Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    April 2024
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘human rights’

Punishing Christian speech, embracing Sharia law

Posted by Richard on November 11, 2010

Publicly professing a belief in Christianity or inviting others to learn about it are punishable offenses in more places than you might think. But the severity of the punishment varies considerably.

In Pakistan, they sentence you to death. And sometimes just shoot you on the spot.

In Dearborn, Philadelphia, and Wichita, they just throw you in jail for a while. Don't count on the ACLU and other human rights organizations to help.

Any statement suggesting that Islam is not the one true religion or that Islamic law shouldn't govern everyone everywhere is considered either "blasphemy" or "defamation" by the Islamists, and they're waging a worldwide campaign to criminalize (or silence through intimidation) such statements. They have the UN on their side.

Last week, Oklahoma voters — 70% of them — adopted a constitutional amendment barring judges from relying on Sharia or international law for court rulings. They were perhaps motivated by the Islamists' war on free speech and the growing trend in Europe of bending to Sharia, as evidenced by:

  • court decisions in Italy and Germany acknowledging the right of Muslim men to beat their wives and daughters.
  • the establishment in Britain of a Sharia court system parallel to the English courts and supplanting them for members of the Muslim community.
  • the criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff (Austria), Jussi Halla-aho (Finland), and Brigitte Bardot (France), among others, for criticizing Islam. 

The will of Oklahoma voters has been thwarted for now by a restraining order granted to the Islamist group CAIR (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case). Ironically, this ruling protecting the right of Muslim men to claim that Sharia law authorizes them to beat women — and to silence those who criticize them for that — was issued by a judge who was once a prominent women's rights advocate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

License to describe

Posted by Richard on September 24, 2010

According to the Institute for Justice, in the 1950s, one in twenty members of the workforce had to have a government license to do their job; today, it's one in three. Defenders of all this government regulation and control argue that it's all about protecting consumers. That argument is specious enough when they're talking about laws to protect us from unskilled flower arrangers or hair braiders.

But the District of Columbia tops even those absurd licensing examples; it recently decided that tourists need to be protected from sightseeing guides who lack sufficient historical knowledge. So new regulations make it a crime, punishable by up to three months in jail, for tour guides to describe things without a license. Getting a license requires completing a bunch of paperwork, paying hundreds in required fees, and passing a multiple-choice test covering "an arbitrary hodgepodge of knowledge about the District."

Segs in the City provides sightseeing tours of Washington on Segways. Ironically, they don't need licenses for the Segways, or for teaching their customers how to ride them, but they do need licenses in order to describe the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. The Institute for Justice and Segs in the City's Tonia Edwards and Bill Main have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that they have a "First Amendment right to communicate for a living."

Check out this short video. And then support the Institute for Justice's fine work by donating a few bucks


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

McDonald v. Chicago: victory for 2nd Amendment rights

Posted by Richard on June 28, 2010

Woohoo! Well, two cheers, anyway:

As Jacob Sullum noted below, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in McDonald v. Chicago this morning, ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a major victory for gun rights—as it opens the door for legal challenges to countless state and local gun control laws and finally gives the Second Amendment its due alongside the rest of the Bill of Rights—but it’s not the victory it should have been. That’s because only Justice Clarence Thomas followed the text and history of the Constitution and held that the Second Amendment must be incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Due Process Clause.

As Thomas notes in his concurrence,

the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.  The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. …

I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States.  I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

Read the full McDonald decision here. Read more about Due Process vs. Privilege or Immunities Clause incorporation here.

Note to libertarian history buffs: Thomas cites both Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner in his concurrence.

Clarence Thomas is a treasure. If only there were more like him.

It's a win, but not as big a win as it could have been. Still, it's big.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

CSU backs down on gun ban

Posted by Richard on May 6, 2010

Congratulations to Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus! On Wednesday, the Board of Governors of Colorado State University rescinded its ill-conceived gun ban.

In contempt of state law (CRS 18-12-204 and CRS 23-31-103), in December the CSU Board of Governors inexplicably urged CSU president Tony Frank to ban all firearms on campus, and he did so — despite the fact that the legislature considered a ban on campus carry (supported by the NRA) when arguing the 2003 concealed carry bill (SB24) and explicitly rejected it. And despite the obvious fact that such bans don't do anything to stop those bent on murder and mayhem — they only disarm and make helpless the peaceful and law-abiding. 

