"The most significant book in higher education in recent years"

Read the linked review. Shouldn’t it be titled “Academically Sinking Fast”? I realize I am a dinosaur, but it’s becoming more and more obvious that the Emperor has no clothes. Yet I see very little dissent and complaint about the current trend in Higher Ed. Are faculty getting so lazy that they welcome the reduced expectations and responsibilities? Are faculty too busy with their hobbies, second jobs, research grants, etc. that they welcome the reduced expectations and responsibilities? Don’t parents care? It’s obvious the legislature doesn’t have a clue.

Great quote on 2nd Amendment

Below is a quote from 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski. That Circuit is dominated by liberals but Kozinski is one of the more open-minded members of the Circuit. This was written 5 years prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller (2008) which held that the Second Amendment gives a right to keep and bear arms to individual even though they are not connected to any official militia. As in much of the material, an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment can be read to be roughly equivalent to relatively widespread civilian ownership of firearms. Note his description of the “doomsday” function of the Second Amendment/widespread civilian ownership of firearms. SILVEIRA; v. LOCKYER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 328 F.3d 567 (2003) “KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or . . . the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases--or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), [**3] rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct. 2302 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be [*569] consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences. The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and [**4] choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon--a sawed-off shotgun--was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered [**5] discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision. The majority falls prey to the delusion--popular in some circles--that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. [**6] Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. [*570] Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My [**7] excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear [**8] Arms, shall not be infringed. The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion--the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text--refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed.”

Obama Admin. will no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act.

I predicted months ago that states will be forced to accept gay marriage under an equal protection and privacy rationale as a matter of constitutional law. Another step in that direction occurred recently when the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act--which defines marriage as a heterosexual union only.

The other side of the Taser Debate

The debate over police use of Tasers continues unabated, esp. in San Francisco. Unfortunately, we rarely hear about cases where the Taser works and may have saved a life. This is an example.

If you enjoy freedom stay in the U.S., If you want socialism, go to Europe

Bizarre case from France. I hope Americans appreciate the freedoms they have and will fight for them!

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Legislation has been introduced in at least nine states, incl. Tex., Fla., Mich. and Ariz. to allow licensed concealed carry on college campuses. Persons who are licensed are no more likely to commit a crime on campus than they are in the community, and the latter are extremely rare. Even then, the crime may have been committed whether the person has the license or not. Rates of both violent and gun crime have been decreasing in spite of the vast increases in the number of guns and introduction of concealed carry licensing laws. Although many administrators and faculty wish it were not the case, both the Second and the First Amendment apply on college campuses. It amazes me how some campuses are so authoritarian. As was often the case when First Amendment rights were denied, the argument of danger to the public is made and is bogus.

Guns, Gun control and Drug Trafficking

Common sense has long dictated that the only people likely to comply with gun control laws are law-abiding citizens who are not the problem. This linked article confirms that drug dealers are likely to carry guns because of the dangers in their trade. Many have felony convictions already and cannot lawfully buy or carry handguns. These folks are not going to be deterred by gun laws from acquiring or carrying guns. Because of the dangers involved, they will go to great lengths to get guns. Many also have lots of money to spend on guns. For these folks, the demand for guns is very inelastic. This is not rocket science!

Tragedy in San Diego--Time to Ban Cars!

Tragedy in San Diego. How much longer are the American people going to let Detroit push them around!

Free copy of Constitution from Heritage Foundation

Because we rant a lot about the Constitution on this blog, I suggest to those of you who don't already have one, get a free pocket-size copy of the U.S. Constitution from the Heritage Foundation. They even pay shipping. No donation required although this is a very worthwhile Foundation, so at least consider a small donation.

Hate speech not protected in Netherlands

In the U.S., there would be no criminal prosecution because the defendant’s speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Head to W. Europe if you want to trade you constitutional rights, including those granted to criminal defendants, for cradle-to-grave care.

