Parker v. District of Columbia, An Inside View: The lead attorney for
the plaintiffs outlines the case and its history and the NRA doesn't
come out smelling that good (unless you believe that it's premature to
develop a Second Amendment case that could make it to the Supreme
Court). The list member who furnished the link also furnished some
useful comments:
...Parker was crafted very, very narrowly, and that was very
deliberate...It was designed very specifically to address the
meaning of the Second Amendment: individual vs. collective, and not
to bring up any other issue. The decision to test the DC law, rather
than, say, the Morton Grove, Illinois, law was also very deliberate.
They wanted to avoid the entire "incorporation" issue.
...The Supreme Court ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not
apply to state laws. Many people assume that the 14th amendment
changed that, but the Supreme Court didn't really address it until a
series of cases starting in the 1940's. Incredibly, in the first
incorporation case, they didn't simply state that the Bill of Rights
constrained state governments. They simply stated that the
particular provisions necessary to decide that particular case
applied to the states. And then they continued, piecemeal fashion,
in a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's to "incorporate" most
of the Bill of Rights against the states, but there are still a few
pieces missing, including the Second Amendment, because the Supreme
Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_vs_dc.htm
---
Follow The Money?: The Washington Post profiles Robert Levy as the
lawyer who conceived the lawsuit that gutted the District's tough
gun-control statute this month...the lawyer who recruited a group of
strangers to sue the city and bankrolled their successful litigation out
of his own pocket.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html
---
Will Parker Make "Gun Control" An Issue in 2008?: George Will argues
that a federal appeals court may have revived gun control as a political
issue, a factor that could boost the sagging GOP in the 2008 elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601992.html
Alternate Posting:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/03/18/the_right_to_bear_arms_in_washington_dc
---
Permit-Holder Lists - The Aftermath Of Publication: The Virginia
Citizens Defense League points out some of the damage that can result
from a list of
CHP-holders being posted on a newspaper's website for as little as 24 hours.
http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=1543745
---
Debate Continues About Hunting In National Park: With the elk herd in
Rocky Mountain National Park overflowing into an adjacent community, a
bill has been introduced to allow hunters, rather than professional
marksmen, to cull the herd. (As previously mentioned, this is worth
watching because the blanket ban on firearms in national parks is
reputedly an anti-poaching measure for those venues, where hunting has
been prohibited.)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070318-124644-4567r.htm
---
Missouri RKBA Lobbyist Profiled: Tim Oliver has spent 16 years in
Jefferson City attempting to change the way that Missouri and its
legislators view gun laws. As a volunteer lobbyist and private
investigator, Oliver's efforts began in 1991, when he lobbied in favor
of concealed carry, an issue that was becoming prevalent with gun-rights
groups throughout the country. It was a career created more out of
practicality than out of any deep-rooted desire to get into politics.
http://www.digmo.com/news/story.php?ID=24792
---
Connecticut Town Sues Woman For "No Guns" Claim: In a lawsuit filed
recently in Superior Court in Hartford, the town of Newington alleges
that Mary Fletcher, the girlfriend of Bruce Carrier and owner of the
house to which Lavery, who was subsequently killed by Carrier, was
summoned on a report of a domestic dispute on Dec. 30, 2004, was
negligent when she indicated to Lavery and another officer that there
were no guns in the house.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctnewsuit0317.artmar17%2C0%2C7053950.story?track=mostemailedlink
---
NYPD Auxiliary Officers Died For Nothing: John Longenecker comments,
"...Marshalik and Pekearo made two fatal mistakes: the first is that
they didn't take cover and faced him openly to 'talk with him' it's
reported, and the second is that they were unarmed and had no power to
stop him. Compare this to the off-duty officer in Utah's Trolley Square
Incident where one officer was armed and shot the shooter to death
before the shooter could kill more people." (Actually, the off-duty
officer engaged the the killer initially but it was actually responding
SWAT officers who fired the fatal shots in the Utah incident.)
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/03/17/officers-marshalik-and-pekearo-died-for-nothing/
---
A Reminder From The Past: A list member furnished the link to this video
that demonstrates the difference between full-auto and semi-auto and
shows how easy and insignificant it is to change the cosmetic appearance
of a rifle. The video was obviously produced prior to the passage of
California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989. Officer
Pyle was disciplined and forced to leave the San Jose Police Department
for his testimony against that bill despite (or, more precisely, because
of) the fact that his chief, Joseph MacNamara made repeated in-uniform
appearances on behalf of Handgun Control, Inc.
