North Coast Online

Turnabout And Fair Play

The Instapundit reports on what I agree is an outrage.  Hey, if the cops can record me, I'd like the same privilege.

Gun-Shop Owners Don't Kill People Either

I'm no big fan of Dale Volcker, but I was happy to see his office respond to the nasty op-ed in yesterday's Buffalo News.

Freedom Of What's That You Say?

In, of all places, California, a court upholds a high school student's right to publish an article opposed to illegal immigration.  Sad that it merits notice, isn't it?

It Is What It Is

If the Democrats are suddenly silent on gun control issues, it may be due less to the NRA's supposed power than it is to the fact that many well-credentialed, liberal constitutional lawyers have sat down and actually read the Second Amendment.

Freedom Isn't License

I could support the artfully-named Free Flow Of Information Act (actually I'm thrilled its sponsors didn't dub it Judy's law). There is a good case to be made that reporters' sources, who may or may not, be exposing government wrong-doing be protected, but the press must be held responsible at some point if it makes the decision to reveal government secrets that end up adversely affecting the national security.

That's something that the federal government hasn't had the stomach to address for decades.  We mere mortals can, in some cases, be held liable for our irresponsible and damaging speech; the media's precious freedom of the press shouldn't be subject to a lesser interpretation.

Abridged, Not

A civil rights victory in Kansas.

The Philosopher Kings Have Spoken And Some Of Their Subjects Are Displeased

The Buffalo News editorial board worked itself up into a regular lather over the Supreme Court's decision on the partial-birth abortion law, and, in the process, completely mischaracterized the Court's role in our government.

If the United States really wishes to protect vulnerable new lives from some very rare acts of wanton destruction, there are reasonable ways to do that. Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court, and the abortion-limiting law that it upheld, are not among them.

Claiming to respect human life in all its forms, the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding it in fact show a stunning disrespect for the lives of American women and their ability, acting under a doctor’s care, to decide for themselves which medical procedures are necessary and proper.

The basis for both, implicit in the statute and explicit in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, is that women are such dithery and tender flowers that it requires an act of Congress to stop them from taking an action that they may come to regret, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of their lives.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's constitutional right to an abortion is not violated by this particular limitation on the medical procedure employed. The Court passed no judgement on the mental abilities of women and made no pronouncement on the morality of the procedure in question.  Limits on partial birth abortion, it decided, do not run afoul of the Constitution.

Many disagree.  If so, they should submit an amendment.  It's their right and perhaps their moral duty.  Whining about the supposed personal opinions of the court's members serves no particular purpose.

The Right Of The People To Wait Until The Police Show Up Shall Not Be Abridged

Rod Watson's argument against gun ownership is weaker than I'd have expected.

And there’s the rub. Sure, I could be trusted to walk around armed. And maybe you. But what about that guy down the block?

What about the guy who regularly risks his life and yours with a 3,000- pound weapon he drives right on your bumper before hopping lanes? Do you trust him with a gun?

Or what about the Little League parents who beat up coaches and team managers — and even opposing kids — when Junior doesn’t get enough playing time or gets tackled too roughly? Would you trust them with a gun?

“We can’t just have everyone running around armed to the teeth, ready to do whatever they think they need to do,” said Buffalo Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson.

We'll leave the question of Mr. Watson's trustworthiness with a firearm for another post, but he is right that there are a lot of unstable and quick-to-anger people that we'd prefer not to own guns.   The problem is that those people probably already do and if not, they can come into Buffalo tonight and pick one up on any of dozens of street corners without so much as getting out of the car.

Rod Watson and those who think like him would prefer that we law-abiding, non-violent types agree to serve as some sort of moral example and give up our right to own guns.  But growing numbers of Americans are realizing what a foolish compact that would be and are demanding instead their moral right to defend themselves when someone threatens to harm or kill them.

Since I've lived on the West Side I've heard gunfire erupt from a car on the corner next to my house, I've had a 15 year old boy pull a handgun out of his pocket just to "impress" me and I've had to detour over one block coming home late one night when I saw some lunatic weaving down the middle of the street waving a pistol over his head.   And now Rod Watson [and the police commissioner evidently] would deny me the legal ability to have a gun because they're not sure if I can be trusted?