Preview of possible S.Ct. decision on Obamacare

It seems highly likely that the final say on the constitutionality of Obamacare will be had by the U.S. Supreme Court. If past patterns hold it will be 4-4 with Kennedy the swing vote. Doctrinally, I think he will vote against it, but he may decide that this is too great a leap by the Court and go with it. Stay tuned. See the linked article from the Economist which is an excellent publication (sometimes with a conservative lean).

Quick S.Ct. Review of Va. ObamaCare case?

The state of Virginia, which won at the U.S. District court level in its challenge to ObamaCare, is seeking immediate Supreme Court review of that case. This is a somewhat unusual procedure as cases usually go to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals before going to the Supreme Court. This case is separate from the recent Florida decision also striking down the law. Given the importance of the issues, quick review by the Supreme Court seems warranted. Stay tuned to see if the Court will grant Virginia's motion.

Obama Care Violates U.S. Constitution

As many of you already know, a federal judge in Florida has invalidated Obama Care. The portion of the statute that required people to purchase health insurance from a private source was deemed beyond the power of Congress. Some excerpts from the opinion are below: “The Commerce Clause originally applied to the trade and exchange of goods as it sought to eliminate trade barriers by and between the states. Over the years, the Clause’s reach has been expanded from covering actual interstate commerce (and its channels and instrumentalities) to intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. It has even been applied to activities that involve the mere consumption of a product (even if there is no legal commercial interstate market for that product). To now hold that Congress may regulate the so-called “economic decision” to not purchase a product or service in anticipation of future consumption is a “bridge too far.” It is without logical limitation and far exceeds the existing legal boundaries established by Supreme Court precedent. Because I find both the “uniqueness” and “economic decision” arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law. . . . (3) Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of the plaintiffs on Count I. . . . [On Severability—the entire statute is invalid] “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably “evident,” as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the “normal rule” that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.” I believe this judge’s analysis is correct. However, at least one other U.S. District Court Judge has found the law constitutional. This case seems destined to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide us with a final answer. The full opinion is available at the LINK.

Antioch CA pays $750K to settle Taser Lawsuit

The Taser complaints and lawsuits continue unabated. Antioch, CA paid $750,000 to settle a lawsuit involving police tasering a woman.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg at it again!

N.Y.'s wealthy, grandstanding, self-righteous mayor Bloomberg is at it again. His minions have been investigating gun shows in other states and complaining about sales at gun shows. I bet Bloomberg wouldn't be happy if folks from other states started sticking their noses into NYC's dark side. There is a thriving black market in guns inside NYC. No matter what state those guns come form, it would seem that Bloomberg's attention should be focused on the area where he has jurisdiction--NYC. Even if the gun show "loophole" was closed, the black market would find weapons elsewhere. Where there's a buck, there's a way. Witness the failed experiment that was Prohibition, massive smuggling in drugs, and all sorts of illegal items. As usual with politicians there's lots of political grandstanding, little rational action. Although I find Bloomberg's tactics pitiful, unlike some, I agree that Second Amendment rights are not absolute. This is obvious from the Supreme Court's opinions in Heller and McDonald. Although I have not thought about the issue in detail, carefully closing the gun show "loophole" could be constitutional. By "carefully" I mean, inter alia, ensuring due process for those whose applications are denied, reasonable privacy for applicants, and no de facto registration system.

Ninth Circuit getting roped in by U.S. Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit has been a bastion of left-wing judicial activism for years. The impact of ideology has been transparent; respect for precedent has been invisible. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously reversed a recent series of Ninth Circuit decisions. It appears that the badly divided Supreme Court agrees on one thing--the 9th Circuit has to follow Supreme Court precedent and guidance.

