Politics – Page 224 – Shall Not Be Questioned

DeMint on Healthcare Reform

Looks like he’s planning to force a vote on its constitutionality. Not sure how much good it will do, but here’s what he says:

â€œForcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,â€ said Senator DeMint. â€œThis is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. Weâ€™re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.â€

I would also point out that auto insurance mandates are state mandates. Regulating vehicles on the public roads has long been held to be within the states’ police powers. Unfortunately, the Commerce Clause jurisprudence today allows the federal government to regulate pretty much anything called “commerce.” Whether that extends to the government forcing people to buy a product is an interesting question, but there’s plenty of precedent that would suggest they indeed do. The “takings” argument is an interesting one, but you know, Kelo worked out so well, didn’t it?

Our government is out of control, and there’s nothing we can do about it until 2010. That’s just how it is. Whether we want to admit it or not, this is the Government the people thought they wanted. If they are having voters’ remorse, I feel for them, but there were plenty of voices out there telling people exactly what they were going to get out of this President and this Congress.

Methods of Legislating

While people were concerned about the holidays, it would seem the New Hampshire legislature secretly ran through a ban on firearms in the state house. Any legislation passed this time of year is done in the hopes that people are too busy with the holidays to pay any attention. Seems that’s been happening a lot lately. Also out of fashion: reading bills, debating bills, and transparency with the public.

A Gun Nut Merry Christmas

You know you’re a gun nut when you decide to decorate your tree in the theme of the federal agency we all love to hate. I bring you, the ATF themed Christmas tree:

The real fun will be drinking the tree when we’re all done.

Law & Order: Pennsylvania 2010

It would seem that prosecutors are the big theme of Pennsylvania GOP races in 2010:

It’s interesting to hear that ex-U.S. Atty Tom Marino (R) is again considering a run against Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA). Besides the fact that he’d be a top-rate challenger to Carney (the GOP has yet to find any high-profile takers), he’d also be the third Bush-era U.S. Atty to consider a Cong. bid in PA this cycle.

Pat Meehan (R), who had been a GOV candidate, dropped out of that race earlier this year and opted to run for Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D) open seat. Meanwhile, Mary Beth Buchanan (R) was reported to have been considering a bid against Rep. Jason Altmire (D), but that talk has died down as of late. …

But all of these candidates would be formidable challengers, and with AG Tom Corbett (R) the early leading GOP GOV contender, ’10 could be a very law-and-order contest up-and-down the ballot in PA.

I think we both fall on the side of Jason Altmire in the 4th. He has consistently been willing to stand up to Pelosi, unlike the fake Blue Dog in our district. (Patrick Murphy has supported every big spending bill & amendment he could find since he’s been in office, yet he still claims he’s a moderate.) Plus, Buchanan has a less-than-stellar reputation for going after doctors when treating patients with chronic pain. I don’t want a law-and-order type whose view of upping her conviction record is just to make more crimes.

A solid challenge to Carney would be interesting. He’s not horrible and he’s not great as a so-called Blue Dog. Since he hasn’t been completely consist on the gun issue, I’d be fine in seeing him go. (I wouldn’t call him inconsistent as far as unaware, at least based on my own observations. For his district, unaware isn’t good enough.)

Contribute What You Have

Sometimes it’s not about opening your wallet to fight a political fight. Â And you might not be great with people for purposes of going door-to-door for a candidate. Â While those things have to happen, I couldn’t help but think about how many other skills people have to offer a movement that they don’t contribute after listening to this song by a conservative performer.

Legal issues aside, no one can doubt that Shepard Fairey’s work make a huge impact for the Obama campaign. According to Edelman, Obama supporters put more than 400,000 user-created videos on YouTube. While an activist shouldn’t spend all or his/her time on these types of activities, they are relevant if you have an avenue and plan to get them out to broader audiences.

What I know I’m tired of seeing are people who are just angry and fuming. Turn that anger into motivation to do something. I know I have a few ideas for some independent outreach projects come election time, but until then I’m going to do things like contact the declared candidates and make sure they contact NRA to get a questionnaire and let them know there are pro-gun voters in the district.

I’m not exactly full of artistic talent, nor do I have much in the way of video skills, but I have been amassing a collection of stock videos, images, and songs that could come in handy someday for either a project of mine or those I know who do have more skills and talent.

With the very un-merry Christmas gift we’re getting from the Democrats in the Senate this year, use some of your time around the holidays to get a little creative in what you can give to fight for freedom.

(Song found via Ravenwood who should consider a holiday gift of giving the world more of his blogging talents.) :)

More on “Buy Backs”

In New Jersey, at least one paper is questioning the value of gun “buy backs” and ponders whether the incentives are wrong for criminals.