Please.   

Famous (And Tragic) Last Words

When it comes time to lay blame for the deaths of 30 people at Virginia Tech, I hope the Virginia state legislature is on the list of perps.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday [Jan. 31, 2006] in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

I fully expect that by tomorrow morning we'll start hearing the appeals for more gun laws.  But how many times over can we make them illegal?  A few people would almost inevitably have been killed today; we can't eliminate guns any more than we can eliminate drugs.  But we shouldn't be left as sitting ducks for the mentally deranged either.  If one person in that classroom where so many died had been able to shoot back, the death toll might have been significantly lower. 

And how's this for a regrettable statement?

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Somehow, tonight, I doubt it.

Hat tip to FreeRepublic.

[UPDATE:] The appeals have started.

Minds Can Be Changed

If Ilya Somin's analysis were true I might just turn into a supporter of the ERA -- or whatever they're calling it now.

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

If enacted today, the ERA would have a number of effects that many political liberals will deplore, including abolishing affirmative action for women and cutting back on key aspects of Title IX. It might also have some results that they would approve of, such as potentially undercutting bans on same-sex marriage. To my mind, the effects that liberals dislike are more likely to arise - at least in the short term - than those they will applaud.

But that's probably only likely if we have a Supreme Court that has a conservative majority -- that is, one that considers itself bound by the letter of the law and not its, um, penumbras.

Again

A week doesn't go by anymore without at least one of these stories.

A mother alleges Wrightsville Elementary School officials discriminated against her daughter when she was told to remove a magnet from her desk because it said, "Smile, Jesus Loves You."

Tawny Lehman said her daughter, fifth-grader Laurie Lehman, was asked to remove the magnet March 30, after a teacher noticed it.

Don't worry that it's unfair -- the school principal has now banned all magnets on students' desks.  Yeah, that'll solve it.

Careful What You Wish For

The movement to corrupt the Electoral College rolls on -- today it was Maryland's turn.

The plan, passed Monday by the state House, would take effect only if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes adopted the same change.

Some states are considering the move as a way to avoid a scenario in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000.

Supporters of the Maryland bill said the state, which has 10 electoral votes, gets passed over by presidential candidates who head to larger battleground states.

Wrong.  Maryland gets passed over by presidential candidates because it's the proverbial lead-pipe cinch to vote Democrat.  No one bothers spending his time or money there because it would be wasted and this law wouldn't change that.

Now, this is a hypothetical situation and I usually try to stay away from hypotheticals.  But!  Do you suppose for a second that had Bush won the popular vote in 2000 but Gore the electoral vote, that the overwhelmingly Democrat Maryland legislature would have sat back and allowed its states' electors to cast their votes for Bush because of this silly, constitutionally-indefensible law?

Good.  You're learning.

McCain Flame-Out

I'm guessing that the left is surprised that John McCain's campaign is going nowhere and will probably shut down before too long.  I'm also guessing that John McCain is surprised, too.  His evil spawn, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, is probably the cause.  We Americans have a nagging tendency to think we should be able to give money to whomever we support without Congressional "oversight."

Putting aside the ludicrous notion that 535 incumbent politicians sat down and tried to write a piece of legislation that would make it harder to get reelected, five years later there's no evidence electoral competition has increased. Sure, control of Congress turned over. But anyone who attributes the 2006 election to McCain-Feingold, as opposed to Bush-Cheney-Hastert-Frist, is delusional.

Some McCain-Feingold supporters promised that the bill would reduce the amount of money being raised and spent in elections. "This bill forces all of us," Senator Cantwell of Washington said during the debate, "to play by the same rules and raise and spend money in lower amounts." As the Sun's Josh Gerstein reports today, that certainly hasn't been the result. Candidates for both parties' nominations will surely be shattering first-quarter fundraising records next month.