Student Sues Univ. Over Apartment Gun Ban

Although every knowledgeable person knows that Constitutional rights (incl. Second Amendment) are not absolute, and that there will always be frivolous or marginal lawsuits filed, I think this one is a reasonable challenge. Note that if this were a private landlord, the Second Amendment would not apply. I am somewhat reminded of the cases where public housing development dwellers were subjected to firearms restrictions and sued and won.

Expecting the System to Protect You?

Very disturbing case from one of our favorite cities, New Orleans.

Judge overturns Calif. Ammo law

Judge overturns poorly written Calif. ammo law. The Second Amendment is moving forward slowly, but there will be many public officials who too easily forget that the Second Amendment is part of the Supreme law of the land which takes precedence over their ideology. As the authoritarian Left tries to strike back, I think we can also expect to see more harassment of gun owners who are trying to follow the maze of complex gun laws. However, both sides in the debate need to remember that like all constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not absolute.

Gunman shoots 4 cops at Police Station

More security needed at police stations? Since 9/11, and with all the wackos out there, one gets the impression that more security is needed just about everywhere!

Two officers and suspect killed in Miami Shootout

Two more officers make the utlimate sacrifice for us. RIP. Under federal law, and probably under Florida law, it was unlawful for this convicted felon to possess a firearm or purchase a handgun. As usual, gun control doesn't work against the people that we need to control.

Lack of Respect for the Constitution on the Right

One of my biggest gripes is about the numerous politicians and people (on both the Left and Right) who seem to think that their personal opinion should take preference over the U.S. Constitution--which is the supreme law of the land. IMHO, one of the worst examples,is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer whose "living constitution" and other wacko theories are an insult to anyone who takes the Constitution seriously. I've been going after the Left heavily recent for their ignorance, and lack of respect for the Second Amendment. However, many on the Right suffer from the same blindness and they also need to be called on it. Birthright citizenship is established by the Fourteenth Amendment and made clear by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. Yet, many ideologues on the Right seem to think they can get around this by legislative slights-of-hand. Perhaps they have forgotten, like many on the Left, that federal and state legislation must conform to everything in the Constitution.--not just the parts we like. One Republican Congressman (see link) stated that these birthright children of non-citizen parents might come back to the U.S. later and "blow us up." He is trying to defeat the 14th Amend. with legislation. Get a grip dude!

Voice of Reason after the Tucson Tragedy

FSU Prof. Gary Kleck is the nation's foremost authority on gun control, gun crime, etc. Here's his reasoned approach to gun control and the Tucson tragedy.

Innocence Projects/Networks.

DNA testing has created a revolution in crime-fighting and convicting the guilty. It has also created a revolution in freeing innocent people. Innocence projects of various types have sprung up all over the nation. There are at least 3 in Texas. Here's a good state-by-state list with links.

Spinning a tragedy: Propaganda from the Left.

Ideologues and propagandists on both the Left and Right never miss a tragedy that they can't try to spin. The Tucson tragedy has spawned attacks on Sarah Palin, guns, gun ownership, Arizona's "lax" gun laws, First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms, etc., etc., etc. Gun control authoritarians are having a field day. The headline is misleading, but here is an example. A good response to this kind of sloppy thinking is this one.

Justice coming to Winkler Cty TX?

Justice finally may be coming to Winkler County, TX. In a case that would have made Judge Roy Bean proud, two nurses who reported a doctor to the Texas Medical Board were indicted and one was tried. Anyone with any sense could have smelled a rat. The jury had enough sense to acquit the nurse who was tried. The county was sued and paid out $750,000. A princely sum for a small, sparsely populated West Texas County. The doctor,a former Winkler County Hosp. administrator, the county attorney and Sheriff were recently indicted for their roles in the case against the nurses. Just another example of poor quality of people we frequently find serving in public office. Perhaps the rule of law will find additional vindication.