But are we sending the wrong message to criminals who want to earn a fast buck with the sale of illegal firearms?

In some jurisdictions, people are allowed to turn in up to three handguns for $200 each, according to news reports.

One must ask, are we â€“ as law-abiding citizens who obtain our weaponry through legal means â€“ at risk of having our homes, offices and businesses burglarized by criminals who intend to make a couple of hundred dollars at a gun buyback program?

We’d like to know if there is data showing a rise in gun thefts that correlates to buyback programs, and whether the guns purchased at buyback programs have been stolen from homes and businesses.

Situation Makes the Case for Castle Doctrine

There’s a lot of lessons to learn in this case here.

IT WAS just after midnight. Brian Westberry and a woman friend sat frozen in his bedroom, hoping the persistent pounding on the front door of his Northeast Philly home would stop. It didn’t.

Westberry, 24, slipped his licensed .38-caliber revolver into his pants pocket and crept downstairs to open the door.

There stood Gregory Cujdik, 32, who demanded to see “Jen,” his girlfriend. Westberry told him “Jen” didn’t want to see him, and repeatedly ordered Cujdik to leave. When Cujdik refused, Westberry threatened to call police.

” ‘Do it. My family are cops,’ ” Cujdik said, according to Westberry.

What Westberry didn’t know at that early-morning hour of Palm Sunday, April 5, was that Cujdik’s father, Louis, is a retired police veteran and that his two brothers, Jeffrey and Richard, are narcotics officers.

Before Westberry could finish dialing 9-1-1 on his cell phone, Cujdik stepped through the doorway and punched him in the throat, Westberry said.

That’s when Westberry pulled out his gun and Cujdik fled, Westberry told the Daily News.

Before we get into the crux of my argument, I think that Westberry made a critical mistake of confronting Cujdik. he would have been wise to just call the police, and let the police deal with him. Even if the police didn’t charge him, they would at least get him away from the house.Â There’s no good reason to create a situation where deadly force might come into play if that situation doesn’t need to be created. If he breaks down the door, that’s another ball game.

But Westberry was brought up on a host of charges, which were, as the Daily News reports, “felony aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.” Several of these are bogus, but technically, there is a legal argument that could be made that Westberry wasn’t justified in drawing his firearm. In order to defend against drawing a gun on fists, you’re going to have a claim a force disparity. If you’re an 80 year old woman, and the guy attacking you is a 21 year old man, that’s not going to be difficult. It’s much harder when the situation is two healthy young males.

But yet if a person stepped through my door and punched me in the throat, I have to admit if a gun was all I had in reach, I probably would have shot the guy, which would have left prosecutors open to charging me under PA law. In this case, theyÂ ended up doing the right thing and dropping the charges, but I have to wonder how much of that was knowledge they’d not find a jury that would have convicted Westberry. Castle Doctrine would give homeowners more leeway in defending their homes. I think Westberry exercised poor judgement in answering the door, but he was still the victim. He shouldn’t be victimized twice, one by a criminal, and twice by an overzealous legal system.

More on the Georgia Case

Dave Hardy has some more details on the case in Georgia:

Here’s the rub: if the offense of CCW were worded as “it is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed without a permit,” then lack of a permit is part of the offense, and until there is reason to suspect that, there is no probable cause. But if it is worded as “It is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed. Exception for people having permits,” then concealed carrying is the offense, and sufficient suspicion of that justifies an arrest or detention. Having the permit is a defense, and the officer doesn’t have to rule that out, any more than he has to rule out insanity, justification, etc..

Looking at Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act:

(a)Â Offense defined.–

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

So we’re actually different from Georgia in that regard, meaning there’d have to be some reasonable suspicion that you had a firearm and did not have a license, according to Dave’s criteria.

Gillibrand Gets Another Challenger

Looks like someone is considering running against Kirsten Gillibrand other than Rudy and Elmer. She a reliable vote for the other side at this point, so even if they are running and anti-gun Republican against her, it would at least send a message to Gilly that her flip-flop on the issue wasn’t able to save her.

West Mifflin Latest Law Breaking Municipality

West Mifflin has passed a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance, in defiance of state wide preemption. They are the fourteenth municipality to pass such an ordinance. None of these fourteen municipalities have yet to charge anyone under them, despite the fact that some of them have been in place for a year or more.

If “Lost and Stolen” is such an effective crime fighting tool, why aren’t these municipalities, including the City of Philadelphia, effectively using it for the purposes they claim? Could it be because it’s not effective, and they are merely looking for an issue, any issue, on which the gun control movement can make legislative progress, no matter how absurd?