Saturday, November 13, 2010

Newark Cop - Domestic Abuser

I guess it's hard to prove crimes that take place inside the home.

Edward Duprey, 42, is charged with aggravated assault, making terroristic threats and weapons offenses in connection with a May incident inside the Newark home he shares with his girlfriend, said Katherine Carter, spokeswoman for the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. 
This is definitely another case in support of FWM's idea: disarm the cops and leave the rest of them alone.

I don't think he really said that, I'm exaggerating. It does seem, though, that the cops are often the worst offenders.

 What do you think about that old castle doctrine, not the one which allows you to shoot someone but the more general one which says a man's home is his castle?  No one would like laws which extend within the walls of such sanctified autonomy, but I suppose they're necessary.  Certainly, it's fair for the government to forbid domestic violence within the home, even the threatening with a gun like in this case.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Mud-Rake on the Bush Book

Our friend Mudrake wrote a wonderful post about Bush's book.

How’s that George W. Bush scar coming along? Seems that he himself wants to poke around in that quite tender and recently closed set of risky adventures that he directed- adventures that sent tens of thousands of our military men and women to either early graves or a lifetime of disability.  Not to mention the billions of wasted tax dollars and our world-reputation.
We're often accused of being "Bush bashers." But what about the "Bush supporters" like Sepp, who have an answer for every criticism? His comments are really quite amazing.

What's your opinion? In retrospect, isn't President Bush worthy of a little bashing, or quite a lot? I say he should be in Leavenworth.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Cenk on Capitalism

Just when you thought we had identified all the loopholes.



What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment

A Message from Jeff Burkett

I received this very nice message from Jeff Burkett in response to my post which he linked below.  One thing I wondered is, did he misunderstand my reference to needing the car comparisons?  That was about the alcohol issue, which has been a hot topic around here lately.

Do these gun activists in Iowa, and our other commenters for that matter condone drinking while carrying a gun? Is it to be presumed that excess would be avoided, or is that also acceptable as long as you don't drive? What about at home, is there no limit to the amount of alcohol consumption a gun owner can enjoy? Is it always left up to his own common sense?

About the may issue / shall issue question, isn't the local sheriff in a unique position to determine this in the many cases in which, just for example, juvenile offenders coming of age haven't yet been branded with felonies but have demonstrated true irresponsibility.  And what about those folks who are dangerously unstable but have not yet been committed to an asylum?  Aren't these the reasons for giving the local cops that power?

These are my idea, which are well known.  Here's Jeff's message in its entirety, which I appreciated very much for its reasonable tone.

This article in the Chicago Tribune was not completely clear.  Does it mean all Iowans who have a concealed carry permit will now be issued another permit for open carry?  Is that a change in the law?

There is a change in the law to Iowa's Permit to Carry (not CCW permit). Effective Jan. 1st, 2011, Iowa transitions from a May Issue state, with Sheriff's having full autonomy over the permit system, to a Shall Issue state where there is one law for the land (Iowa), period. And the law isn't based on Sheriff discretion. ISSDA
has been on a media blitz to raise awareness because they want to move restrictions into place that they feel should be in place. Hence, the media, in an effort to fear-monger, is tripping over themselves to get information out in a relatively poor manner.
At any rate, to directly address the question, it is really, really poor journalism that you've discovered. There is not permit for a permit. Basically, as described previously, we simply go from May Issue to Shall Issue, and the only real major change to the law is that Sherrif's can not place restrictions on permits. Iowans have been able to Open Carry for decades, they've been able to drink alcohol while carrying for decades...so long as the Sheriff didn't restrict so on their individual permit. Under current law there are thousands of permits not restricted on these two items already.

Where are all the car comparisons when we need them? What could these people possibly be thinking?

What, in my opinion, had really paved the road for Shall Issue to pass were a few things:

1. Iowa Carry, and other pro-gun organizations in the past really got a head of steam rolling to change what was clearly a broken mess of 99 counties with 99 ways of permitting.
2. NRA started backing these organizations efforts.
3. In fairness, the Democrat majority leader in the Senate has historically been fairly pro-gun.
4. Democrats have been taking a lot of heat in recent years, as recent elections in Iowa have demonstrated. This was an opportunity for them to appeal to people on a conservative issue, and frankly it was the right thing to do which made it easy, Sheriff's shouldn't be allowed to individually permit people based on personal opinion. So, the only people Democrats would really irritate over this were two groups; a. A handful of Sheriff's and, b. A minority of anti-gun advocates that all vote straight-ticket Democrat anyway.

So, in summary, I don't think it is really anything to do with Iowa as it relates to other states, although it's a very fair observation that often states to somewhat mirror each other on legislation.


Just my take on it, as a Iowa Carry/Iowa Firearms Coalition member, volunteer.


--
Jeff Burkett
VP of Public Relations
Iowa Firearms Coalition
www.iowafirearmscoalition.org
515.994.0330

Serr8d on Guns and Alcohol

This is a diagram generously submitted by Serr8d. I'm not gonna even comment on it because if I say something serious like pointing out that the top two circles do not overlap and he comes back with the whole thing was a joke, I'll look pretty silly.

But, what do you think? Perhaps the maestro himself could explain, you know, to help those with a "fierce and tiny mind."

Please leave a comment.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Virginia is for Meat Lovers

Mike Licht has the sense of humor, that's for sure. But this?

Vegetarian hunters can donate venison to needy meat-eaters at local food banks.
Does such a thing exist? I can't think of two activities more mutually exclusive than vegetarianism and deer hunting. Can you?

Please leave a comment.

Proposition H in San Francisco (2005)

On another thread TS asked me this:

My question is to put yourself in San Francisco in 2005. Are you telling me you would have voted NO on the gun ban?
Wikipedia has the story about this fascinating situation.

To answer TS's question, I guess we first have to belabor still further the definition of "gun ban."   I wasn't following these things in 2005, but it sounds to me like this is a good example of the misuse of the word "ban."  Wouldn't "restrictions" be better, or even "severe restrictions?"

Those semantic issues aside, and assuming the brief description in Wikipedia is accurate, I would have voted YES on Proposition H in 2005.

What's that prove exactly?   Please leave a comment.