Then there was the claim that McCain-Feingold could restore trust in government. On this score, Mr. Thompson declared that "we are making headway to do something that will reduce the cynicism in this country and that will help this body, that will help us individually." While, plenty of congressmen have helped themselves individually over the past five years (see: indictments and convictions and plea agreements, above), there is still enough cynicism around for Senator Obama of Illinois to make defeating it the main rationale for his presidential campaign.

Last but not least — and here we get to the real nub of campaign-finance regulation — McCain-Feingold supporters promised that the bill would curb the scourge of "negative" and "dirty" advertising. "It is about slowing political advertising," Ms. Cantwell said during the debate. "Making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves."

Of course, curbing and "slowing" speech critical of politicians by "outside interest groups" (a.k.a. "citizens") is in no way a permissible goal under the First Amendment. But, ultimately, the politicians may have failed in this most nefarious goal. And it's not just the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who showed the way around it.

While the Supreme Court has so far upheld the patently anti-Constitutional ban on advertising by citizens' groups 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, the rise of Internet politics may eventually supercede this atrocity. Witness the anti-Hillary Clinton "1984" ad that caused such a stir on YouTube just last week. Such ads, cheaper than dirt (it costs money to distribute dirt, YouTube's free), will only be more important with every election cycle.

For this reason, look for Congress to start taking an interest in "unregulated" Internet speech any day now. Money has never been the issue. Cleansing our speech of impure thoughts about politicians is the real agenda.

There's nothing at all wrong with "money in politics" as long as we know where the money's coming from.  The only campaign finance law we really need is the one that requires contributions to be posted on the Internet within 24 hours -- with disclosure of the contributor.  We'll all know who's feeding a candidate's bank account and can make up our minds accordingly.   The current law is nothing but a feeding frenzy for tax accountants and lawyers.

I respect McCain for his "war-hero" status but he blew his chances at a Republican nomination when he became convinced that we, the people, should be punished for his congressional colleagues' inability to behave with integrity.  He's so no longer in the race.   

Grover Cleveland

Was Grover Cleveland the last President who could be called a classical liberal?

Cleveland believed in keeping government expenditure at the minimum required to carry out essential constitutional functions. “When a man in office lays out a dollar in extravagance,” declared Cleveland, “he acts immorally by the people.”

Wouldn't you love to hear something like that come out of a politician's mouth today.

One Reason For The 2nd Amendment

Home invasions stopped with gunfire

A string of home invasions came to a sudden end Monday when a homeowner pulled out a gun and shot back

Gun-grabbers Smackdown

A three member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals declared the District of Columbia's strict laws against the ownership of handguns to be unconstitutional.  For any citizen who cherishes the United States Constitution it was a big victory as the majority followed the wording of the 2nd Amendment and declared gun ownership to be an individual right.

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

The wording has always been clear and even we non-legal types have the writings of the founders to study when the meaning of that wording is questioned.  They intended that all Americans have the right to own guns.  One interesting part of the decision (at least to me) was the panel's stress on self-defense.

It emphasized that part of D.C.'s law which prohibits keeping a weapon in the home which leaves open to legislation, I'd guess, the regulation of carrying guns in public.  The mention, though, of the right of self-defense is welcome. 

The dissenting judge (no Democrat-appointee I might point out but a Bush Sr. contribution to the judiciary) stuck to the more faddish interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as being limited to militias and even brought up the (I'd have thought) hoary notion that it applied only to states and therefore, the District's not being a state, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.

It's off to the Supreme Court now and I think the timing's just about right to make gun control an issue in the presidential campaign.  My favored candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has convinced me that his pro-choice stance is acceptable as he's promised to nominate strict constructionist judges.

But his gun-control bona fides are well-known and he's been hiding behind the "states' rights" argument.  If that's under question, then he'll have some 'splainin' to do.  Hillary's and Barack's reactions will be easy to figure out for their base but if they hope to win in the general election they'll have some skillful "positioning" to do as well.  This will be fun.

Some Flags Are More Equal Than Others

The College Republicans at San Francisco State University defaced a flag -- no, not that one.

