Iowa Picture

GunPundit points to a picture I’ve seen making the rounds through forums and what not.  It shows an Iowa police officer holding a gun on a driver.  I’ve variously seen this attributed to police enforcing a checkpoint with excessive force.  Didn’t blog about it when I first saw it, because we had no context.   Well, here’s the context:

After being denied re-entry to a flooded neighborhood, Rick Blazek, 53, returned to his vehicle as a state trooper used his police vehicle to block the checkpoint, according to the news release.

“Blazek drove his vehicle toward the state trooper and struck the state trooper three times with his vehicle,” the release said.

Police told Blazek to get out of his vehicle, and when he refused, “the driver’s window was broken out because the doors were locked and Blazek was removed from his vehicle,” according to the release.

The trooper was not injured. Blazek, who was arrested and charged with assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon, could not be immediately reached for comment.

The trooper in question was fully justified in drawing his pistol on the driver as they took him into custody.  Cars are deadly weapons.  Whether or not the police were justified in keeping a man from his home isn’t material.  You’re allowed to use force to overcome an unlawful restraint (different from kidnapping), but not deadly force.

Whether or not one can be kept from one’s home is a matter of emergency powers provisions under the Iowa Code, which seem to allow for “Control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises in such area.” and “A peace officer, when in full and distinctive uniform or displaying a badge or other insignia of authority, may arrest without a warrant any person violating or attempting to violate in such officer’s presence any order or rule, made pursuant to this chapter. This authority shall be limited to those rules which affect the public generally.”

So under the Iowa Code, the governor can prevent persons from entering a declare disaster area, and the police are empowered to enforce edicts issued under the Governor’s disaster powers.

Unbelievable Garbage at HuffPo

No, not Paul Helmke’s blog.  No one pays attention to that one except us.  Rachel Lucas has some stunning examples of douchebaggery from some of the bloggers there.  I think Paul’s problem is, he’s not foaming at the mouth enough.  No one on the left cares about gun control.  They care about making Republicans look like farm animals.  It’s classy stuff.

Polling on the First Amendment

The Brady Campaign is always quick to remind us that while an overwhelming number of Americans support the second amendment, there are still a lot of people that support some vague thing called “gun control.”  Rachel Lucas points to some interesting polling on the first amendment, in regards to “hate speech”.

88% “guard” free speech but only 53% have any sort of a clue as to what that means. Since it would be silly to imagine that as time goes on, more people will get the clue, I’m guessing that in another few decades, we’ll have laws just like France and Canada. Awesome.

The poll basically shows that while 88% believe in the first amendment, only 53% oppose laws regulating “hate speech”, with 28% favoring it, and 19% undecided.  I don’t share Rachel’s pessimism about things going downhill from here, however.  We’ve shown that public support for the second amendment can be enhanced when people start understanding the issue.  I don’t see why the first amendment has to be exempt from that.

Quote of the Day

On the election:

This election brings us what is probably one of the worst match-ups in presidential history.  We’re running a conservative democrat against a Marxist, and for some reason I can’t seem to get real excited about our options here.

Read the whole thing.

The Reset Button

Kevin Baker talks again about the “reset” button.  I’ve said previously, any pressing of said button will have to be instigated by a state government, rather than through actions of individuals or groups of individuals.  That gets hard when states basically suckle at the federal teat, but I don’t see any other way to stand up to the federal government that won’t end badly.  We already have some examples of states willing to make token gestures.  The big problem is, we’re not losing our freedom by the guillotine, but by death of a thousand cuts.  It’s hard to convince other people that “This encroachment has to be it.  The line has been crossed.”

Personally, I don’t think we’re there yet, but I think it’s not unwise to whip up some resentment of federal meddling in matters they have no business in, within state legislatures.  What Oklahoma has done is a start.

UPDATE: Maybe we don’t have it so bad.

Australian Media on the Gun Issue in 2008

Obama needs to pick a veep who is good with gun owners, says news.com.au.  He’s not the only one though.  Of course, the funny thing about this is the Australian media isn’t to up on a lot of our politicians:

There are two front runners. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is just like his state – a mix of progressive ideals and conservative values of the old rural south. A pro-gun, pro-life, Church-going family man from the heartland but also a Harvard educated lawyer and greenie.

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is described by his local newspaper as “a laughing, back-slapping, forearm-squeezing, all-pro schmoozer”.

He is a political warhorse, renowned for his love of shooting and football as much as his formidable reputation for fundraising, grass roots organising and delivering his key state to Democratic candidates.

His prowess helped Clinton to a 10-point win in Pennsylvania.

Ed Rendell and Tim Kaine are both gun lovers?  That’s news to me.  Last I checked Kaine is getting behind a new round of gun control initiatives in Virginia, and Rendell is trying to bulldog the legislature into passing more gun control laws.  Let’s also not forget that as Mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell pioneered the idea of suing the gun industry out of existence as a public nuisance.