Q&A IV

I'll have the next installment up on Monday, Lord willing and the creek don't rise...

I still plan to do limited posting on Saturday and Sunday, but site visits tend to drop off pretty substantially. It seems most people--me included--have lives outside of the Internet...

At Least It's Not Cruel and Unusual

Hodges faces a possible life sentence for possession of the marijuana and possession of the shotgun during the commission of a felony.

I'm sure there will be no shortage of "law and order" gun owners who will deem this a good thing. I'm also sure they will have no problem finding the enumerated federal authority for such arrests, prosecutions and convictions in this document that they proclaim such reverence for...

We're the Only Ones Tampering Enough

A suburban Chicago police detective has been charged with misconduct after investigators say he tampered with evidence.

Authorities say 37-year-old Harvey police detective Hollis Dorrough smuggled a gun out of the police station that was linked to an October incident.

Investigators allege that a Harvey city official urged Dorrough to get rid of the gun.

Corruption in Harvey? Nah...

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

At Least He Wasn't Packing Hair Gel

Police at Austin Bergstrom International Airport arrested Horseshoe Bay Resort CEO Douglas Jaffe, 26, on Thursday morning for "unlawfully carrying a weapon in places where weapons are prohibited," says Travis County Sheriff's Office spokesman Roger Wade...

If found guilty, authorities say he could face between two and 10 years in prison, and a fine up to $10,000.

Don't worry too much. The Jaffe's are big behind-the-scenes Texas Democrat party movers and shakers.

We're the Only Ones Safely Storing Enough

A four-year-old boy apparently killed himself today with a handgun he found under a bed in a police officer's home...Anderson has since been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.

"Administrative leave"? I'll bet if this happened to one of us, we'd be able to look forward to some paid time off, as well.

At least this version says it's been referred to the prosecutor's office. It does, however, blame the gun (naturally):

Detroit Police spokesman James Tate said the gun was a Glock and was the officer's department-issued weapon. The guns have a reputation for having a hair trigger and can easily discharge.

Glocks. Is there any time they won't go off? Nice to see our old pal Tater Head, the citizen gun turn-in enthusiast, out there clouding the issue (again)...

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

New York Post: Garden Variety Propagandists

GARDEN-VARIETY GUN NUT NABBED IN QNS.

Gee, no media bias reflected there, ya think?

Great "straight news" story, guys! Yet again you exhibit a credibility known only to "authorized journalists".

Who needs the "Canons of Journalism" when you're Phillip Messing and his bedwetting editor?

[Via Dennis Walker]

Just Give Them What They Want...

...and nobody will get hurt.

Right, Sarah?

[Story Here]

[Follow-Up]

You just knew these morons would be ID'd within a matter of hours. Now it's time to blame the guns--I guess that's why the Brady's only gave California an "A-"...

Questions and Answers III

Before proceeding, it would probably be a good idea to read Part I and Part II if you haven't already.

Mr. Licht continues:

I am asking sincerely as a newly minted (though not born yesterday) attorney that wants to make the second amendment (and the constitution) the law of the land for my children (and yours). Everywhere I look I don’t see it as a practical reality. As much as I want to believe in the second, it seems like a mass delusion (or worse) a cynical use of the concept for pure fund raising hype with no expectation (by the professional promoters) that there is any argument to win.

We should all be familiar with the letter John Ashcroft wrote to the NRA proclaiming "[L]et me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

That was bold language for a sitting attorney general. It filled the "pro-gun" community with hope. It evidently aligned their interests with those of the Republican party, especially when the treasonous record of Democrats in general on the Second Amendment is considered.

Often overlooked is the footnote Ashcroft added, a seemingly innocuous "*Your actual mileage may vary" kind of statement that, on the surface, would not create too much concern with conservative "law and order" gun-owning voters:

Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater. As Samuel Adams explained at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, the proposed Constitution should”never [be] construed . . .to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

With all due respect to Mr. Ashcroft, he's describing a prior restraint on the Second Amendment and a response to an act for his First Amendment example. So he's talking apples and oranges, but most people never noticed. Besides--you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

What this does is justify the feds being in the "gun crime" business, even though there is no enumerated Constitutional authority delegated to them in this area by We the People. Further, it reflects a belief that the unambiguous "shall not be infringed" from the Bill of Rights is trumped by the open-ended and amorphous standard of "compelling state interest," a term found nowhere in the Constitution, and which can be twisted and contorted as much as, say, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Republican Kool-Aid vendor Hugh Hewitt--a man with an awesome understanding of Constitutional law as practiced by "the establishment"--practically admitted as much when blogger Publicola called in to his program. "Intermediate scrutiny," Hewitt pronounced, is the best gun owners can hope for on the Second Amendment.