After the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally on campus, at which they stepped on pieces of butcher paper drawn to resemble the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, an SFSU student filed a complaint with the university accusing the students of “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “allegations of actions of incivility” for “walking on a banner with the word ‘Allah’ written in Arabic script.” (The banners in question were the Hamas and Hezbollah flags, which unbeknownst to the College Republicans contained the word “Allah”). The university should have dismissed this complaint outright, since the only conduct complained of was constitutionally protected expression. (The U.S. Supreme Court held in the widely publicized decision Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag desecration as an act of political protest is protected by the First Amendment). Instead, the university ignored its constitutional obligations and pressed ahead with an investigation.

Gee, if they'd danced around on an American flag, they might have picked up a few new members.  When will we ever learn?

Via Joanne Jacobs

Journalists Are Citizens, Too

Progressives insist that conservatives see issues in terms of black and white, while they, enlightened and intelligent beings all, understand complexity and nuance.  Well, here's some nuance.  Freedom of the press should not be absolute as journalists would like.

It's remarkable that the country needs a law to bolster what the Constitution unambiguously says, but with the machinery of federal law enforcement under the influence of a reckless president, freedom of the press has come under increasing assault. The nation needs a shield law to protect journalists from a government determined to undermine their efforts to tell Americans what that government is doing.  

Journalists have believed that for several years, and so has a bipartisan group of congressmen. Now, that recognition has moved up the government organizational chart, with the new chairman House Judiciary Committee publicly making that point. His position, made in a recent speech to the National Press Club, raises the prospect for action on a matter of real significance.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., hit the mark precisely in observing that the Founding Fathers saw a free press as critical to the survival of democracy, that maintaining that freedom requires protecting reporters from government intimidation by subpoena and that the Bush administration, in its campaign against terrorism, "has frequently been too willing to subordinate the very rights and liberties our nation was founded upon.

The Bill of Rights expresses clearly the freedom of the press just as it guarantees the right to own a gun.  Yet, even those of us who support the 2nd Amendment are willing to allow the government some control over gun ownership:  criminals and children may have those rights limited for example.  And shooting someone without a very good reason is not permitted.  Very few disagree. 

So, too, should the freedom of the press be subject to some constraints.

While the principle that mere criticism of the sitting government should go without any penalty is universally accepted, what about revealing strategic government secrets?  Every administration, Democrat or Republican, classifies information.  Sometimes that secrecy is ultimately determined to have been unnecessary, but usually there's a valid reason.

Does the constitution give a break to journalists for exposing those secrets?  Do actions that might get a mortal citizen convicted of treason simply not apply to other citizens that happen to have press credentials?  If journalism is, indeed, the noble profession we're told it is, then by all means, let it continue to expose government wrongdoing.

But the shield laws advocated by the Buffalo News editorial board are nothing but licenses to undermine the country's security.  Now, anyone can call Bush "chimp-Hitler" if he's clever enough and so inclined and no penalty will result.  But exposing secret government programs designed to thwart anti-American terrorism justifiably merits another level of review. That's what the courts are for and irresponsible journalists should be no less subject to them than irresponsible gun-owners.

As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide-pact.

Aaargh, He Doesn't Get It

I'll admit that I'm more and more inclined to support Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination.  He has a solid tax-cutting and crime-cutting record behind him (unlike McCain and Romney,) and his liberal social views don't particularly bother me.  He's addressed those to my satisfaction by stating his intention to nominate strict constructionists to the bench.

But he'd better get a grip on the gun issue, because statements like this just won't cut it.

"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy.  All of us who support gun-rights (otherwise known as the 2nd Amendment) are not necessarily hunters.  We support the right to bear arms because we believe that, when necessary, we must be able to defend ourselves against other humans -- with deadly force if necessary.

When you're not the mayor of Gotham, the police can't always arrive at the moment you discover your home's been broken into.  It's somewhat reassuring to know, that if you have to, you're capable of protecting yourself and your family. I hope you're not so much of a lawyer and a prosecutor that you've unlearned that concept.

