Article in LegalNewsLine
I doubt I'll be getting any xmas cards from Barney or Andy.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The Grand Game, Handgun Edition
This editorial is remarkably confused, even for the New York Times, which is way out front on muddling.
As far as I can tell, the structure of the "argument" is this:
1. DC v. Heller was wrongly decided, and 2nd Amendment should not apply to states or cities. Only the federal government, and DC, are prevented by banning guns outright.
2. All of the Bill of Rights should apply to states and cities.
3. There is a Constitutional right for some people to be able to prevent other people from exercising Constitutional rights. In particular, the last sentence says: "There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns."
Now, #2 directly contradicts #1. And #3...WTF? There ARE laws, against assault with a gun, murder with a gun, robbery with a gun, that sort of thing. No one is saying that we should get rid of laws that punish misuse of guns.
For those so impressed with laws, let me ask this: Why don't those laws "protect us against other people's guns?" Doesn't that mean that the police CANNOT PROTECT US! If the police can't protect us, then shouldn't we be able to protect ourselves, in our own homes, with legally purchased firearms? And wasn't just that the basis of the Heller decision in the first place? I'm SO confused.
The NYTimes has discovered a new constitutional principle: "selective incorpodumbassicity." This means that the stupidity of some voters is incorporated, using a fabricated interpretation of the 14th Amendment, to rewrite the 2nd Amendment so that legitimate gun ownership, by responsible law-abiding citizens, is treated exactly the same way as if you robbed a bank.
Please discuss, in comments.
(Nod to The Chelsea)
As far as I can tell, the structure of the "argument" is this:
1. DC v. Heller was wrongly decided, and 2nd Amendment should not apply to states or cities. Only the federal government, and DC, are prevented by banning guns outright.
2. All of the Bill of Rights should apply to states and cities.
3. There is a Constitutional right for some people to be able to prevent other people from exercising Constitutional rights. In particular, the last sentence says: "There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns."
Now, #2 directly contradicts #1. And #3...WTF? There ARE laws, against assault with a gun, murder with a gun, robbery with a gun, that sort of thing. No one is saying that we should get rid of laws that punish misuse of guns.
For those so impressed with laws, let me ask this: Why don't those laws "protect us against other people's guns?" Doesn't that mean that the police CANNOT PROTECT US! If the police can't protect us, then shouldn't we be able to protect ourselves, in our own homes, with legally purchased firearms? And wasn't just that the basis of the Heller decision in the first place? I'm SO confused.
The NYTimes has discovered a new constitutional principle: "selective incorpodumbassicity." This means that the stupidity of some voters is incorporated, using a fabricated interpretation of the 14th Amendment, to rewrite the 2nd Amendment so that legitimate gun ownership, by responsible law-abiding citizens, is treated exactly the same way as if you robbed a bank.
Please discuss, in comments.
(Nod to The Chelsea)
Getaway Car
Another big police chase on I-40 this morning in Raleigh.
The guy was sure he could escape the cops. I'm guessing that drugs were involved, since.... well, look at the car:
The PERFECT getaway car! No one will ever notice me in this baby. It's like camouflage.... if you were driving through a giant herd of flamingos.
The guy was sure he could escape the cops. I'm guessing that drugs were involved, since.... well, look at the car:
The PERFECT getaway car! No one will ever notice me in this baby. It's like camouflage.... if you were driving through a giant herd of flamingos.
Nancy Pelosi, meet Robin Hanson!
"Nice to meet you madam Speaker. By the way, have you seen this?"
"Please take it easy Madam Speaker, if your head explodes, you will be a poor candidate for cryogenic preservation."
Radio from yesterday
If you want to hear part of one of the radio interviews from yesterday, go here and click on the blue "listen" link. (It appears you need Silverlight, so Tom Howe will likely refuse...damned Microsoft!)
Monday, March 01, 2010
A Piece of Terrifying History
The venue where I gave my talk today in Wheeling (thanks, Erik R! You are the BEST!) turns out to have been home to an actual famous speech, almost exactly 60 years ago.