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/4101
---
From NRA-ILA: Because the revised format of the NRA-ILA alerts makes it
impractical to forward them in bulk, I will simply include a link to the
page where you can select the ones that interest you.
http://www.nra.org/Stories.aspx?sid=13
---
From AzCDL:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has published proposals on the
future access and use of the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM).
There are four Alternatives proposed regarding use of the IFNM:
Alternative A - The "No Action" Alternative. Land use would continue as
it is now.
Alternative B - The most restrictive would severely limit use.
Recreational shooting "except for permitted hunting" would be prohibited.
Alternative C - BLM's preferred scenario but still highly restrictive.
Like Alternative B, recreational shooting "except for permitted hunting"
would be prohibited.
Alternative D - Greater access than under the current plan.
BLM wants to keep shooters out of the Ironwood Forest National Monument
with their preferred Alternative C.
PUBLIC MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED - VOICE YOUR OPINION
These plans can have a major effect on YOUR hunting and recreational
shooting. Attending these meetings is critical to the future of YOUR
access to BLM lands. The BLM preferred "Alternative C" is to ban
recreational shooting from the National Monument. This would be the
largest ban of recreational shooting in Arizona history. You need to be
at this meeting and have your voice heard!
The BLM Tucson Field Office has released, for public review, a Draft
Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Ironwood Forest National Monument. A 90-day comment period will
last from March 2, 2007, to May 30, 2007.
The document is available online at
https://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/ironwood/ironwood_plan.htm.
Please contact the BLM's Tucson Office at (520) 258-7200 if you require
an alternate format for the document. Comments on the plan can be
submitted by mail to Mark Lambert, BLM Planner, at 12661 E. Broadway,
Tucson, AZ 85748, or sent via email to
[email protected].
Five public meetings are scheduled to present the plan to the public and
allow for discussions and questions with BLM staff:
March 29, 2007: Tucson, Arizona
Pima County Parks & Recreation, 3500 West River Road, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
April 3, 2007: Sahuarita, Arizona
Sahuarita High School, 350 West Sahuarita Road, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
April 5, 2007: Chandler, Arizona
Chandler Public Library, City Council Chambers, 22 South Delaware
Street, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
April 10, 2007: Sells, AZ
Legislative Council Chambers, Main Street, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
April 12, 2007: Tucson, Arizona 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Pima County Parks & Recreation, 3500 West River Road, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Ironwood Forest National Monument was established by Presidential
Proclamation in June 2000. The 129,000-acre monument, located about 25
miles northwest of Tucson, encompasses several desert mountain ranges
including the Silver Bell, Waterman, and Sawtooth ranges, and possesses
one of the richest stands of ironwood trees in the Sonoran Desert. The
monument contains several archaeological districts and a significant
system of cultural and historical sites covering a 5,000-year period.
The monument also features a wide diversity of vegetation and wildlife.
The management plan will guide the BLM is its management decisions for
the monument, and reflects the many changes that have occurred in the
area including intensive development in the Marana area, and increasing
demand on public lands for recreation opportunities.
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League
(AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots
organization. Join today!
AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
Copyright � 2007 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
---
From John Farnam:
13 Mar 07
Comments on eye protection from an LEO friend and instructor:
"Persuading our officers to wear eye protection during the day is an
easy sell. What self-respecting patrolman doesn't routinely appear in
sexy Gargoyles or Oakley's latest, trendy offering?
Yet, how many of us regularly wear eye protection while on patrol at
night? Between suspects trying to stick fingers in your eyes (when
they're not spitting in your face) not to mention OC spray gone astray,
there's all kinds of good reasons to wear eye protection any time we're
working, but few of us do.
It is, I'm sure you agree, completely illogical to religiously wear soft
body armor while failing to wear safety glasses!"
Comment: Hard to counter-argue!
(Again, while this advice is couched in terms of police officers on
patrol, it is equally valid for everyone else.)
13 Mar 07
During WWII, Winston Churchill sent this desperate memo to his Chief of Air
Staff. From its tone, one notes that the UK at that time was in the
middle of an unfortunate and self-inflicted shortage of individual small
arms, dating from the British Royal Family's paranoid over-reaction to
the brutal murder of the Russian Royal Family by Bolsheviks during the
Revolution earlier in the Century. At the time this memo was written,
what few small arms that were in the hands of British home-security
folks and civilians had been hurriedly imported from the USA. It all
contributed to a rather sorry state of affairs, considering that a
German amphibious assault on the island nation was regarded as imminent:
"Everyone in uniform ought to be armed with something: rifle,
Tommy-gun, pistol, pike, or mace. And, everyone, without exception,
should do at least one hour's drill and practice every day... Every
airman should know his place in the defense scheme. It must be known
and understood, by all ranks, that they are expected to fight and die in
the defense of their airfields. Every airfield must be a stronghold of
fighting airmen, and not merely the abode of uniformed civilians,
'protected' by a minuscule detachment
of soldiers.