No Thank You

Something tells me that this Ukrainian immigrant's suggestion that compulsory military service has marvelous benefits for the young may fall on deaf ears in this country.  Left-leaning ears and right-leaning ears both -- I hope.

[UPDATE:] There does seem to be some sentiment on the left for compulsory service, though not military.  This is bad, too.  Government should not tell its people what they must do with their lives (or even a portion of them) unless in supremely dire situations -- think nuclear war.

Free Speech

I actually disagree with what this British couple said about homosexuality, but I'm happy that they've been awarded damages for simply having said it.  The UK has been flirting dangerously with legislating speech.  I hope this decision marks the beginning of some sort of trend.

Here We Go Again

Lawyers for the District of Columbia have dusted off an old myth in an effort to justify Washington's severe gun-control laws.

Attorneys for the district told a federal appeals court Thursday that the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear arms applies only to militias and not to individuals.

The district's solicitor general told a three-judge panel that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted on military terms.

Here's the 2nd Amendment, short and concise.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The right of the people" is stated very clearly and we shouldn't forget that it is the people who form militias.  Take this imaginary amendment as an example of how the above should be interpreted.

A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed.

To follow the logic of the D.C. attorneys, we'd have to claim that the above means that only registered voters with a college degree could own books.  But since an educated electorate is drawn from the entire population, it's obvious that it would apply to all. Look, you may not like the 2nd Amendment, but its meaning is clear.  You're free to try and amend it, just don't make up meanings for it that aren't there.

In Your Dreams

This article would have us believe that the states will find "relief" under our new Democrat stewardship.

When the 110th Congress convenes in January, there will be a new Democratic majority negotiating with a Republican president and, state leaders hope, a new relationship between the federal government and the nation's 50 statehouses.

State lawmakers of both parties will be looking for relief from some federal policies imposed on states under the GOP’s watch, including expensive new rules for driver’s licenses and education mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, a growing number of state policies targeting illegal immigration and global warming will put pressure on new Democratic leaders in Congress to answer states’ calls for greater federal involvement.

The new political climate in Congress also is likely to sweep off the table GOP proposals that would have usurped states’ authority in medical malpractice cases and exerted greater federal control over the National Guard during natural disasters.

One of the reasons the Republican base didn't turn out last week was the federal power-grab by Washington Republicans during the last six years.  "No Child Left Behind" (sponsored by Ted Kennedy I should remind you) was the poster-law.  It was adopted by Bush as his first "Uniter Not A Divider" signature piece of legislation.  The Republican majority cravenly supported this federal intrusion into education, formerly a responsibility of the states, and the record's only gotten worse since then.

But if anyone labors under the belief that the Democrats' victory will return us to the glory days of states' rights, he's smoking something that the federal government refuses to give up authority over.   Democrats included. 

And don't get me started on abortion.

D'Oh!

Lynn Swann is running for Governor of Pennsylvania.  And while I'd dearly love to see this black Republican elected, remarks like this one don't inspire confidence.

When asked if he would sign a bill that would ban abortion in Pennsylvania should the Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, Swann replied, “Well, if the Supreme Court overturned it, then, they've basically overturned it.  They've basically said that, you know, you can't have an abortion.”

If the Supreme Court actually were to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion would not, of course, become illegal,  The matter would simply be left to each state to legislate on its own.  While Mr. Swann probably reflects the mistaken majority opinion in our fair land that the Supreme Court sets down law (as of course it sometimes has, see above Roe v. Wade) I'd prefer a candidate for governor of a very big state to have a better grasp on the process.

The only good part of this obvious blunder is that the Democrats can't point it out.  It's always been in their best interests to pretend that overturning Roe v. Wade would indeed force women back into the proverbial alleys.  Can you imagine this campaign-ad?

While Lynn Swann led the Steelers to glory in the Super Bowl (Monday Night Football theme in the background), he'll lead Pennsylvanians to a dead-end (cue dead-end music.)  He's so ignorant of the American Constitution that he actually believes that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in the instant criminalization of our mothers and daughters who are choosing to have an abortion.