The text of the speech, given by Senator "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy, can be found here. In that speech, the Senator claimed to have a list of 57 proven Communists in the US State Department, waving some blank papers as if that were the "list." That was Feb 9, 1950.
I feel...weird. I was there, on that podium. And from the sounds of the heating unit, it is original also.
(UPDATE: In this article from the Wheeling Intelligencer, it seems that the speech was given at the Hotel McLure, down the street, though MacCarthy did work on the speech at the Fort Henry Club. This book says that, too, on p. 182....)
The text of the speech, given by Senator "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy, can be found here. In that speech, the Senator claimed to have a list of 57 proven Communists in the US State Department, waving some blank papers as if that were the "list." That was Feb 9, 1950.
I feel...weird. I was there, on that podium. And from the sounds of the heating unit, it is original also.
(UPDATE: In this article from the Wheeling Intelligencer, it seems that the speech was given at the Hotel McLure, down the street, though MacCarthy did work on the speech at the Fort Henry Club. This book says that, too, on p. 182....)
Sam Presti apparently knows more about basketball than I do
I know, I know it's hard to believe. But I think it's true.
Presti picked Russell Westbrook very high in the draft and projected him to be a point guard. Throughout Russ's rookie season, I would occasionally gripe about his (a) taking too many shots and (b) not taking care of the ball.
But wow, look at him now. He should be the Western Conference player of the month for February.
Over 11 games, he has averaged 18.8 points on 46% shooting, 6.6 rebounds, 10 assists and only 2.3 turnovers while playing about 36 minutes.
That is big time point guarding my friends.
Presti picked Russell Westbrook very high in the draft and projected him to be a point guard. Throughout Russ's rookie season, I would occasionally gripe about his (a) taking too many shots and (b) not taking care of the ball.
But wow, look at him now. He should be the Western Conference player of the month for February.
Over 11 games, he has averaged 18.8 points on 46% shooting, 6.6 rebounds, 10 assists and only 2.3 turnovers while playing about 36 minutes.
That is big time point guarding my friends.
Refugees Flee Tyranny of German Consensus
Interesting story in Times.... German family was granted amnesty in the US to escape state schools.
Excerpt:
Among European countries, Germany is nearly alone in requiring, and enforcing, attendance of children at an officially recognized school. The school can be private or religious, but it must be a school. Exceptions can be made for health reasons but not for principled objections.
But the Romeikes, who are devout Christians, said they wanted their children to learn in a different environment. Mr. Romeike (pronounced ro-MY-kuh), 38, a soft-spoken piano teacher whose young children greet strangers at the front door with a startlingly grown-up politeness, said the unruly behavior of students that was allowed by many teachers had kept his children from learning. The stories in German readers, in which devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heroes, set bad examples, he said.
“I don’t expect the school to teach about the Bible,” he said, but “part of education should be character-building.”
In Germany, he said, home-schoolers are seen as “fundamentalist religious nuts who don’t want their children to get to know what is going on in the world, who want to protect them from everything.”
“In fact,” he said, sitting on his sofa as his three older children wrote in workbooks at the dining table, “I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.”
The reasoning behind the German law, cited by officials and in court cases, is to foster social integration, ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call “parallel societies.”
“We have had this legal basis ever since the state was founded,” said Thomas Hilsenbeck, a spokesman for the Ministry for Culture, Youth and Sport in the Romeikes’ state, Baden-Württemberg. “This is broadly accepted among the general public.”
The family has been here for some time, having left Germany in 2008. But it was not until Jan. 26 that a federal immigration judge in Memphis granted them political asylum, ruling that they had a reasonable fear of persecution for their beliefs if they returned.
In a harshly worded decision, the judge, Lawrence O. Burman, denounced the German policy, calling it “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” and expressed shock at the heavy fines and other penalties the government has levied on home-schooling parents, including taking custody of their children.
