If Prichard police catch you ridin' dirty -- carrying illegal guns or drugs in a car -- they will take your wheels, and you might just see the officer who busted you patrolling the streets in your former ride.We're the "Only Ones" who can engage in outright armed theft, and our "authorized journalist" co-conspirators will help us paint you as the "dirty" ones.
On this day in 1785, the Georgia General Assembly incorporates the University of Georgia, the first state-funded institution of higher learning in the new republic.I wonder if they would have approved of UGA's weapons policy?
Wildlife officials credited a woman with saving her husband's life by clubbing a mountain lion that attacked him while the couple were hiking in a California state park.The poor cougar never stood a chance.
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.My prediction (albeit it's more uncertain now that the Republicans have managed to give away both houses, and it looks like they're doing their best to lose the executive branch, so forget any change to the high court that doesn't move it to the left)--is the court will rule it an individual right, but so narrowly, and with such deference to "compelling state interest" and "reasonable restrictions" as to make very little difference in terms of hampering new legislation to outlaw "assault weapons" again, "close the gun show loophole," retain and share NICS data, etc., and of course, in terms of enforcing "existing gun laws."
I don'’t enjoy criticizing members of our own community, especially when I think their hearts are in the right place.That's because you're a decent human being. But those of us out there offering our opinions need to expect that as a likely outcome, and when we believe someone is in error, we owe them, as well as those they influence, the benefit of our opposing views.
A 44-year-old Goose Creek police officer was arrested and charged with burglary Wednesday, authorities said...
Ellis is accused in a warrant of entering a Subway restaurant in Goose Creek around 2:50 a.m. Dec. 29 and breaking into a safe and cash register. The intruder was captured on video surveillance.
I checked the Subway Restaurant site for mention of this "Only One," but I guess they don't consider the incident "Buzzworthy."On this day in 1779, after the British capture of Savannah, Georgia, a group of Patriots meets at the city’s Burke County Jail to determine how they will deal with any possible defections from the Patriot cause. They were worried by a recent British offer of immunity to those who would affirm their loyalty to the British king.
We have often heard of persons who could do things in "less than no time," but to date we have never been permitted to observe any such performances.The legendary (and I don't use the term cavalierly) Ed McGivern penned "My Challenge to Hollywood Hot Shots" with authority and wit when he was in his 80's (he actually died in 1957), and proposed a definitive test for some of the more fantastic quick draw claims being issued. I need to see if I can find out if anything ever resulted from his challenge.
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Pelosi-led Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat yet to Second Amendment Rights.Naw. We got nothin' to worry about.
On the first full day of the new Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill that was quashed last year but under the new Pelosi House leadership, the Bill has a higher likelihood of getting passed this time.
Conducting Talk Show interviews on this topic is Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, the nation’s second largest gun group.
Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor joined mayors from around the country in Washington to urge an end to federal restrictions on information that could help local police track illegal guns.Do you think Kathy & Pals might be interested in NICS purchase information? All the new democrat majority would have to do is change the law to allow the feds to retain the data and share it. Any bets our kinder, gentler "collective rights" proponent (or the likely democrat successor in '08) wouldn't sign on to that under the doctrine of "compelling state interest"?
This week's Blog of The Week is Armed and Safe...What I found was another very good pro-rights blog that is well written and worth your time.Hear, hear!
The U.S. Defense Department on Wednesday unveiled what it called a revolutionary heat-beaming weapon that could be used to control mobs or repel foes in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.Right.
The so-called Active Denial System causes an intense burning sensation causing people to run for cover, but no lasting harm, officials said.
The non-lethality claim is also interesting, it's just not particularly believable. It's supposedly limited to wavelengths that can't damage eyes and internal organs, but are there any doubts that a "black" R&D project devoted to wave transmissions and frequency modulations won't develop a workaround? Assuming they haven't already?And as I also asked in that article about another weapon:
Any bets on whether one of these babies will ever make it to the civilian market?[Via John Schaefer]
On this day in 1776, the Continental Congress authorizes the first national Revolutionary War memorial in honor of Brigadier General Richard Montgomery, who had been killed during an assault on Quebec on December 31, 1775.
Kansas has recorded its first confirmed shooting involving a concealed-gun licensee since the state’s concealed-weapons law took effect this month.
Michael Mah, 57, shot an armed 17-year-old robbery suspect just before 9 p.m. Friday at a gas station in Topeka.
Disturbing Details Released On Gun In School IncidentLike what? The gun has killed before? The gun was abused in its formative years? The gun was planning something really big?
The police department has issued about 60 slingshots to officers in the violent border city of Tijuana, where soldiers confiscated police weapons two weeks ago on allegations of collusion with drug traffickers.Maybe we can try this with our own Los Únicos...
David, don't have a clue if this does a damn thing but cause snide laughter amonst his staff, but here is my letter to my congressman. I will send the identical letter to my senator in just a few minutes. Might not be a bad idea to encourage those courageous enough to write the judge to do the same with their elected servants that mistakenly put this error on the bench.
[More about Wayne Fincher via WarOnGuns]I am forwarding to you the text of a letter I have mailed to U.S. District Court Judge Jimm Larry Hendren, who sits on the bench for the District of Western Arkansas.