On April 15, the Colorado Court of Appeals voided the University of Colorado's gun ban, and RMGO filed a lawsuit against CSU on the same day. RMGO now plans to go after all the other state campuses that unlawfully deny their students, faculty, and visitors the right of self-defense: 

"They didn't have a legal leg to stand on," said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO). "We told them in January, in no uncertain terms, that state law did not allow them to create their own gun ban. Unfortunately, it took a lawsuit to force them to back down."

"This has been a good couple of weeks for law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves on Colorado campuses, and a terrible week for criminals who assume no one is able to defend themselves on campuses," Brown said. "We're now going to track the policy of every secondary education campus in the state — every community college, every university, all of them — and file suit against those who attempt to violate Colorado law."

"The citizens, students and faculty at these facilities should thank the members and donors of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the organization responsible for correcting these errant bureaucrats, and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, who put a lot of hard work into this battle."

I'm a proud Life Member of both RMGO and Gun Owners of America, the national organization with which it's affiliated. Please join me in supporting these fine civil rights organizations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Remembering Jefferson

Posted by Richard on April 13, 2010

Today is Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, and according to Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca, it’s a rather sad one:

On a spring day in 1743, a towering figure in our country’s founding was born: Thomas Jefferson. His skillful hand carved much of the character of America.

Today, however, what Jefferson so painstakingly crafted lies pulverized almost to stone dust. Were he alive to celebrate his birthday this April 13, instead of sipping champagne, he might want to drown his sorrow in whiskey.

What has happened to the revolutionary ideas he penned on the parchment that is the soul of America, the Declaration of Independence? How many of today’s citizens—and elected officials—understand the stirring proclamation that every person possesses certain “unalienable rights,” among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

Today, most Americans don’t understand their rights; the entire concept has been hopelessly muddied. Many now believe that if they want or need anything—from health care, to a “decent” salary, to help paying their mortgage—that they have a “right,” through government taxation and regulation, to compel others to provide it for them. As a result, our actual rights have been eroded at an ever-increasing pace.

So, in homage to Thomas Jefferson, and with his guidance, let’s examine some features of our real rights, to set the record straight.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Good news and bad news on McDonald

Posted by Richard on March 2, 2010

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in McDonald v. Chicago. The good news is it looks like incorporation of the Second Amendment, extending its reach to the states, is just about a done deal. The bad news is that it's likely to be done by means of the nebulous and endlessly-interpretable-by-judges "substantive due process" concept instead of via the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the Wall Street Journal, Randy Barnett has an excellent column in which he explains why the latter would be far preferable to the former, points out that the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause was clearly intended to address (among other things) specifically the right to bear arms, and argues that the 1873 Slaughter-House ruling trashing that clause (right up there with Dred Scott as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever) ought to be reversed. 

The "wandering discussion" Barnett cited illustrates the vast gulf that separates Scalia, Alito, and Roberts from Clarence Thomas, even though they're often lumped together as "conservative" or "originalist" justices and often vote together.

I wish this time Thomas had abandoned his habit of listening without questions or comments. I wish Janice Rogers Brown were sitting on that bench instead of Roberts or Alito (or better yet, instead of Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, or Sotomayor).

And I wish we had five justices with the courage, principles, and good sense to overturn Slaughter-House.

Sigh. But getting the Second Amendment incorporated is progress. And not insignificant, even though doing it through substantive due process will certainly temper the victory and leave lots of wiggle room for "sensible" regulations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A good week for liberty

Posted by Richard on January 22, 2010

It's been a good week for Liberty, hasn't it? First Amendment rights restored, socialized medicine derailed, socialist Democrats repudiated in Massachusetts (of all places) and in trouble in California and all across the country — is that a boatload of good news, or what?

I've been in the throes of a bad cold all week, and somewhat down as a consequence, but I'm getting over it now — and feeling pretty damned good about how things have been going lately. 🙂 Don't let up, Friends of Liberty, we've got them on the run!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Two cheers for the Supreme Court

Posted by Richard on January 21, 2010

I haven't read the 180+ pages of opinion, concurring opinion and dissenting-in-part of the Supreme Court's monumental decision in Citizens United v. FEC. But I've been reading the many posts about it at The Volokh Conspiracy and SCOTUSblog (links to main pages; just keep scrolling). The decision is not perfect (it upheld disclosure requirements, with only Thomas dissenting). But it strikes me as a huge gain for First Amendment rights and a very welcome repudiation of both McCain-Feingold and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, along with the anti-free-speech mentality that drives such legislation and such court rulings.

Those anti-free-speech advocates are expressing outrage that corporations, which "aren't people," are granted Constitutional rights (as are unions, BTW). But as Ilya Somin observed, the owners and employees of corporations are people (as are the members of unions), and these individuals don't lose their rights by joining together to act in concert.