Never forget that the purpose of an Army is to fight. And, to fight
effectively, it must be headed by inspired leaders. 'Managers' can put
the most modern and well-equipped force into the field. They cannot,
however, 'manage' an infantry unit into enemy fire to seize an objective!"
Comment: The world, then and now, is filled with adolescent grasseaters
(many even in uniform), who naively think that someone else is going to
protect them from harm and that they need not make any preparations nor
take any personal responsibility for their own safety. Desperate
periods of history, such as the one described above, periodically put
the lie to such stupidly superficial thinking.
In times of national crisis, most politicians and bureaucrats will think
only of protecting themselves. We peons had better be well practiced
and equipped to look after our own home and hearth, as we'll be on our
own. As Winston reminds us, all citizens, in and out of uniform, should
be armed, all the time. We need to get used to it!
/John
(Perhaps John has assumed that all of his readers are aware that prior
to the US entry into WWII, thousands of Americans donated personal
firearms, through the NRA, to help arm Britain's Home Guard. Many of
those firearms had significant collector value yet have been destroyed
in the island nation's more recent dash to disarm its subjects. As an
aside, the famed W.E. Fairbairn and E.A. Sykes were initially brought
home from Shanghai to train the Home Guard in unconventional tactics, in
anticipation of a German invasion. As a further sidelight, the NRA had a
program during WWII in which shooters with reloading equipment produced
and donated ammunition, mostly .38 Special, for use by guards at plants
producing war materiel)
14 Mar 07
Confirmation of what we all know. Sloppy dressing reflects sloppy
thinking. This from a friend who is chief of security at a big
gentlemen's club in TX:
"After an exhaustive review of violent events that have taken place on
our property over the past five years, I strongly recommended to our
general manager that we upgrade our customers' attire code, so that
undesirable elements can be consistently denied entry.
He was reluctant, because he thought a strictly-enforced dress code
might degrade the club's income through loss of business. I was able to
show that sloppily dressed, heavily tattooed, sunglass-wearing,
gang-associated people were responsible for nearly every violent event
we've had on property. In addition, our research confirms that these
trouble-makers don't spend money with us anyway! Finally, their
slovenly presence and violent gestures, gang-signs, language, and
innuendos tend to drive away decent people, who do spend money with us,
and are the very customers we want most to attract. When routinely
granted entry, such low-life take it as an indication that their sloppy
dress, foul language, and threatening behavior are 'acceptable.' This
generates real issues when my people have to confront them!
In any event, I was instructed to go ahead and upgrade our dress code
for three months and then report back. Results so far have been
remarkable!
In the past, just about anyone with a cover charge in hand had been
granted admission. Now, our new policy specifically prohibits all
hip-hop attire, flip-flops, heavy/ostentatious jewelry, sunglasses,
baseball caps, et al. At our main entry there is now a list of attire
that is not acceptable and well as a caveat that the management reserves
to right to determine the appropriateness of any attire not specifically
addressed and refuse admission to anyone deemed inappropriately
dressed. We don't require jackets and ties, but now, to get in, you're
going to have to be well-groomed, clean, and kempt.
Thus far, those turned away at the door have sniveled, whined, and
threatened to take their money elsewhere. 'This is who I am, and I
ain't changing anything,' is the typical response. We reply that we
want neither them nor their business and have openly encouraged them to
look somewhere else for a place to hang out! They simply leave, and we
don't see them again.
Results are in: (1) Violent incidents on property have dropped to zero.
(2) People who have to be forcibly ejected from the property have
dropped to virtually zero. (3) Well-dressed, big-spending clients have
increasingly chosen our place to bring their out-or-town guests (4)
Club income is way up!
Call it 'profiling' if you want. We've discovered here that you can
judge a book by its cover and that doing so is just good business!"
Comment: There are many people who, for reasons known only to them, make
it a point to always appear as slobs, to be ever unkempt, and constantly
dirty. There may be establishments who want this kind of trash as
customers, but one surely can't blame bushiness when they deliberately
screen them out, nor can one argue with the positive results when they
do. Personal decency is incompatible with slovenliness.
/John
(Since most of us probably don't own the sort of business described
above, the comments are probably best viewed in terms of our choice of
establishments to patronize or avoid. Ironically, my favorable review of
one of John's books [
http://www.spw-duf.info/emperor.html#title] is
entitled "Don't Judge a Book by Its Title.)
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
