Banning Assault Pools and Pillows

Ammoland has a very good summary of child fatality statistics in an article entitled More Children Killed by Pillows than by Firearms. According to the article, in 2010, only 65 children (those aged 14 and under) were killed by firearms. That same year, 1,210 were killed by suffocation, and 739 were killed by drowning. Should we ban assault pillows and assault pools?

Every few years, the gun grabbers bring up the idea that thousands of "children" are killed every year in drive by shootings, and from finding their parent's gun and shooting themselves or others.  I hate to be harsh, but the far greater number of these "children" are ages 15 through sometimes as old as 20, who are involved in criminal gangs, selling drugs, running prostitution and guns.  I feel genuinely sorry for the mothers who come on television and sob that their boy was a good boy, but the facts usually say otherwise.  By the age of 18, many have a long record of crimes.

Please make a copy of the chart included with the article.  The next time someone starts yammering on about the number of children killed with a firearm, pull out the chart.

Was Ted Stevens Really Guilty?

I carry no water for former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. But, this is interesting: according to USA Today, Inquiry Finds Misconduct by Prosecutors in Ted Stevens case. Such misconduct was also present in, among other cases, the Olafson case. What I find remarkable is that no prosecution of the prosecutors is recommended because the judge didn't issue a "clear and unequivocal" order that they "follow the law."

Huh?

Now it is necessary to state that the proceedings will follow the law, otherwise you don't know under what set of rules the prosecution may be conducted? Really?  As officers of the court, aren't they supposed to automatically follow the law, or be disbarred?

As I said before, I carry no water for Stevens, but he should have been tried under the rule of law, giving him the full benefit of the doubt. Exculpatory evidence should have been revealed to him. The purpose of prosecuting people is not to find them guilty and send them to jail, but to find justice, or as close as we can get in this world. Sometimes that means jail, sometimes that means letting a bad guy go free. Was Stevens guilty? We will never know because of these prosecutors shenanigans.

Only a 40% Chance the Supreme Court will Rule Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

In Trade is a predictions market, that lets people bid on predictions of the outcomes of real world events. The markets give probablilities of future events happening, for example, Barack Obama being elected President in 2012. People either buy "yes" shares or "no" shares. Obviously, chance that an event will happen is reflected in the price of the shares, which range from $0 to $10. For instance, if the price of the share is $7.00 dollars, the event is predicted to have a 70% chance of happening. As of this writing, the odds of Barack Obama winning the election is 52% The odds of Romney running against him is 70%.

All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year.  Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.

The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:

For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.

There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce. 

Only a 40% Chance the Supreme Court will Rule Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

In Trade is a predictions market, that lets people bid on predictions of the outcomes of real world events. The markets give probablilities of future events happening, for example, Barack Obama being elected President in 2012. People either buy "yes" shares or "no" shares. Obviously, chance that an event will happen is reflected in the price of the shares, which range from $0 to $10. For instance, if the price of the share is $7.00 dollars, the event is predicted to have a 70% chance of happening. As of this writing, the odds of Barack Obama winning the election is 52% The odds of Romney running against him is 70%.

All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year.  Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.

The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:

For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.

There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce. 

Obedience to God May Mean Disobedience to Government

Anthony Martin has an excellent post today at the Martin Christian Ministries entitled Obedience to God May Mean Disobedience to Government. Go read. This is truly important.

H.R. 822 Revisited

I recently wrote about H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act here. I was decidedly underwhelmed by this bill, feeling that it would never receive the support of both houses of Congress and the President. Several other articles have appeared about H.R. 822 at Keep and Bear Arms. The first of these appeared in the Washington Times under the bipartisan byline of Heath Schuler and Cliff Stearns, both Congressional Representatives, entitled The Nation Needs Right to Carry Reciprocity on Friday, November 11, 2011. They write:

H.R. 822 would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed-firearm carrying permit or license to carry a concealed weapon in any other state. It would not create a federal licensing system but merely would require states to honor one another’s carry permits, just as states recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. Concealed-carry permit holders would have to obey the concealed-weapon laws of the state they enter, just as drivers must obey speed limits and basic safety laws of whichever state they are driving in, regardless of where they are from.

For once, Congress would be fulfilling a Constitutional role, enforcing, among other things, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, as well as strengthening the Second Amendment. As a concealed carry license holder, I appreciate the simplicity of this requirement. It might have prevented this man from being arrested in New Jersey and serving 7 years for possession of guns he owned legally. Then again, if you are carrying hollow points in your defensive weapon, as many of us do, you might just go to jail anyway. Or this from the Blaze. New Jersey is a State that has concealed carry provisions, but not for ordinary "citizens" who must face armed criminals with their bare hands and hope for the best.

The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner has an article entitled Showdown Looming on National Right to Carry again on Friday.

That is, the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens in all states equally, and this right is a civil right that crosses all state borders and city limits. This – at least in theory – means that all law-abiding citizens who choose to go armed have that right within the borders of the United States, subject to local regulations, which change from state to state. Therein may lay a dilemma, but reasonably intelligent gun owners should be able to understand the basics about where firearms are prohibited and where they are allowed.

I agree. Unfortunately, however, some States feel that their role is to tell their subjects how they may defend themselves, rather than let citizens decide such things for themselves. If this passes, I see New Jersey laws becoming even more draconian as a counter to it. These collectivist bastards will not give up power easily.

Update:  The Gun Owners of America has some important information that you should read.

The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all

The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all

Go read the post, and the link to the post, which takes you to David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Read it? Good.

Just in case the "Republican establishment" is reading this post, let me be clear. I will not vote for Romney. It doesn't matter if that means Obama gets a second term. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. Enough. David is right, let the "establishment" hold their collective noses for a change.

Of course, David is correct, that Romney has a terrible record on guns. If a gun control bill reached his desk, do you think he'd sign it? No matter what he says now, once elected he will probably go with his natural inclinations. Romney seems to be another one who thinks because he doesn't "need" an "evil black rifle," nobody else does either. Of course, the Second Amendment spells out a right, not a need. He also has a terrible record on health care, signing in to law in Massachusetts RomneyCare, which was the basis for ObamaCare. He hasn't repudiated it, even though it has done none of what was promised. Now, I realize that it is Constitutional at the State level, while it is not Constitutional at the Federal level. But even if it is Constitutional at the State level, there remains the fact that it is a massive collectivisation of Americans that seeks to enslave others to provide for a few who can not, or will not provide for themselves.  And I know he promises now to repeal ObamaCare. But how anxious do you think a President Romney will be to repeal ObamaCare if it comes to his desk? Frankly, I just don't trust him to keep his word. We've seen this before with candidates from both sides of the aisle, so there is plenty of precedent.  For instance, remember that candidate Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform, but President Bush signed it.

Then there is his plan to handle the economy: a 59 point plan. Really? I like some of his ideas, like requiring Congress to approve major regulations before they take effect. But what about small ones, like the ATF imposing reporting requirements on dealers who sell more than 5 long guns to the same buyer in a week along the Southwestern border. What about making Congress actually write those regulations, rather than delegate the job to the executive branch. Indeed, there is so much that the Government is doing now that is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. What will he do about those things? But then, Romney, protestations aside, is not a conservative, much less a Constitutionalists.  Of course, he can not simply abolish agencies like Education and Energy, as woeful as those agencies are, but he could put it before Congress.   But I don't see him doing that either.

A vote for Romney is a vote for more big government, and more deficit spending.  We need less, not more.