And the (mostly leftist) critics of free political speech conveniently forget that virtually all significant news media organizations are incorporated. If, as the critics claim, the government can restrict the free speech rights of (people joined together as) corporations, then government can restrict the free press rights of (people joined together as) corporations. Do they really want to go there? Of course not — because entities like CNN, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times are on their side. So they concoct some ridiculous argument of "special rights" for "the press." As if rights aren't universal.

The first amendment protects my right to speak and to print or publish (including modern equivalents like broadcasting, cable-casting, and online posting). It doesn't require me to meet some arbitrary standard of what constitutes a "journalist" in order to exercise those rights. And I don't lose those rights by joining with others to exercise them in concert. 

Citizens United is a significant and welcome ruling. And it's yet another ominous indication of the President's authoritarian mindset of that he reacted by essentially calling on Congress to enact legislation to restrict our Constitutional rights (as recognized by the Supreme Court). Hey, this guy taught Constitutional Law, didn't he? And he thinks Congress can, by legislation, abrogate Constitutional rights?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who but the mindless

Posted by Richard on December 30, 2009

Dan Freeman at BigGovernment.com argued that the novels of Ayn Rand, in particular Atlas Shrugged, can explain the insane rush toward collectivism by the Obama administration. The country is being run by mystics of muscle:

Recent headlines seem lifted directly out of an Ayn Rand novel. President Obama decries the “fat cat bankers on Wall Street”. Harry Reid attacks insurance companies for making too much profit. House Democrat leaders call Tea Partiers “Racist, Nazi, Gun Nuts”.  How about this nauseating statement made by Army General George Casey after the Muslim terrorist attack on Ft. Hood?

As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well

Each of these headlines might well have been uttered by an Ayn Rand character. Rand, whose father’s pharmacy was confiscated by the Soviets during the communist revolution of 1917, and who came to America in 1926, seems uniquely able to speak to us about the inverted morality of our times. Virtue is to be apologized for. Depravity commands respect. Success is cast as evil and punished while failure is blamed on others and rewarded. Rand’s insights into the psychological state of collectivists—those who demand that we sacrifice our individual freedom and happiness for the sake of the state—explain what often seems incomprehensible to thinking people.

Read the whole thing. Please!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More guns, fewer murders

Posted by Richard on December 23, 2009

The Second Amendment Foundation noted that the murder rate declined in the first half of 2009, while gun sales were at record levels:

The FBI released data Monday that shows murders dropped by 10 percent from the same period in 2008. Meanwhile, according to data released by the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that during the first six months of this year, gun sales were up. January 2009 background checks rose 28.8 percent over the same month in 2008, February's NICS checks were up 23.3 percent and in March they were up 29.9 percent over March 2008. The trend continued in April, with NICS checks up 30.3 percent, while May showed a slowdown, up only 15.5 percent, and in June they were up 18.1 percent.

"What this shows," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "is that gun prohibitionists are all wrong when they argue that more guns result in more crime. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anyone. Perhaps violent criminals were actually discouraged by all of those gun sales earlier this year, because the media made a point of reporting the booming gun market.

"Anti-gunners," he continued, "have lost another one of their baseless arguments. Millions of Americans bought guns during the first six months of this year, many of them for the first time. Yet with all of those new guns in circulation, coupled with an increased demand for concealed carry licenses around the country, the streets have not been awash in blood, as gun banners repeatedly predict.

"Hard facts trump hot air," Gottlieb concluded. "These people are consistently wrong about our rights. Millions of people bought guns, especially semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that gun grabbers want to ban because they say people aren't safe with all of those guns in private hands. Well, the people disagree, and so does the data."

Correlation is not causation — thus one can't assume that the homicide rate will drop 10% for every 20-25% increase in gun sales. But there's a growing body of circumstantial evidence that more guns equals less crime. At the least, we have decades of data disproving the gun banners' fear-mongering about Wild West shootouts and streets awash in blood.

A century of criminological research refutes the notion that murders are committed by "previously law-abiding citizens" who just "snapped" while (or because) they happened to have a gun handy. An overwhelming majority of killers have extensive prior histories of violence and crime. Murderers are aberrant — predatory and/or insane.

Fortunately, violent predators and madmen are fairly scarce. But should you run afoul of one, a gun can protect you when seconds count and the police are minutes away.