Update on completely rebuilt 1984 Ford Bronco II

Believe it or not, the "COMPLETELY REBUILT NEW, NEW NEW EVERYTHING" 1984 Ford Bronco II 4/4 is still for sale. In fact, it's been reduced. I'd scap it up, but I'm looking for a completely rebuilt Ford Pinto. Seriously, I'm saving for a Porsche 911 Turbo S. I figure that by the time I turn 88 I should be able to afford a used one and the gas for it. P.S. What's your current "dream car?" (Please, no tree-huggers raining on my parade and don't say your dream car is a 1984 Ford Bronco, LOL).

More security on the Hill and elsewhere?

In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, increased security is now a hot topic. It never ceases to amaze me how people with little risk of attack (incl. those who carry weapons as part of their job, who live in high security buildings, have bodyguards, or live in low crime areas) seem to think that other people arming themselves for protection is a bad idea. This of course make sense given that no matter where you are in the social structure, you almost always have more to fear from those below you in the social structure. On another level, It's amazing how ordinary law-abiding citizen has become a member of the "dangerous classes," to those opposed to people exercising their Second Amendment rights. Further, the more we force people to become dependent on government, the less they will question government tactics and violation of civil liberties.

NOPD starting to clean house?

One NOPD officer who admitted lying to the FBI in the Henry Glover case has resigned. His admission confirms what many already suspect--some officers in some agencies abide by a code of silence forbidding officers from giving information that could damage other officers. The code of silence makes it very difficult to convict officers,clean up agencies and win civil lawsuits. Other officers involved in the Glover case and cover up also seem to be on the way out. Let's hope this is the beginning of real change in NOPD.

D.C.: An American Police State City?

