Greg says this never happens....

I trust Greg's experience implicitly.

Ah, Those Dangerous, Lawless Tea Party Criminals

This is for RedAz;  it is an ongoing concern to me that pro-gunners are convinced they know the laws and rules governing firearms.  They insist they know better than any of the rest of us what those laws are.

But, clearly, that is not necessarily true.

From Politico:

Mark Meckler, tea party leader, arrested with gun

By TIM MAK | 12/16/11 6:28 AM EST

A prominent tea party leader was charged with a felony Thursday after he took a gun to New York City’s LaGuardia Airport and it was discovered during a pre-flight check-in.

Mark Meckler, co-founder of the conservative Tea Party Patriots group, was arrested after he tried to check in for a Delta airlines flight with a locked box containing a Glock pistol and 19 units of 9mm ammunition, according to a release from the Queens District Attorney’s office.

Meckler, who had been in New York since Sunday, allegedly told authorities that he carries the gun because he gets threats.

The tea party leader has a permit to carry the weapon in California, but that state’s permit does not allow one to carry a firearm in New York.
“He didn’t have a correct understanding of the law,” said Al Della Fave, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates LaGuardia, according to the AP. “Though he has a permit to carry in California, that did not cover him in the state of New York.”
The tea party leader’s lawyer argued that he was “in temporary transit through the state of New York in possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm,” and that Mr. Meckler had been fully compliant with all laws, according to The New York Times.
Meckler was arraigned on charges of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a felony that could carry up to 15 years in prison. He was released pending a Jan. 12 court date.
“Before leaving home, passengers should acquaint themselves with the weapons laws of the jurisdiction that they are visiting and comply with any and all legal requirements if they choose to travel with a weapon. Otherwise, they may find themselves being arrested and charged with a felony — as is what occurred in this case,” warned Queens District Attorney Richard Brown.
The Tea Party Patriots group, which Meckler helped found in 2009, has played a major organizational role in the tea party movement — particularly in the demonstrations that were held across the country to encourage government to rein in debt and to oppose President Barack Obama’s initiatives on health care.

Got a weapon--turn 'em in!

The London Metropolitan Police has a programme where they stop and search people for weapons.

These searches were even more successful "when people give us information into who we should be stopping", according to Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe. He added that when someone regularly carried a weapon, their "brothers will know, the girlfriends will know, the people they go out with every night will know...If they tell us, we'll make sure we stop those people, and therefore make our stop-and-search even more effective."

I bet that gives the US 2A crowd the willies.

Personally, I preferred the knife exchange programme.

Vance v. Rumsfeld Suit Passes Another Hurdle

Cross posted from Penigma; I would remind readers that this case is about a contractor who brought the illegal weapons sales (and service) by U.S. military and other contractors to the attention of the FBI, and was then imprisoned and tortured, in an attempt to prevent the illegal gun trade being interrupted.

I am impressed that the Vance suit is successfully challenging the hurdles, and as noted near the end of the article below,

"This makes two cases in two weeks--one district court, one circuit court--allowing very similar torture suits to move forward against Rumsfeld. We'll watch for appeals."

And we will be watching for interpretation and explanations of them from the Constitutional Law Professor Blog! For those coming late to this topic, we began covering it earlier on Penigma, here.

From the Constitutional Law Professor Blog (there's some good reading here!):

August 9, 2011
Seventh Circuit Allows Torture Suit Against Rumsfeld to Move Forward

A divided three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled on Monday in Vance v. Rumsfeld that a Bivens suit by two Americans alleging that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized their torture can move forward.

In short, the court ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their allegations that Secretary Rumsfeld authorized treatment that violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (substantive due process)--and that he reasonably should have known it. The court thus ruled that the plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to satisfy the pleading standard in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and that Rumsfeld did not qualify for immunity. The court also ruled that there was no reasonable alternative way for the plaintiffs to bring their claims and that there were no special factors counselling against a Bivens remedy. In particular, the court rejected the defendants' separation-of-powers arguments--like those in Doe--that courts don't have any business in cases dealing with national security and foreign affairs, especially in times of war.

If the case sounds familiar, that's because it is: Just last week, Judge Gwin (D.D.C.) ruled in Doe v. Rumsfeld that a nearly identical suit can move forward. (The plaintiffs in the suits alleged similar torture at the same site, Camp Cropper, the U.S. military prison in Iraq.) The key difference between these cases and the D.C. Circuit's rejection of a torture claim against Rumsfeld in June: The plaintiffs here are U.S. citizens; the plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit case, Arkan v. Rumsfeld, were aliens. (The D.C. Circuit ruled that it wasn't clearly established in 2004, the time of the actions there, that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments applied to aliens detained abroad; Rumsfeld thus had qualified immunity.)

Judge Hamilton's opinion in Vance, joined by Judge Evans, tracked Judge Gwin's reasoning, but with over 80 pages of detail. The meaty opinion seems carefully tailored to withstand any appeal.

I would encourage any Penigma reader who finds this issue of interest to continue reading here. You don't need to be a law professor, lawyer, or law student to understand it; it is very well written, and very interesting.

For those of us who are not lawyers or conversant in legalese, here is the definition of a Bivens suit, referenced above, from the web site U.S.Legal.com definitions :

Bivens action refers to a lawsuit which is brought to redress a federal official's violation of a constitutional right. Bivens action allows federal officials to be sued in a specific manner, similar to one prescribed at 42 USCS § 1983 for state officials violating a person's constitutional rights under color of state law.

I'm glad I found this Constitutional Law Professor site; I had gotten out of the habit of reading as much in these areas, with bat-shit crazy Orly Taitz having pretty much run out of steam....or options.

