Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Mark Alan Schack's "Accident"
Chocolate Cake and Sidebars has the synopsis:
Everyone seems to agree the rifle could not have gone off accidentally. But what do you think about that expert witness and his description of the gun? I didn't think he made a very good case for banning guns like this one. I can already hear all the pro-gun responses to his remarks. But, one interesting thing was the fact that it comes from Israel in parts and in assembled in the U.S. Is that a way of skirting some laws?May 17, 2008, police responded to an “accidental shooting” in Fort Meyers Florida. Upon arriving, police found Amy Boscarino on the floor suffering from a gunshot wound to the neck. After an unsuccessful CPR attempt and EMS arrival, she was pronounced dead at the scene.
After further investigation, deputies found that it wasn’t actually an accident. Schack’s claim was that he adjusted the scope on his rifle when the gun went off accidentally as it fell from a dresser. Witnesses and friends state that their relationship had problems and it became clear that this was more than an accident and a resulting warrant was issued for Mark Schack.
He is charged with second-degree murder, which carries a minimum 25 years in prison and a maximum of life.
Verdict:
After deliberating for just an hour, jurors came back with a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder. Sentencing was held Feb 1, 2010 where he was sentenced to life in prison.
Another thing I didn't like about his explanation was all that talk about the velocity of the bullet. Why the interviewer didn't ask how that compares to other rifles makes me wonder if he was even listening. The fact that the round travels faster than the speed of sound doesn't strike me like something that should elicit a "wow." In fact it means absolutely nothing unless we know how it compares to other guns. What do you think? Do some bullets travel slower than the speed of sound? Does it really matter? Is that what makes this weapon objectionable?
What I felt was not made adequately clear in the piece was the question of why would someone what to own a gun like this? I know that question is roundly dismissed by pro-gun folks and even mocked by some, but I think it's a good one. I realize it's difficult to define a military assault weapon in such a way that ordinary hunting guns are not included, but the question remains, why would someone want to own one of these?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Ambassador Antonin Scalia
Do you think cheating on your taxes should disqualify a person for owning guns? Isn't the intent of that "felony" law to keep violent people from having guns? What do you think?Tomorrow "Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" winner Antonin Scalia will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that will decide whether the opinion penned by the gun industry "Ambassador" in District of Columbia v. Heller will be applied across the nation.
Tuesday's oral arguments will be a homecoming of sorts for Scalia and Alan Gottlieb, whose Second Amendment Foundation is one of the driving forces behind the McDonald case (Gottlieb himself is an object lesson in the gun lobby's immunity to irony.
The SAF head is a convicted felon -- he was caught cheating on his taxes -- who at one time lost the ability to possess guns. He later regained the ability to own guns through the now-defunct federal "relief from disability" program, a multi-million dollar program that re-armed convicted, often violent, felons, at taxpayer expense. The program was defunded after being exposed by my organization, the Violence Policy Center.
When last seen together (at least by me), the two graced the cover of The New Gun Week in an article celebrating the ambassadorship bestowed on Scalia by the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), an international organization comprised primarily of gunmakers and pro-gun organizations (including the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation) from around the world. The award given to Scalia by the WFSA's "Image Sub-Committee" offers "public recognition of the social contribution made by some of the many public figures who have a longstanding interest in the shooting sports." Scalia was awarded the honor and gave the keynote address during the WFSA's 2007 annual meeting in Nuremberg, Germany. The previous year's winner was Ugo Gussalli Beretta, president of the Italian gun manufacturer Beretta. The award consists of a silver reproduction of a 16th century pistol with powder flask.
So while we in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who's an "Ambassador" for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents, maybe in Old Europe, where the WFSA is located, they can still feel the sting of a little thing called shame.
Don't you think it's a bit odd that Justice Scalia is presiding over a case in which he himself has a personal interest? Isn't that a conflict of interest or something?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Patriotic People
Laci on the Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court has another chance to prove that US justice is not the best money can buy in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. Bouyed by its success in DC v. Heller, the Cato institute is yet again posed to prove the US justice runs by the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. Unlike DC v. Heller, they are much more blatant that they have been plaintiff shopping in their attempt to rewrite the constitution to their interpretation. Added by the stupidity of the American public regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment as a guarantee against the establishment of a standing army now that the military budget has gone out of control (remember that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" P.T. Barnum), they may just pull it off.
The rest of the article contains a fascinating description of Patrick Henry's ideas concerning the 2nd amendment. This, according to historian Henry Mayer, perfectly supports the belief held by many that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable.
What's your opinion? Is Laci right in saying, "[f]ive supreme court justices may again show that my dog has a better understanding of the law than they do?"
Please leave a comment.