From a political "pragmatism" perspective, and as much as this may infuriate us, he's probably right. If we rely on "the system," with the current state of gun owner awareness, involvement and commitment, we'll be left with the Second (Class) Amendment from the Bill of Rights (Lite).

This means practically every "gun control" edict will find justification for being upheld. What judge won't find a "compelling state interest" to license gun owners, or register them, or subject citizens to the prior restraint of background checks, or permitting (and prohibiting!) the acceptable manner, places and conditions for bearing arms, concealed or otherwise. Certainly a "compelling state interest" can be found to keep "weapons of war off our streets," thus securing the National Firearms Act and FOPA '86, and blocking further inroads against GCA '68...

This is the door Ashcroft left open--one that would allow his boss and his successor to both proclaim support for renewing the "assault weapon" ban. But it was not his footnote that got the attention, was it? Gun owners almost had an orgy over the "sea change" in attitude-- without asking what in practice had really changed.

We tested Mr. Ashcroft's sincerity with a petition you may have seen circulating a few years back. Without going into a lot of detail, which you can catch up on here, we stated grievances of California gun owners who have had their rights unlawfully abridged, specifying the violations in detail. The theory was, had any other right been abused by local or state governments, such as the rights of minorities to vote, or to enjoy full lawful use of public accommodations, etc., the Justice Department would be quick to send a team down to enforce "the supreme law of the land" by which all subordinate political entities are supposedly bound.

Did we think this was really going to happen? We'd have been floored, but we thought it important to separate rhetoric from (lack of) deeds--if we were being sold a bill of goods, that is, Ashcroft mouthing support for 2A with no action offered or taken, we'd at least be able to point out that we were being played.

Over the course of the year the "Ashcroft Petition" was promoted, we managed to get over 30,000 gun owners to sign on from every state of the union. Understand we did this with no budget or donation requests, strictly as part time volunteers--and this was not an Internet petition, but one that required actual signatures. Over the course of the year we mailed several large boxes of signed petitions to the AG, along with cover letters summarizing our project and reminding him of our previous correspondences. The only acknowledgment we ever received was a non-responsive reply from the chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section--a curious and chilling person to assign such a project to, we thought...

There's more to this story, of course, including professional representatives of the most prominent "gun lobby" group discouraging members from signing the petition because we who promoted it were "wild-eyed extremists." The bottom line is, we were small fries. Bush support for the AWB notwithstanding (hell it was touted as a clever ploy to appeal to "moderates"), gun owners danced to the Lee Atwater tune--who else were they gonna vote for?

While paying for the privilege?

"Fund raising hype" ? I guess a cynical person would start to have some questions...

You'll note I haven't come up with any solutions yet. I'm still working on defining the problem, and have the rest of Mr. Licht's email to address.

More to come...

Brady Exploits the Dead to Attack Rights of Living

"None of us ever want to visit the morgue," Bishop said. "It's not a place anyone wants to be - and if we had fewer assault weapons on our streets, fewer of us would ever have to go there."

It's official. These people have no shame.

And "fewer of us would ever have to go there"? They evidently also have no brains.

[Thanks to HZ]

A Tragedy in Lindale

Authorities said a 4-month-old baby died Tuesday after her father, a Lindale Police Department reserve sergeant, left her in his pickup in a parking lot outside City Hall.

I can't bring myself to come up with a sarcastic "Only Ones" title for this tragic story, but couldn't not post about it because, like the other examples we've presented, it illustrates how law enforcers are no more competent at life--or less prone to the consequences of thoughtlessness--than the society they spring from. Some will note no arrest has been made, as would probably happen if an "ordinary" citizen was involved.

Yeah, I guess, just to be consistent in principle. But in this case, I'm not sure what additional punishment could be meted out to make a difference. If I was this man, perhaps I'd have hanged myself by now rather than live on with the horror, the grief and the guilt.

[Thanks to Blackfork]

Q&A III

I'm working on it.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, see Part I and Part II.

If you do, patience. I should finish it tonight and post tomorrow morning.

There have been some pretty good comments posted so far. Thanks to those of you who have contributed.

Adage Disproved

"How about Council pushing for a bill that would require gun purchasers to register their guns every six months?"

And they say there are no stupid questions...

