Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 757 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

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?

On the Ropes

Jacob takes a look at the sad state of the gun control movement. He points out they haven’t gotten any new gun control passed in New York in a decade. Thinking a bit, it’s really only been California and New Jersey they’ve been able to get anything done, and lawsuits are underway that will hopefully reverse even that in due course.

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.

New Low for the Bradys

Just when you think they couldn’t get any lower, after unfairly attacking James D’Cruz’s interest in movies and books a few days ago in a press release, they are now trying to scare people with James in his halloween costume into donating them money. Yes, that’s right. I actually asked about the picture, and it’s a halloween costume. Of course, the Bradys went right past the picture of James in his JROTC uniform to get to the one that supposedly shows how off balance he is.

In addition, it’s probably worth pointing out that technically, that photograph is Â© 2010 by a one James D’Cruz, which would mean Bradys use of it for fundraising purposes falls outside of fair use, and therefore is copyright infringement. So not only are they maligning James’ reputation, but they are pirating a photograph from him as well. I think James’ should demand royalties. Granted, given the state of Brady fundraising, that might not be much, but at the least I think Paul Helmke owes James a Starbucks gift certificate or something.

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.

Chastising Rendell for Vetoing Castle Doctrine …

… from Investors Business Daily? I’ll take any allies I can get.

Amtrak Allowing Guns

Amtrak protested endlessly that they couldn’t allow guns on trains. Well, it turns out they can:

Under the policy, beginning Dec. 15, guns can be brought aboard trains that have checked baggage service. Gun owners must informÂ Amtrak officials 24 hours ahead of departure. Unloaded firearms must be packed in hard-sided containers and will be stored in train lockers.

Not sure why 24 hours advanced notice is required. Airlines don’t require that. Of course, the Brady Campaign says this is just going to make it that much easier for “makes it easier for terrorists to bring weapons on trains with intent to do harm.” Looks like the Brady folks are responsible for the twenty four hour notice thing.

Come on guys. What purpose does that serve other than to harass gun owners? You want to know why we can’t really have dialog? Stuff like this is the reason why. Is a terrorist going to give Amtrak 24 hours notice? Ian Argent had some useful observations yesterday:

Once the gun is out in the world, the owner can do anything with it. The law-abiding one will, of course, limit himself to the lawful activities. But not one of New Jerseyâ€™s many strict and serious firearms laws could stop me from loading up my legally-purchased and legally-owned limited-capacity magazines and my legally-purchased and legally-owned handgun, and going out to cause mischief. Itâ€™s worth noting, by the way, that, given my lifestyle and normal mode of dress, I could be carrying my handgun and a hundred rounds of ready ammo at any time I carry a pocketknife (which is most of the time) and had I been doing so there is essentially no chance I would have been discovered doing so.

Of course, I donâ€™t do any such thing. For one thing, that much ammo is HEAVY. I could get by with probably 2 extra magazines. But, more seriously, I donâ€™t carry because it is against the law, and I donâ€™t have a pressing need to.

I have been carrying for about eight years now, and the only time I’ve ever had to present my license is because I was legally required to tell the officer I was armed (TX requirement). If I had been carrying illegally for eight years, without a license, I would have been able to get away with it. Given that reality, who do the Brady folks think is being deterred by these laws? Certainly not criminals. Definitely not terrorists. If one has a gun, the law can only amount to punishment after the fact, and since most of the unlawful things you can do with a gun carry hefty jail sentences, it seems rather redundant. Unless your goal is to punish the otherwise law abiding for not following the rules, or to frustrate the exercise of the right.

The Brady goal has nothing to do with crime or terrorism. Their goal is to frustrate the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right to the extent that they can get away with it. Nothing convinces me more of that than the fact that they pushed a 24 notice requirement on Amtrak.

Richmond Times Dispatch Calls BS on Gun Control

I was happy to see, this Sunday, a takedown of the gun show nonsense our opponents have been relentlessly pushing. They followed up once more today with an article on the same topic:

There are four problems. First, theÂ Bureau of Justice Statistics and theÂ National Institute for Justice have found that only 1 or 2 percent of offenders obtained their weapons from gun shows. Second, the activity at issue — private, person-to-person firearms sales — is not limited to gun shows, so calling it a “gun-show” loophole is disingenuous.

The article then goes on, tying gun control to other freedom issues, and generally pointing to the insanity of prohibition. It’s good to see at least one main stream publication pushing a pro-freedom agenda.