"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thanking the producers again

Posted by Richard on November 26, 2009

The first ThanksgivingThis time each year, I get lots of hits on my 2006 post The real Thanksgiving story, and a smaller bump on my 2007 post This Thanksgiving, celebrate the producers. Please check them out (and please read T.F. Stern’s comment and my reply on the latter). This year, courtesy of Doug Fabian, I bring you another thanks to the producers, this one from Jim Woods:

This Thursday is Thanksgiving, and I suspect that most of you reading this have plans to spend time with friends and family feasting on a sumptuous meal. I know I will be gourmandizing on various gastronomic delights, not the least of which will be of the fine fermented variety.

Now, amidst tomorrow’s day of celebration, I undoubtedly will be bombarded by numerous television news spots aimed at making me feel guilty for my bounty. Although not directed specifically at me, the purpose of these stories will be to remind me that I should feel fortunate to have a roof over my head, warm clothes on my back and a hot meal on my plate. Because, these stories will imply, it could be me — or any one of us — who suffers the indignity of poverty, hunger or homelessness.

The plight of those less fortunate, shown to us via remote telecast from the nearest homeless shelter or inner city soup kitchen, is supposed to be a stark reminder that those whose lives aren’t immersed in peril should be thankful for all that we have.

Well, to this I ask, thankful to whom? Who are the people responsible for providing us with the tremendous bounty most Americans enjoy?

This year, I want you to give thanks to those who truly deserve it.

This year, I want you to thank the men (and women) of genius who first discovered how to harness fire and how to forge tools for hunting. I want you to thank the men of genius who discovered how to cultivate crops and how to ferment grapes and create wine.

I want you to thank the men of genius who are responsible for creating the planes, trains and automobiles that delivered the bounty to your table. And I want you to thank the men of genius who, throughout history, plied their various trades — often in the face of unimaginable opposition — to help lift us all out of a squalid state of nature and into the magnificence that is 21st-century America.

And finally, I think we should all give extra thanks to the real unsung heroes, the capitalists, who put their money and their livelihoods at risk to fund the various enterprises throughout the ages that made modern life possible.

To all of the great capitalist heroes, I thank you from the very core of my own productive mind. I can offer you no greater tribute this Thanksgiving than to enjoy, without the slightest hint of guilt, the life-sustaining bounty you all have made possible.

This Thursday, we need to thank the men and women of genius, both past and present, who truly deserve the gratitude, yet who so often get nothing but condemnation in exchange for their tremendous achievements.

I toast you all in the name of the best within us. 

Cheers,

Jim

Cheers to you, Jim, and to Doug for sharing your fine comments with us. And thank you, dear visitor, for dropping by. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving dinner with family and friends, and as I said in 2007, remember to thank the producers who made it possible — including yourself!

If you’re religious, by all means thank God for giving humans the faculties that make our achievements possible. But don’t forget that we have free will. It’s the choices we’ve made — and that countless others alongside us and before us have made — that are responsible for the bounties for which we’re thankful today. We have to choose to exercise those faculties productively and to establish and maintain societies in which such exercise is not just possible, but encouraged and rewarded. The incredible riches all around us aren’t the result of wishes or prayers, they weren’t just handed to us — they exist because of the creativity and hard work that countless people chose to exercise. And they will disappear if people stop making those choices.

So say thanks also to William Bradford and the Pilgrims, and their Massasoit Indian friends. And to the patriots of the American Revolution. And to the Founding Fathers. And to all the scientists and entrepreneurs and capitalists and laborers who’ve created this incredible modern world in which we live. And to all the people proudly and productively working to create more every day. I bet you’re one of them, so in the words of Debi Ghate, “selfishly and proudly say: ‘I earned this.'”

On a more somber note, don’t forget that today is also the first anniversary of the Jihadist attack on Mumbai. In recent years, our friends in India have joined us in embracing freedom, opportunity, progress, and modernity. For their achievements, they were brutally punished by 7th-century barbarians. There are those who will not rest until they destroy everything we value and the wealth, freedom, and opportunity for which we give thanks. Don’t forget that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Flynn v. Holder: the fight for marrow cell liberation

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2009

The Institute for Justice is one of my favorite non-profits. This "merry band of libertarian litigators" just keeps finding wonderful ways of using the courts and the court of public opinion to fight for individual liberty, especially economic liberty. And they keep winning. IJ has been the leader in the fight against eminent domain abuse and for school choice, and it's helped countless minority entrepreneurs overcome arbitrary and discriminatory licensing laws, regulations, and other barriers to entry erected by governments.

On Wednesday, IJ and a diverse group of plaintiffs took on another stupid and unconstitutional law against capitalist acts between consenting adults — and this time there are many lives at stake. Flynn v. Holder seeks to overturn the ban on compensating marrow cell donors:

Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor.  Minorities are hit especially hard.  Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to sue the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation to bone marrow donors.