We're the Only Ones Replicating Enough

A NEW South Wales police student has been charged and booted out of the Goulburn training college for turning up to training with replica guns.

Sorry, kid. You were just a proto-"Only One," and that doesn't quite cut it.

Gun Control Orwellianisms

I can proudly say that I have no fear of the government taking away my firearms...

It is naive to wrap yourself in the flag and call all who oppose your point of view "freedom haters" or "elitists."

Gun control is neither anti-American nor unconstitutional, and in most cases, it is actually beneficial to both our economy and the operation of a free society.

Those are good ones, Duane. Here are some more for you:

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Questions and Answers II

In Part One, questions and concerns from Dave Licht about the Second Amendment were posted, and many of you responded with comments of your own. Here are some of my initial observations.

He loaded a lot on the plate, so I'm going to spread this out over a couple posts this week, and do everything in bite-sized chunks.

I have gone to Law school and I have worked in a top law firm (as an intern) and everywhere I turn the people with the experience in the trenches that I respect tell me that the second amendment is NEVER the argument.

I continually talk to experienced, smart, creative attorneys that I respect who tell me there is no second amendment. Yesterday I had a long talk with the partner I work for and he told me to "forget the second amendment, it was poorly written, it's been completely de-balled. U.S. gun laws are entirely statute driven and it has been increasingly thus since "U.S. v Miller" in 1938. He said with the exception of "U.S. v Lopez" there are no meaningful constitutional arguments for inalienable gun rights. The courts have routinely upheld restrictions on possession and ownership particularly local ordinances.

I should throw in that these are seriously constitution believing, gun owning, gun in the top desk drawer attorneys with years of experience, not the bRADY BUNCH.

Unless things radically change, I'd say this assessment of the current state of things is inarguable.

I've been saying for some time that those in power will not allow that balance to significantly change unless forced to. However, it is also my opinion that there will be a "legal resolution" from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, and sooner rather than later, and that individual rights will be acknowledged. Perhaps Parker will be that case.

Did I just contradict myself? I don't think so, because I don't think such a ruling will ultimately prove useful at repealing the most offensive of existing gun laws. I believe most of those will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" where there is a "compelling state interest."

Why do I think SCOTUS will hear and decide on a case? I believe the tension between the Fifth (Emerson) and Ninth (Hickman and Silveira) Circuits can't be allowed to perpetually stand. It's in the interests of the federal government to have one interpretation of the Constitution--"one Ring to rule them all..."

So far, the "High Court" has managed to duck the issue. Some in the "pro-gun camp" say this is a good thing, because the court was not properly stacked to rule for an individual right. This was a significant reason they opposed--and tried to derail--Silveira, citing how it could create "bad precedent." Many of these critics conveniently forgot to mention how the precedent they brought about in Hickman solidified the state of California's legal position that there is no individual right.

That SCOTUS refused to hear the case was not really a surprise. Their dilemma: They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.

The time--and the cases--were not "right" to serve the purposes and maintain the balance.

That's where John Ashcroft showed the way, albeit in an often overlooked footnote...

More later.

Information Request

Many of you know of (or have blogged of) stories about people who used firearms to defend themselves from mutants and were then charged with serious crimes because of that. Or they were sued in civil court by family members (and greedy lawyers) of the shot perpetrators.

Alphecca is looking for help to counter some blatant opinion steering by the "authorized journalists."

Hmmm...Makes Sense!

The city of Carson is urging residents to surrender their weapons at the Carson sheriff's station on Wednesday.

And in other news:

An 18-year-old man was wounded in a shooting at a Carson gas station early Sunday.

Sheriff's officials believe the incident is gang-related.

We're the Only Ones Child-Caring Enough

An 11-year veteran of the New Braunfels Police Department has been charged with one count of possession of child pornography.

Sometimes it takes the "Only Ones" to remind us how important the little things in life are.

[Thanks to AB5SY]

We're the Only Ones Abreast of the Situation Enough

A former sheriff's deputy who sexually assaulted two women and fondled another's breasts while patrolling in the Compton area was sentenced Thursday to 30 years in federal prison.

Lick it or ticket?
[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

We're the Only Ones Violated Enough

A former Los Angeles police officer, who was fired after he was videotaped striking a suspected car thief with a flashlight, filed a $10 million civil rights lawsuit on Friday against the city and Chief William Bratton.

Damn straight. The day an "Only One" doesn't have a guaranteed right to kick a subdued suspect in the head and beat him with a flashlight is the day this is no longer Amerika.