The soulless, sheep-like docility of Germans is remarkable. I heard that "broadly accepted among the general public" explanation over and over again, in a very condescending tone. Look, suppose we were talking about slavery, or genocide. The fact that is "broadly accepted" among those who favor tyranny is irrelevant. The fact that one of the tyrants would even say it is remarkable.
Now, I am NOT comparing public schools to slavery or genocide. My point is that "broadly accepted" is irrelevant to "right thing to do." Broadly accepted can't be the standard, in a civilized nation, of the set of the things citizens can be forced to do at gunpoint.
The YYM spent some time at German schools, and saw both chaos and teacher indifference up close. Sure, those things happen in the US also, quite possibly worse. But why would have to send your child there to be bored and corrupted by state-sponsored indoctrination?
Here's my question: will we need a new "German Wall," to prevent freedom-loving Germans from trying to flee the "tyranny of broadly accepted," and escape to the US?
(Nod to Anonyman)
UPDATE: One of KPC's smart and attractive readers, in comments, toward the Volokh Conspiracy's excoriation of the judge. And rightly so. While I agree that the decision of the judge is a bit silly, so are our immigration laws. Stupid law requires silly judges. And stupid law comes first, and is causal.
Excerpt:
Among European countries, Germany is nearly alone in requiring, and enforcing, attendance of children at an officially recognized school. The school can be private or religious, but it must be a school. Exceptions can be made for health reasons but not for principled objections.
But the Romeikes, who are devout Christians, said they wanted their children to learn in a different environment. Mr. Romeike (pronounced ro-MY-kuh), 38, a soft-spoken piano teacher whose young children greet strangers at the front door with a startlingly grown-up politeness, said the unruly behavior of students that was allowed by many teachers had kept his children from learning. The stories in German readers, in which devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heroes, set bad examples, he said.
“I don’t expect the school to teach about the Bible,” he said, but “part of education should be character-building.”
In Germany, he said, home-schoolers are seen as “fundamentalist religious nuts who don’t want their children to get to know what is going on in the world, who want to protect them from everything.”
“In fact,” he said, sitting on his sofa as his three older children wrote in workbooks at the dining table, “I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.”
The reasoning behind the German law, cited by officials and in court cases, is to foster social integration, ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call “parallel societies.”
“We have had this legal basis ever since the state was founded,” said Thomas Hilsenbeck, a spokesman for the Ministry for Culture, Youth and Sport in the Romeikes’ state, Baden-Württemberg. “This is broadly accepted among the general public.”
The family has been here for some time, having left Germany in 2008. But it was not until Jan. 26 that a federal immigration judge in Memphis granted them political asylum, ruling that they had a reasonable fear of persecution for their beliefs if they returned.
In a harshly worded decision, the judge, Lawrence O. Burman, denounced the German policy, calling it “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” and expressed shock at the heavy fines and other penalties the government has levied on home-schooling parents, including taking custody of their children.
The soulless, sheep-like docility of Germans is remarkable. I heard that "broadly accepted among the general public" explanation over and over again, in a very condescending tone. Look, suppose we were talking about slavery, or genocide. The fact that is "broadly accepted" among those who favor tyranny is irrelevant. The fact that one of the tyrants would even say it is remarkable.
Now, I am NOT comparing public schools to slavery or genocide. My point is that "broadly accepted" is irrelevant to "right thing to do." Broadly accepted can't be the standard, in a civilized nation, of the set of the things citizens can be forced to do at gunpoint.
The YYM spent some time at German schools, and saw both chaos and teacher indifference up close. Sure, those things happen in the US also, quite possibly worse. But why would have to send your child there to be bored and corrupted by state-sponsored indoctrination?
Here's my question: will we need a new "German Wall," to prevent freedom-loving Germans from trying to flee the "tyranny of broadly accepted," and escape to the US?
(Nod to Anonyman)
UPDATE: One of KPC's smart and attractive readers, in comments, toward the Volokh Conspiracy's excoriation of the judge. And rightly so. While I agree that the decision of the judge is a bit silly, so are our immigration laws. Stupid law requires silly judges. And stupid law comes first, and is causal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)