Do Pennsylvanians reallywant a man to be our Governor who is so clueless?   Elect [fill in the blank] (a Democrat) -- we do understand the ramifications of overturning Roe v. Wade -- we just won't tell you.

Why highlight your opponent's constitutional ignorance when it's part of your plank?

Nonetheless, Swann's "people" better get a grip on him and better yet, he might see the need to "brush up" on some basics.

Lynn Swann

But You Can See Everyone In The Stadium!

I realize that this is a far-fetched scenario, but bear with me.

Imagine for a moment that the U.S. Senate were to decide that all Americans must switch to a new type of television technology by a date of their choosing even though the old one brought in Desperate Housewives just fine and no one was complaining.

And then having made that rather imperial decision (which after all does affect interstate commerce,) they realize that all those Americans -- the ones who watch TV anyway -- will have to go out and buy a new set or a converter and that might cause some economic hardship for some.  So they decree that federal taxpayer dollars will be available to help the less-fortunate amongst the TV-watching public to buy the technology that the Senate has decided to impose -- even though the old one brought in South Park just fine and no one was complaining.

Ultimately, some old-technology-TV-watchers-advocates claim that the subsidy isn't high enough.  Now, they don't for a moment complain that the Senate has acted foolishly by determining what type of TV we should watch (because after all it brought in American Idol just fine and no one was complaining.)  Oh no.  They are only concerned that the proposed federal aid to buy doesn't nearly cover the costs and that we're in danger now of creating an entirely new group of dispossessed Americans whose needs must.be.met -- even though the old technology brought in Jerry Springer just fine, no one was complaining, and none of soon-to-be-dispossessed knows they are yet.

Really folks, even George Orwell couldn't make this stuff up.

In Defense Of Mother Sheehan

Not by me, but by a letter-writer to the Buffalo News.

Cindy Sheehan pleaded not guilty to demonstrating without a permit. The First Amendment to the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." How can you break a law that, according to the Constitution, cannot be made?

What part of "no" do both Republicans and Democrats not understand? Do Americans hold the Constitution in so little regard that it can be ignored when it causes a conflict with ideology? Though I disagree with Sheehan, I served in the Marine Corps for 12 years so she could protest without asking for permission. The Libertarian presidential candidate said it best: Those who ask the government for permission to protest, deserve to be told no.

  George Dreer

  Niagara Falls

While I'm sympathetic with his libertarian view of government's role, the Constitution is probably not in question here.  Congress did not pass any law forbidding Cindy Sheehan to demonstrate without a permit.  The City of Washington, D.C. did though. The Constitution was written to define the role of the federal government -- not to limit the state or local authorities. 

2nd Amendment Alert

Big vote tomorrow in the House of Representative on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The US House of Representatives votes tomorrow on S. 397, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," which would shield the firearms industry from liability for the actions of violent criminals. Makes sense to me. If Congress wants to restrict availability of weapons, let it pass laws doing so. It's wrong for Congress to dodge the issue while allowing unpopular interest groups to impose their anti-gun agenda via lawsuits.

You can phone your Congressional representative at (202) 225-3121. Or visit the NRA's site to get precise contact info. I phoned my Congresswoman's office. The conversation went like this:

Q: Hi. What is Congresswoman X's position on S.397?

A: She is very concerned.

Q: Me too. And I would urge her to support this bill as passed by the Senate. . .

Worth a try, no? These calls are always fun, because if the issue is at all controversial or your Congressman is wavering, you can really make the receptionist squirm if you politely ask what the boss's position is before you state your own.

(Via the NRA and Illinois State Rifle Association)

Although I've never owned a gun nor ever even have held one in my cold, (and presumably someday) dead hands, I joined the NRA several years ago to help protect our right to self-defense and besides, I really liked putting the sticker in the back window of the ol' F-150.   It's sad that we've come to the point where a law like this has to be considered.

I hope someone will ask Harriet Miers her views on the Second Amendment, though I won't hold my breath.