I don't know what you know about the case of US v Fincher, and as a matter of importance the case itself is secondary to my concern. My primary concern is the betrayal of my country by the above named judge.
I am writing to encourage you to open an investigation into the appropriateness or lack of same in his rulings in the case. The letter is mostly self-explanatory, with the exceptions that I do not mention that the defense was forbidden to present its case to the jury, the defense was only allowed to speak to the judge in defense with the jury out of the room; also the jury was denied full instruction as to their duties and powers, which has been ruled upon numerous times. Judges are not legally required to inform a jury of its duty to judge the law, morality expects different behavior, nonetheless a judge is not bound by moral considerations. However, he did inform them only partially in a manner guaranteed to favor the prosecution.
Ergo, due to this one man who has violated his oath, violated his own stated opinion in a public courtroom, violated the jury, and The Constitution of the United States of America in multiple ways, the jury never heard the defense, never heard the Supreme Law of the Land, nor were they actually apprised of the actual unconstitutional law the defendant was charged with violating. Hendren, directed them to return a guilty verdict. Which by the way, when done in favor of the prosecution, has been considered to always be reversible error, reference Sullivan.
In light of what I deem to be a betrayal of my country at worst, and at best, if he is really that ignorant of the constitution and the law he should never sit a bench in any judicial setting. Hence, I implore you to look into this violation of all we Americans hold and have held dear since our founding, and proceed to explore the possibility of impeachment against this embarrassment to the adjudication of justice.
On this day in 1781, Patriot commanders Lieutenant Colonel “Light Horse” Henry Lee and Brigadier General Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion of the South Carolina militia combine forces and conduct a raid on Georgetown, South Carolina, which is defended by 200 British soldiers.
20 Jan 07
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Sir:
As an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the state of liberty and the lack of rule of law in this land I have been following the Fincher case. This nation was wrested away from a ruling elite that ruled by whim and the myth of moral superiority of the highborn. Because of the reasons for our departure from our mother country we established the rule of law, not whim. Those rules reserved and guaranteed rights embodied in the Supreme Law of the Land , The Constitution of the United States of America. Government was guaranteed no rights in that document, but were granted certain powers in order that the state be able to honor its duty to the citizen in protecting the reserved and guaranteed rights bestowed by Nature and Nature's God upon the citizen.
Therefore, when I read that you had stated in public, on the record, that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right and not a collective right, I was pleased beyond measure. I thought to myself, "Finally an honest sitting judge, who will rule based on law." That thought did not sustain me long. For the very next day, after your meeting with representatives of the prosecution, you reversed yourself. Which brings me to some questions for later in this missive.
I know you did not attend and graduate law school without ever learning that the Constitution of the United States of America was and is the Supreme Law of the Land. Further, I contend that you could not have graduated law school without ever learning that the jury is charged with judging not only the facts of a case, but also the law under which charges are brought. Were you to try to deny having ever learned that, your already suspect integrity would be revealed by its absence.
I can believe that you graduated law school and never learned that the courtroom belongs to the jury, not the judge, not the state, not the prosecutor and not the defense. The jury owns the courtroom, they are the highest power in that room, at all times. As stated previously, I can believe you graduated without that ever being revealed to you by your instructors. Such is the nature of arrogance in many that attain offices of honor. Many believe that they are imbued with a moral and universal superiority that places them above others and often simply ignore the truth if it does not please them. The fallacy of the judge owning the courtroom is one such manifestation of this arrogance. So while I can believe you were never taught that in law school, simply because the fiction of a judge owning the courtroom must be protected if the abuse of juries and the jury system is to be sustained, I cannot understand how you were able to study law and the history of the law and not discover the truth on your own. I suspect that it is an ignorance of convenience on your part.
The judge is a referee. His job is to keep the proceedings fair and in the bounds of the law. The judge has a duty not to be an advocate. A duty you have miserably failed in Fincher.
It has been ruled and upheld many times that a judge is not required to inform a jury of its duty and right to judge the suitability of the law under the Constitution. While it may not be legally required of him, it is certainly a moral obligation if justice is to prevail in our nation. When a judge declines to apprise a jury of its entire duty, but deigns to apprise it partially of its duty, he has become an advocate, and has shown his disrespect for justice.
I could cite cases and rulings that uphold everything I have stated above. I could cite quotations and writings of founders and jurists who have stated in eloquent terms the principles you have violated. I could do that, but I believe it would be pointless. I do not believe I have engaged an honest and principled man who has a different point of view, or who only needs to see the proofs that he has ruled wrongly, to set his path aright. I believe I am addressing a man who already knows all the things I have addressed here. I believe that man knew he was wrong when he disallowed the jury in Fincher to hear what the law, especially the Supreme Law of the Land, had to say, before directing the jury to a guilty verdict.
So here are the questions for you I mentioned above.
What was your price? What was offered you in that meeting with representatives of the prosecution that seems to have caused a complete reversal of what you had stated only the day before? Was it reward? Was it threat if you did not cooperate?
To sum it up in one question, "What price treason?"
Absolutely sincerely,
Charles H. Sawders
Doddridge, Arkansas
The father of a two-year-old boy shot dead in his pushchair while on a family holiday joined hundreds of other campaigners as they marked moves to introduce international gun control measures.I guess he doesn't think "Brian" had a big enough advantage.
