a flight attendant welcomed the passengers to the ground by promoting HSUS’s website in favor of a ballot initiative there. As the swarm of condemnation started, Southwest released a statement saying they don’t condone the actions of the flight attendant. Great. But I want to know what policy Southwest had on the books that made the flight attendant believe that electioneering via the PA system was acceptable practice.
It seems to me that Southwest could maintain a fairly open policy about being friendly on the intercom while still saying somethings are off limits. Flight attendants have a captive audience where customers cannot immediately get up and leave if the crew are the ones misbehaving. It shouldn’t be a stretch for airline to tell their staff that they leave their politics at home when flying.
It’s a good thing for Southwest that the Supreme Court opened up the campaign finance laws for corporations recently, otherwise I would be inquiring as to the fair market value of such political ads on a captive audience forced to listen to the crew by federal law. I’d hate to think that Southwest wouldn’t report such a donation.