The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensating marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales.  Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow could land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.

NOTA’s criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal.  That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again.  The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment.

Jeff Rowes, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “The only thing the bone marrow provision of the National Organ Transplant Act appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths.  A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty.”

Read the rest to learn about the people involved and their compelling stories.

It's the time of year when I make the bulk of my charitable contributions, and IJ is always near the top of my list. This suit strikes me as a terrific cause, so I'm going to donate online right now. Won't you help, too?

HT: Megan McArdle, whose column about this in the Atlantic I strongly recommend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Human Rights Watch finally notices rocket attacks on Israel

Posted by Richard on August 12, 2009

Human Rights Watch has for a very long time had a highly selective view of the Middle East, relentlessly critical of Israel and solicitous of the Palestinians. But now, after eight years of almost daily rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas, HRW has noticed that these attacks are war crimes. Of course, they're still playing the moral equivalence game, essentially saying that the many "war crimes" committed by Israel are no excuse for Hamas to commit war crimes, too.

Still, it's somewhat of an improvement — is it better late than never? Not according to Honest Reporting, which thinks it knows why HRW has suddenly acknowledged some of Hamas' crimes (emphasis added):

While any acknowledgment of Hamas crimes from HRW or any other powerful NGO is welcome, we have to ask why has it taken so long, after several years and thousands of Qassam rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza Strip. Could it be because HRW was caught with its hands in the Saudi cookie jar?

As we recently reported, HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson was exposed trying to fundraise from wealthy Saudis by highlighting battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations". HRW has been suitably embarrassed and its latest report on Hamas rocket attacks needs to be seen in this context.

In addition, NGO Monitor asks a number of questions, including over the timing of the report, HRW's perpetuation of the "balance" between terrorist groups and their targets, and HRW's failure to condemn Hamas for its extensive use of human shields.

Sorry HRW, but your report and video are simply too little too late.

You can watch the HRW video at Honest Reporting. Check out NGO Monitor, too. Their questions about HRW's report are quite pertinent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gun rights leaders oppose Sotomayor

Posted by Richard on July 8, 2009

Leaders of several gun rights groups and activists supporting the Second Amendment have jointly informed the Senate of their strong opposition to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (emphasis added):

“It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights, ” said a letter from the group, which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Senate. “Judge Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment causes us grave concern about her treatment of this enumerated Constitutional right.”

Included among the signators were Sandra S. Froman, former president of the National Rifle Association; Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman; Joseph Tartaro, SAF president; Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGUNS Foundation; several current or former NRA directors; Robert Corbin, former Arizona attorney general and past NRA president; former Congressman Bob Barr; Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League in Massachusetts; John T. lee, president of the Pennsylvania Rifle and Pistol Association; Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association; Robert E. Sanders, former assistant director of law enforcement for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and several others, 25 in all.

“The Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government,” they wrote. “While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is “designed primarily as a weapon” that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.”

“We joined in this effort,” Gottlieb said, “because our nation stands at point in history where we either defend all civil rights, or begin to surrender them one by one until none are left. It would be unconscionable to stand silently as the Senate deliberates confirmation of a new associate justice with such evident disregard for a key tenet, if not the critical element, of the Bill of Rights.”

“The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court,” the letter notes. “Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms and we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights.”  

Considering what we already know about Sotomayor's racist ideas, I can't help but wonder (tongue in cheek) whether her opposition to gun rights is absolutist or relative. Does she, perhaps, think that a Hispanic woman in possession of a handgun is likely to use it more wisely than a white male, and thus should be given a pass?  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rediscovering Frederick Douglass

Posted by Richard on July 7, 2009

Jonathan Bean:

Some 157 years ago, in 1852, the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass delivered his “Fourth of July Oration” condemning America for practicing slavery and thereby failing to live up to the humane ideals expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

“What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” Douglass thundered. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

Douglass’s words might seem passé on Independence Day 2009, with Barack Obama occupying the White House, several black Americans serving as governors, and others running everything from the Republican National Committee to Fortune 500 companies. But the words of the Sage of Anacostia remain not only relevant, but essential. Why? Douglass unfailingly opposed any man’s exercising control over another, and he would be appalled, his writings suggest, by the new spirit of dependency and control ushered in with the Age of Obama. Douglass championed limited constitutional government, colorblind law, capitalism, hard work, and self-help. His principles are not the stuff of “New New Deals” but rather a brief for a “New Independence Day” based on small-government principles.

Read. The. Whole. Thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »