Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Dems control U.S. Courts of Appeals

Everyone is rightly concerned about the ideologies of those on the U.S. Supreme Court.  However, often forgotten is that only a very small fraction of court decisions are ever reviewed by that court.  For most federal court decisions the final stop are the U.S. Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts of Appeals).  Every President tries to get ideological allies appointed to the federal courts.  Now, Democratic appointees outnumber Republican appointees on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.  Not all these judges will follow the line of the President or party that got them the essentially life-time job.  Most however, will.  Research shows that Democrat-appointed and Republican-appointed judges generally vote in different directions in the hot-button issue cases.  We can expect the Courts of Appeals to swing markedly left.  In some cases this may be a good thing, (e.g. rights of criminal defendants, privacy, First Amendment rights of individuals) but it does not bode well for Second Amendment cases where the Supreme Court has, thus far, refused to clarify many important points about the Amendment.  Stay tuned.

"The Way to Beat Poverty"

Inequality in human societies in many respects is inevitable and perhaps beneficial in some respects.  Also, I'm not sure of the extent to which the income inequality argument is really about poverty. For the Far Left, of course, the real issue is eliminating income inequality overall.  Robbing Peter to help Paul.  I am not unalterably opposed to all government interventions to prevent poverty.  This article suggests a potentially fruitful approach.

The assault weaon myth

Article from the NYT  casts doubt on the efficacy of an "assault weapon ban."  What is needed is an article that casts doubt on the idea that gun control which effects the rights of law-abiding, competent adults will work to reduce gun violence.  When guns are banned, only criminals (and police and the military) will have guns. 

Friday, September 12, 2014

Statements on license plates: Supreme Court asked to hear two cases.

Statements on license plates raise interesting First Amendment issues.  The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to hear two cases on these issues.  I think Wooley v. Maynard was correctly decided, but there are still a lot of unanswered issues. Stay tuned.

Book Review: "Rise of the Warrior Cop"

The police shooting of an unarmed black man in Ferguson and the resulting violence have re-fueled the debate that the police are becoming too militaristic.  The President recently ordered a re-evaluation of the flow of military hardware to the police. This book deals with the issue.

Oscar Pistorius gets away with murder?

At least he was found guilty of a culpable homicide.  Sentencing later.  Prosecutor may appeal.

Second Amendment and college campuses

Reflecting the political polarization nationally, some states are reacting in a fashion consistent with the Second Amendment (with regard to college campuses) while others are moving to or remaining in an inconsistent position.  The latter is not surprising given the most college and university faculties and administrators lean left.

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Pres. Plays politics and delays executive action on immigration problems

Hopefully, many people who voted for Obama has now come to the realization that real "change" in the way President's and their administrations do business is not going to happen  and that the compassionate President they sought often just doesn't deliver. Politics seems to get in the way, as it always did.  Politics here means mid-term elections.  Dems have basically conceded that Republicans will keep control of the House and the real battle is for the Senate.  Democratic control of the Senate is more important than working toward real solutions to serious problems. (see article on teen tobacco pickers below). 

According to the NYT:

"President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that acting now could doom his party’s chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday.
The decision is a reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to issue broad directives to overhaul the immigration system soon after summer’s end, and sparked swift anger from immigration advocates. The president made the promise on June 30, in the Rose Garden, where he angrily denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect immigrant families from the threat of deportation." . . .
 
The combustible nature of the immigration debate was demonstrated over the summer when the border crossings of unaccompanied children from Central America quickly became a highly charged partisan issue. Democrats on Capitol Hill warned the White House to deal with that issue before announcing broader immigration changes." . . .
 
Cristina Jimenez, the managing director for United We Dream, an immigration advocacy group, accused Mr. Obama of “playing politics” with the lives of immigrant families and said, “The president’s latest broken promise is another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community.”
. . .
 
"As Election Day drew closer, nervous Democratic senators in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina told White House officials that Mr. Obama’s actions could cost them victory. Those conversations culminated in the decision to delay immigration action."

Legal protection needed for teen tobacco pickers.

The Obama administration has disappointed many on the political left with.  Leaders on the political left are big on pretending to care about the less fortunate.  However, for some reason they never get around to doing something about many of  the problems.  They can't fix everything, but when an opportunity to help comes up, the steps should be taken.   "Politics" seems to get in the way. Anyone who believed Obama's promises that the way things were done would changed was terribly na├»ve.  No one in their right mind could have believed that a politician from Chicago would really be committed to change.

According to the NYT:
"For years, public health experts and federal labor officials have sought to bar teenagers under 16 from the tobacco fields, citing the grueling hours and the harmful exposure to nicotine and other chemicals, but their efforts have been blocked. Three years ago, Hilda Solis, then the labor secretary, proposed declaring work in tobacco fields and with tractors hazardous — making that type of work illegal for those under 16. Opponents of child labor note that Brazil, India and some other tobacco-producing nations already prohibit anyone under 18 from working on tobacco farms.
The Obama administration withdrew Ms. Solis’s proposed rule after encountering intense opposition from farm groups and Republican lawmakers. Agricultural organizations said the move would hurt family farms and make it harder for young people to learn farming skills.
The administration killed the proposal in April 2012, when the president was running for re-election, saying it would not pursue these regulations for “the duration of the Obama administration.” But some proponents still hope to revive the tobacco part of the proposal once this year’s midterm elections are over.
In the meantime, public health experts say hundreds of children under 16 like Saray continue to work in America’s tobacco fields. Dr. Thomas A. Arcury, an expert on tobacco and migrant workers and a professor at the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said tobacco work was particularly harmful to children, pointing to nicotine poisoning, pesticides and dehydration."
 
 

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Mother fights state over Do not Resuscitate Order for her infant

According toAP/NYT (see link below):
"A teenage mother is fighting a do-not-resuscitate order imposed on her brain-damaged daughter, saying she should be responsible for medical decisions. Child welfare officials who intervened after the baby was severely injured say life-saving measures in the event she stops breathing would only prolong her suffering.
The mother, Virginia Trask, originally agreed to the do-not-resuscitate order. At one point, the infant was removed from life support and placed in her arms to die, then opened her eyes and began breathing. . . .
"The case is unusual. Art Caplan, of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, said he had never heard of another case of a do-not-resuscitate order imposed against a mother’s wishes.
‘‘It could set some precedent for setting parental rights in some pretty horrible circumstances,’’ he said. ‘‘It could set some precedent with regards to medical authority.’’

I agree with Mr. Caplan.

Another ethically challenged politician: system encourages ethics violations


Elected public officials have lives outside their government roles ("dual roles").  This leads to many conflict of interest issues. An example below.

"Her campaign is using similar logic to explain another dual role: Ms. Van de Putte’s advocacy for minority-owned investment banking firms in the Legislature while serving on the advisory board of one of the companies, which later paid her $2,000 a month to consult for it.
There is no evidence that Ms. Van de Putte broke any rules, and her campaign says her dealings never posed a conflict of interest."
 
“This is a conflict of interest problem, clearly,” said Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen, based in Washington. “But the structure of state government in Texas nurtures it.”
 
Texas' legislators get paid $ 7,200 per year and there are lax disclosure and ethics laws.  Raising the salaries may do little, but the lax laws need to be tightened up. However, what are the chances the fox will agree to new rules to protect the henhouse? 

Sentence reduction raises issues of justice.


Sentence reduction in Bernie Tiede case raises troubling issues. Let's talk about that very important, but very ambiguous term, "justice."  Does the following make sense to  you?

"Tiede was given a life sentence in 1999 for shooting the 81-year-old Nugent four times before hiding her body in her freezer in the East Texas town of Carthage. Interest in the case surged after the 2011 release of the movie “Bernie,” in which Jack Black portrays Tiede as a quirky mortician’s assistant beloved by the town. Nugent is depicted by Shirley MacLaine as a grumpy, unpopular cheapskate. . . .
"A judge in May ruled Tiede had been sentenced too harshly because jurors did not know he had felt abused by Nugent and that he had been sexually abused as a child. But while Judge Diane DeVasto let Tiede go free on bond, the Court of Criminal Appeals must decide whether to formally accept the sentence reduction".

OK, so the jury didn't know these 2 things.  Sorry he was sexually abused as a child, but what does this have to do with a grown man murdering an 81 year-old woman?  He "felt abused" by an 81 year-old woman?   I guess that somehow makes this murder less culpable.  Where did they find this judge?  This sentence reduction is morally and legally wrong.  Maybe there's something crucial the source did not report that makes sense of this mess.  If not, this reduction should be overturned on appeal.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Chicago's Ethically Challenged Mayor

"Chicago" and "Ethically Challenged Mayor" may seem redundant like "striped tiger," but former Obama aide and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was pressured into paying back $14,000 in travel expenses after the Chicago Tribune analyzed the records.  Of course, this will not deter largely mindless voters from voting for his re-election.  He also has a $ 1.l million campaign chest whose donors will be rewarded with contracts, appointments and "looking the other way."  The mayor and City Council have blamed a lack of gun controls for the city's high violent crime rate and spent much time, money and energy dodging federal court Second Amendent decisions. However, look for him to be re-elected.  The culture of corruption in Chicago is safe.

Clarificaton of post on Justice for Student-Athletes


In a prior post, I commented on the court victories of current and former college-student athletes and their quest for “justice.”  A few people have missed the main point I was trying (but failed) to make.  Some  misinterpreted my comments as a call for “social justice” and/or reducing “income inequality.”  The ”justice” I am talking about is justice under law.  Workers of all types have rights under state and federal law, and First Amendment rights of association.  “Employers” of all types naturally attempt to keep labor costs as low as possible.  In some cases this offends our natural sense of "justice" or "fairness," but that was not the main point I was trying to make.  Further, it is not the function of courts to be roving commissions striking down social and  economic “injustices.”  It is their function to enforce the law.  If  the person legally qualifies as an “employee,” they cannot be denied their rights just because the employer calls them “student-athletes.”  Everyone, employee, student-athlete or whatever, has First Amendment rights.  I believe the decisions discussed are the proper legal results.

Hard to charge and convict cops accused of police brutality.

As noted in a prior post, broad legal interpretations of  legal immunities almost always shield police officers and their supervisors and agencies from civil liability when officers kill apparently unarmed suspects.  Little deterrent effect there.  Criminal prosecutions and convictions are even rarer.   According to a NYT article which uses Florida as an example:


[S]tate attorneys are elected, making them vulnerable to political pressure, lawyers said. Police unions wield considerable power in elections.
“They are in bed together, which is why police shootings should be investigated independently,” said Mr. Weiner, the criminal defense lawyer in Miami.

In the end, even if they are charged or indicted, most officers are acquitted by juries. The people who are shot are not always sympathetic in the eyes of jurors; in many cases, they were committing crimes when they were killed. Witnesses can sometimes suffer credibility problems.
By contrast, police officers are often held in high esteem, depending on the jury, and are traditionally viewed as guardians of the community."
 
Federal actions are more frequent and  likely to get results, but even these are rare. The Danziger Bridge case from New Orleans was discussed in prior posts.  The  officers convicted were awarded new trials because of federal prosecutorial misconduct.

Finally, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of cops are not, as some would claim, "racist pigs."  However, we need better legal mechanisms to deal with the real offenders. 

First, and only, win for state bans on same-sex marriages

A U.S. District Court judge in New Orleans became the first and only judge to uphold a state same-sex marriage ban.  According to the NYT:

"Since the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year in the case of United States v. Windsor, there have been 21 consecutive federal court decisions finding that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group."

The decision is likely to be overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which has not yet decided on the issue.  Since Romer v. Evans ( 1996), a Supreme Court majority has been sending  signals that this  marriage ban will fall.  At the Supreme Court level it may be another 5-4 decision with the swing-voter, Kennedy giving the victory to the ban opponents.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Politicizing Ferguson and "impeachment"- Upcoming U.S. Senate elections

According to the NYT:
"With their Senate majority imperiled, Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama’s final two years in office.
In black churches and on black talk radio, African-American civic leaders have begun invoking the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, along with conservative calls to impeach Mr. Obama, as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections, in which minority turnout is typically lower."
 
As public confidence in Obama crumbles, the Dems have begun to focus on not losing the Senate in the upcoming mid-term elections.  A few "observations:"
 
These efforts are sadly typical of the propaganda tactics increasingly being used by both parties in a polarized atmosphere.  There has been no serious move to impeach Obama.  To my knowledge no one in the House has proposed articles of impeachment.   According to Wikipedia:
 
"No Congressional Representative has drawn up a list of articles of impeachment and proposed them to the Judiciary Committee, as happened in the efforts to impeach George W. Bush." A number of House Republicans and right-wing publications have accused him of impeachable offenses, but that's as far as it goes.  Every President since the 1930's has had to deal with such blowhards.  This is not a real issue.
 
There are wacko right-wing groups talking about it, and left-wing groups pretending it is a real threat, but it's not a real threat.
 
  I don't recall any House member specifically calling for discussion of articles of impeachment.  This is a red-herring, scare tactic.  Dems pretend to care about excessive use of force against minorities.  When the Dems had control of the White House and both houses of Congress they got Obamacare through but did not pass a single piece of legislation to try to deal with excessive force by police.  Don't tell me that during that period there wasn't a single killing of an unarmed black by a white cop, that could have been a springboard.  Now that they are fearful of losing the Senate the issue becomes "pressing." Does anyone seriously think that control of the U.S. Senate makes any difference to police behavior (good or bad)?  (See post below on Camden and police subculture).  The hypocrisy turn my stomach.  There are large segments of our population who need to realize that many on the left only care about them when it suits the leftist agenda. 

PD unsatisfactory? Get a new one--Camden NJ did

"Fixing" problems in many public (e.g., police) and private (e.g. corporation)  institutions is extremely difficult.  Part of this is because the status quo is supported by various vested interests (e.g. contractors, unions).  Another factor is the existence of dysfunctional cultures/subcultures within the institution.  These informal norms (e.g. code of silence, kickbacks) often take precedence over law and agency rules. This is sometimes referred to an an occupational subculture.  Perhaps the most-studied is the subculture of law enforcement agencies.  These subcultures are not identical, but have many common features.  One of the worst examples is NYPD which has had massive problems for years which persist despite investigations, commissions, "reforms" more training, convictions, millions of dollars in civil judgments,  new mayors and commissioners, etc., etc., etc.  Perhaps the only real solution is a whole new police force.  Sounds unrealistic, but Camden NJ did it, and things appear to have improved. Some PD's (e.g., NYPD, LAPD) may be too big and  be situated such that this cannot be done, but it may be the only real cure.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

More left-wing hypocrisy

Most of our elite universities are dominated by Far-left administrators and faculty.  They complain about income inequality, equal opportunity, etc. but fail to deliver at their own institutions.  Another example of the hypocrisy of the far left which drove me away decades ago.  They talk the talk of helping the less-fortunate but somehow never manage to make any sacrifices.  It's the middle and lower-classes who make the sacrifices and pay the price for left-wing politically-correct policies. This is an article from the NYT, not Fox News.

Another victory against oppressive left-wing university speech policies

Left-wing political correctness has gone insane at many colleges and universities.  Thank God for FIRE which stands up for politically-incorrect students subjected to discipline for unbelievably trivial (and/or obviously constitutionally-protected) statements.  This case is another example.

Update/correction: Tom DeLay's conviction was thrown out

Art/Anon related in a comment to the post on Rick Perry's indictment that Tom DeLay's conviction after indictment by the same office that got an indictment against Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson was thrown out.  He was correct.  My apologies.

"DeLay was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to three years in prison, but remained free on bail pending appeal. Last year, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled the evidence was "legally insufficient" and threw out the case." Source.

Obama's DOJ Soft on Wall Street and related crime

One of the things many of us hoped Pres. Obama would do was have his DOJ crack down on Wall Street, Banking, Securities and other types of corporate and individual white-collar crime.  Although there may have been a little improvement, it still looks more like smoke-and-mirrors rather than real improvement in policy and action.    I guess even leftist Democrats are so dependent on these big boys that they can't get up the courage to really get after these offenders. 

Another Obama disappointment.  I won't criticize Obama's foreign and mid-east policies as there are apparently no policies to criticize.  Even the NYT has gone sour on Obama. 

Fed coverup and stonewalling continues on BATF's Opn Fast and Furious

You may recall BATF's disastrous Operation Fast and Furious and the cover-up and stonewalling attempts (see prior posts).  Read about the latest judicial developments.
  One thing Obama did not improve on was transparency and openness in the federal government.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

More on politically motivated prosecutions: The Hutchinson case.

In a post below on the indictment of Texas governor Rick Perry by a Travis County grand jury, I mentioned the indictment of Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Sometimes a little historical perspective can be helpful.  On this topic, Wikipedia provides:

"Hutchison was elected Texas State Treasurer in 1990 and served until June 1993 when she ran against Senator Bob Krueger for the right to complete the last two years of Lloyd Bentsen's term. Bentsen had resigned in January 1993 to become Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. Krueger had been appointed by Texas Governor Ann Richards to fill the seat until a replacement was elected.
A field of 24 candidates sought to fill Bentsen's unexpired term, in the May 1993 special election.[12] The top two vote-getters were Hutchison (593,338, or 29 percent) and Krueger (593,239, also 29 percent). Two conservative Republican congressmen, Joe Barton of Dallas (284,135 or 13.9 percent) and Jack Fields of Houston (277,560, or 13.6 percent) split pro-life voters, but even their combined totals, 561,693, would have placed neither in the runoff. A fifth candidate, Democrat Richard W. Fisher, son-in-law of Republican former U.S. Representative James M. Collins, polled 165,564 votes (8.1 percent); the remaining candidates had about 6 percent combined. Running far behind the pack was the Houston conservative political activist and former crusading journalist Clymer Wright, father of his city's 1991 term-limits initiative. Lou Zaeske, an engineer from Bryan, who in 1988 had spearheaded the English-only movement in Texas, polled barely 2,000 votes.
During the campaign Krueger charged that Hutchison was a "country club Republican" and insensitive to the feelings of minorities.[13] In January, the Houston Chronicle reported that both Hutchison and Fields had promised to serve a maximum of two six-year terms in the Senate as part of her support for term limit legislation for members of Congress. In April, the Dallas Morning News reported that Hutchison had repeated her pledge to serve only two terms in the U.S. Senate, if elected, and had also said term limits ought to cover all senators, including Senator Phil Gramm (Republican), who had been elected in 1984 and re-elected in 1990. (He would stay in the Senate until 2002.) The term-limits legislation never passed, and Hutchison has said that she would not leave the Senate in the absence of such legislation, because doing so would unilaterally hurt Texas at the expense of other states in the seniority-driven institution.
After the initial voting, most of the Barton and Fields voters switched to Hutchison, who won the runoff, 1,188,716 (67.3 percent) to 576,538 (32.7 percent). Lower turnout in the runoff resulted in a decrease in Krueger's vote total, by 17,000. Hutchison became the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate.
Following Hutchison's election in 1993, Texas has had two sitting Republican U.S. senators.

1993 indictments for misconduct as Texas Treasurer[edit]

On June 10, 1993, shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by Democratic district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury. The search was conducted without a warrant, as incident to service of the indictments in the case.[14] Subsequently, after two other grand jury indictments were thrown out, Hutchison was indicted a 3rd time [15] by a Texas grand jury in September 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Hutchison stated that she was the innocent victim of a politically motivated prosecutor. Earle acknowledged that he had sought appointment by Democratic Governor Ann Richards, to the same U.S. Senate seat which Hutchison was ultimately elected to, but he has denied that his legal actions against Hutchison were politically motivated.[16] The case against Hutchison was heard before State District Judge John Onion in February 1994. Pre-trial motions included a Motion to Quash evidence Earle obtained without a warrant when raiding the Treasurer's office. During pre-trial proceedings, the judge did not rule on admissibility. Following the lack of a ruling, Earle declined to proceed with his case.[14] Onion swore in a jury and directed the jury to acquit Hutchison, since Earle chose not to present evidence.[14] The acquittal barred any future prosecution of Hutchinson."

I am  not a fan of  Republican House Majority leader Tom DeLay who was also indicted in Travis County and convicted.  His conviction is on appeal.  Sometimes this office in Travis County may work successfully  without partisan bias.    For more on this case see Wikipedia.

Armed officers need to be required to be wearing cameras


There is no easy answer to the problem of unjustified deadly force used by police and the violence that often results when an unarmed, or apparently unarmed, black citizen is killed by police in questionable circumstances.  However, as the Ferguson, MO and other examples show, when the facts are seriously in dispute or unknown (or concealed by authorities), civil disorder frequently results.  As others have suggested, what we need is a requirement that all armed officers wear a camera also  with audio capacity.  Police CARS now routinely have such equipment in many jurisdictions and it is a widely accepted practice by  police, the "experts"  and public.    Some agencies are already doing it with their officers.  It needs to be a requirement for ALL armed officers.  Each state should mandate this, and a funding mechanism needs to be established.  If an officer kills or seriously injures anyone, the audio and video should be released quickly to the public and media.   It might deter officers from all sorts of misdeeds and quick release of the video and audio might prevent civil disorder.  This type of evidence will help us make more accurate determinations of whether or not this officer needs to be exonerated or  disciplined, sued and/or criminally punished.  Of course, it is possible that the audio and video may show police abuse and trigger disorder.  However, hopefully, police will be able to anticipate trouble and be prepared if their review before the mandatory and prompts release shows serious problems.   However, I think overall, the effect would be  very beneficial.

Serious about reducing gun crime? Enforce existing laws!


Although I dislike the NRA’s keen jerk reaction against most, if not all, gun control proposals.  I think I understand their logic.  After every atrocity involving a gun, there are calls for new controls.  Some of these controls are enacted.  After the next round of atrocities the cry is that we need more gun control.  New controls are enacted which don’t work and the cycle continues to squeeze Second Amendment rights.  These laws are obeyed only by honest, law abiding citizens who may suffer a diminution of their rights and abilities to defend themselves and their families.  Too often the real problem, which is failure to enforce existing laws, is ignored.  Enforcement cost money and it’s cheaper for politicians to pretend that just one more law, enforced or not, will help solve the problem.  Another example of politicians playing the “let’s pretend” game.  Many citizens naively think laws are self-enforcing and that criminals care about conforming to gun control laws.

Excellent examples of non-enforcement involve state and federal laws which deprive convicted domestic violence offenders and subjects of family violence orders from possessing firearms.  A number of courts have found that these laws do not violate the Second Amendment.  However, as in Dallas, little or nothing is done to disarm these people.  After the Dallas Morning News published a report about non-enforcement, Dallas County (TX) finally came up with a plan.   However, is assigning one part-time Sheriff's deputy enough.? I doubt it.  It sounds like another case of when being confronted with an egrergious failure, government officials play the "let's pretend" that obviously insufficient funding and staffing will solve the problem.

Supreme Court protecting bad cops and poor leadership?

This article in the NYT argues that the Supreme Court has made it too difficult to collect damages against abusive cops and irresponsible municipalities and counties for civil rights violations  I have taught a graduate course on this topic and would agree that municipalities and counties have gotten too much slack.  With regard to individual officer liability, I don't know.  Officers faced with fast-moving, often ambiguous situations potentially life threatening situations and  with little or no time to prepare or evaluate, may often be doing the best they can.  Unfortunately, the public usually only hears about the obviously wrong and questionable decisions made by officers.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

New research casts doubt on gun control policies.

Gun control in a free society cannot and will not reduce crime.  It may disarm those who  need arms for lawful self defense. See this recent article. Thanks to Prof. Joseph Olson for the link.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

U.S. District Court rules that AR-15's not protected by Second Amendment

Another bad 2nd Amend. decision   This is another aspect of the Second Amendment that needs to be clarified ASAP by the U.S. Supreme Court.