Follow This Interview to the Sales of Guns, Ammo and Providing Gun Repair Trade

I would point out that this is the 3rd known law suit that has been given the go-ahead by federal courts against former Sec.of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld for torturing U.S. citizens.  There is serious and credible reason to believe there  may be more.

I believe Mr. Vance is a hero, and a true patriot, for the risks he took, and the pain he underwent, in addressing the illegal sale of firearms, ammo, and firearm repair.

Gary McCarthy on the Racial and Ethnic Implications of Gun Violence

From HuffPo by way of aol, video from youtube:

Garry McCarthy, Chicago Top Cop, Calls Gun Laws 'Government-Sponsored Racism'; Right Responds

Gun rights advocates and other right-wing groups responded harshly on Friday to some strong words on gun control by Chicago's new top cop.
Garry McCarthy, brought in as the superintendent of police by newly elected mayor Rahm Emanuel, made the comments at St. Sabina, a liberal black church in the heart of Chicago's South Side. The Auburn-Gresham neighborhood where the church is located has struggled with gun violence for years, and its pastor, Father Michael Pfleger, is an outspoken supporter of limiting gun rights.
So McCarthy was playing to his audience when he made remarks like these (at around 5:40 in the video):

"So here’s what I want to tell you. See, let’s see if we can make a connection here. Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What did they all have in common? Anybody getting’ scared? Government sponsored racism. I told you I wasn't afraid [of race]. I told you I wasn't afraid. "Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children."

Immediately after those remarks, he also insisted, as he has often said since coming over to Chicago from Newark, N.J., that the gun control debate has to move "back to the center."
But conservative commentators overlooked that more moderate position in their response to the recently-surfaced video.
“After several minutes of gratuitous self-promotion, McCarthy launched into a racially charged tirade in which he accused the NRA and law-abiding gun owners of participating in a government-sponsored program to kill black people," Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, wrote on the group's website.

Like most of you, we believe an assertion such as McCarthy’s is too nutty to dignify with a response." Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog goes for guilt by association: "McCarthy states his comfort speaking to the “right audience” about his views," blogger Rebel Pundit writes. "Could this be because outspoken radical activist Rev. Dr. Michael L. Pfleger is the Pastor of the Faith Community of Saint Sabina? Pfleger is known for his strong anti-gun views, outreach to prostitutes, anti-drug campaigns, and warm relationships with Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright."

And a vitriolic blog post on ChicagoNow pulled no punches. "[W]e have a top cop more interested in appearing at racist churches making race-baiting speeches than doing his job," writes Warner Todd Huston. "Emanuel better watch out because what we obviously have here is just another arrogant jack-booted thug that thinks he should be allowed to make up his own laws instead of enforcing the laws actually on the books.

McCarthy issued a relatively toned-down statement on Friday. "Strong gun laws against illegal firearms are critical in order to maintain public safety and private rights,” McCarthy said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “Gang and drug activity intersect with guns, and all three must be the focus of violence-reduction efforts in our communities.”

Obviously from my previous writing, I agree with Mr. McCarthy that gun violence has a disproportionately large impact on certain demographics of race and economic status.  I agree with him completely that preventing - so far as it is humanly possible - the possession of illegal firearms by people who will do violence or commit crimes is essential to public safety.  I would point out that doing so makes all of us safer, whether we are legal gun owners, or choose not to own firearms.

In considering the knee-jerk reaction on the right against Mr. McCarthy, I found the following video to be informative in how effective McCarthy has been in pursuing his theories, as they are reflected in crime statistics, including the reduction of gun violence.

This kind of result is what I wish to see, and what I believe my co-bloggers also wish to see happen.  I believe this is absolutely possible, without keeping legal and responsible gun owners from possessing firearms.  If minor inconveniences like registration and gun purchasers being checked for things like a criminal conviction (including drugs and/or gang activity), or a pattern of domestic violence as evidenced by a restraining order, or a medical history of mental illness that includes violent behavior or threats, then that is a reasonable balancing of individual rights to own firearms for their own enjoyment and the need for public safety where far too many people are injured, killed, or threatened.  McCarthy correctly addresses issues which have a disproportionate and devastating impact on largely minority areas of Chicago, issues which parallel those problems in other communities.   I would argue that those areas are affected in this way not because of a correlation to race or ethnicity and violence, but because of the correlation to prejudice against minority individuals that tend to result in fewer opportunities, greater obstacles to success, and other problems that are the result of poverty.  So long as poverty affects those demographically defined groups more severely than other segments of our population, they will be more strongly affected by crime and gun violence as well; the two go together.

I strongly disagree with the right attempting to discredit McCarthy, and the way in which the right characterizes both the black religious community and sincere, legitimate, effective efforts to reduce crime.  Black churches have a long history of being a source of stability and progress in these communities, of making positive and constructive contributions to solving the problems of the areas in which they are located.

There is nothing 'jack booted' or 'thuggish' about McCarthy.  Government is in part very much a matter of our laws and law enforcement.  McCarthy is perfectly correct when he points out the racism that has been inherent and intended in the old 'Jim Crow' laws.  Another example of racism as it intersects with government is the recent indictments of the campaign staff of the former Republican governor of Maryland from the 2010 Maryland state election, where there was attempted voter suppression of exclusively black voters:  http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/06/right-wing-racism-voter-suppression-and.html .

Just one more in a long line of conservative, and recently largely Republican, political and government connected racism.  I think the balancing of the right to free speech by the legislation that prohibits this kind of voter suppression very closely parallels the need to balance the right to own guns against the legitimate public safety issue of regulating legal guns to reduce crimes by illegal guns which were initially legally owned and obtained, or illegally transferred to criminals.