D.C. has a horrendous homicide rate, but, IMHO D.C. seems to be run like a police state, at least for those in high-crime neighborhoods. D.C. has, or has had, some of the most intrusive/repressive laws on the books, that are found if few, if any other cities (e.g. complete ban on civilians having handguns in their homes for defensive purposes) Very few cities are as controlling as D.C. I am not talking about anti-terrorism or national security concerns. I am talking about measures aimed at ordinary, but very serious, crime. The tactics described below in the Mills v. D.C. case 571 F.3d 1304 (at 1306-9) seem more appropriate for U.S. military forces in Iraq or Afghanistan than for police in the “land of the free.”) “The neighborhood safety zone (NSZ) program was created by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in response to the violence that has plagued the Trinidad neighborhood in Northeast Washington, D.C. for many years. Before this case arose, Trinidad had recently been the scene of twenty-five assaults involving firearms, five of which resulted in deaths, and six of which involved the use of vehicles. Shortly after a triple homicide in the Trinidad neighborhood on May 31, 2008, the MPD designated a portion of the neighborhood an NSZ. Pursuant to MPD Special Order 08-06, issued June 4, 2008, MPD implemented the program and erected eleven vehicle checkpoints over the course of five days at locations around the perimeter of the NSZ. This first implementation of the checkpoints took place from June 7 to June 12, 2008. On July 19, 2008, nearly a month after appellants commenced this action in the district court, the Commander of MPD's Fifth District, in response to a series of violent attacks that morning in Trinidad, requested and was granted approval for another NSZ in the Trinidad neighborhood. This second implementation of the NSZ program [***3] originally was to run from July 19 to July 24, but was extended until July 29, 2008. During the first implementation of the NSZ program, Special Order 08-06 set forth the parameters of the program. According to the Special Order, the original primary purpose of the program was "to provide high police visibility, prevent and deter crime, safeguard officers and community members, and create safer District of Columbia neighborhoods." This Special Order also governed the police officers' conduct at the checkpoints during the first [*1307] [**224] implementation of the NSZ checkpoint program. According to the Special Order, motorists were to receive advance notice of checkpoints, which were to be marked with signs around the borders of the NSZ as well as "barricades, lights, cones, and/or flares." Officers were to stop all vehicles attempting to gain access to the NSZ area. Officers were not to stop vehicles attempting to leave the NSZ area without particularized suspicion. Officers also were not to stop individuals seeking to enter the NSZ area on foot. When motorists attempting to gain entry into the NSZ area were stopped at the checkpoint, officers were required to identify themselves to motorists and [***4] inquire whether the motorists had "legitimate reasons" for entering the NSZ area. Legitimate reasons for entry fell within one of six defined categories: the motorist was (1) a resident of the NSZ; (2) employed or on a commercial delivery in the NSZ; (3) attending school or taking a child to school or day-care in the NSZ; (4) related to a resident of the NSZ; (5) elderly, disabled or seeking medical attention; and/or (6) attempting to attend a verified organized civic, community, or religious event in the NSZ. If the motorist provided the officer with a legitimate reason for entry, the officer was authorized to request additional information sufficient to verify the motorist's stated reason for entry into the NSZ area. Officers denied entry to those motorists who did not have a legitimate reason for entry, who could not substantiate their reason for entry, or who refused to provide a legitimate reason for entry. Motorists who failed to provide sufficient information were refused entry into the neighborhood in their vehicles, although motorists were not charged with a criminal offense if they failed to provide a legitimate reason for entry. Officers could not conduct a search of a stopped [***5] vehicle unless individualized suspicion developed during a stop. During the first implementation of the NSZ program, only one arrest was made at a Trinidad NSZ checkpoint; the arrest was for driving while in possession of an open container of alcohol. Forty-eight of 951 vehicles stopped during the June checkpoints were refused entry. The record does not indicate whether any arrests were made during the second implementation of the program. See Mills v. District of Columbia, 584 F. Supp. 2d 47, 58 n.8 (D.D.C. 2008). Between the first and second implementation of the NSZ checkpoints, but after this action commenced, the District revised its Special Order governing the program. Though the six "entry-sufficient" categories remained the same, the District, understandably concerned with running afoul of the Fourth Amendment, tweaked its approach to implementing the program. Significantly, the revised Special Order established that motorists should be asked for identification only if they claimed to be residents of the NSZ in order to verify their residency. The revised Special Order also provided that information given by the motorist need only be "reasonably sufficient" to verify the motorist's [***6] reasons for entry. The primary purpose of the NSZ program remained similar despite the revisions to other areas of the program. The revised Special Order, however, clarified that "[t]he [revised] primary purpose of an NSZ is not to make arrests or to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, but to increase protection from violent criminal acts, and promote the safety and security of persons within the NSZ by discouraging--and thereby deterring--persons in motor vehicles from entering the NSZ intending to commit acts of violence. Appellants Caneisha Mills, Linda Leaks, and Sarah Sloan were among the 48 motorists denied entry at an NSZ checkpoint during the first implementation of the [*1308] [**225] NSZ checkpoints between June 7 and June 12, 2008. 1 Each appellant was denied entry in her vehicle on account of her refusal to provide certain information. Mills refused to provide personal information regarding her identity and intended activities in the NSZ, Leaks refused to provide details about her political activity and intended community organizing, and Sloan refused to provide information about a political meeting she wished to attend. . . ." Finally note the attitude of the Chief of Police, who has probably taken an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S.” “In a press conference held on July 19, 2008, MPD Police Chief Cathy Lanier stated that she would continue to utilize NSZs "until a judge orders [her] to stop." You don’t want to tangle with a liberal police chief (of a liberal-dominated city) who only wants to protect you. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, no final decision has yet been made as to whether the injunction will be granted or not. This case highlights the issue of whether we have more to fear from government or other citizens. Also problematic is the fact that these particular tactics are aimed at a relatively poor and minority neighborhood. Undoubtedly most trying to enter this neighborhood are also poor and minority. Can we justify these tactics on the basis that they will benefit the people whose rights are being violated? Finally is it realistic to think that these tactics will have any meaningful effect on violent crime in the neighborhood? Finally, stealing and paraphrasing a sarcastic/humorous e-mail quip from Steven Jamar: worrying about civil liberties is so pre 9/11.