Sometimes the news is just chock full of interesting legal stories that we just don’t know where to turn. the last two days have presented an embarrassment of riches, and so I’ve decided to throw them all together in our first installment of “Legal Briefs.”
Anyone Surprised?
The Justice Department’s Inspector General released a report yesterday stating that former employee Monica Goodling (go Regent!) and D. Kyle Sampson broke the law by asking politically based questions of potential Justice Department hires. According to may of those interviewed, Goodling’s interviews frequently in included perhaps my favorite phrase in the history of the Republic “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” I’ll also note that Ms. Goodling’s attorney’s went to Emory and Michigan, so I guess that settles the ranking questions we’ve been kicking around.
That Was Fast.
Dick “Quick Draw” Heller was back in Court yesterday, filing a lawsuit against the District Government for a revised handgun regulatory scheme that in his opinion, contravenes the Supreme Court’s ruling. Heller has also announced that he will continue to file lawsuits until he is permitted to own a M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.
I Wonder if His Nickname in the Joint Will be “Klondike?”
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted today on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. Seems he neglected to mention $250,000 in gifts he received from an Alaskan oil company. Whoops! We at the Hypo wish the Senator all the best, and hope that this kind of corruption eventually makes its way over to the Judicial branch so we can get some of that cheddar.
No related posts.
1.) Not surprised at all. Too bad the Hatch Act carries no criminal penalties.
2.) Heller is right, again. DC has tried to claim that any magazine fed handgun, which includes all of them that aren’t revolvers, like 80%, is a “machine gun” and therefore banned. Nice try. Maybe they’ll let lawyers who actually have fired a gun and know something about them write the law next time after it gets struck down again.
3.) This issue with Stevens has been percolating since before the 2006 election. I’m not sure why it’s taken two years to get this investigation going. That being said, I’ll be interested to see how Stevens gets out of this one.
I think Steven’s plan is to delay as long as possible, and then you know, croak. Kind of like Ken Lay.
Heller may have had a point before, but he’s going too far. He wants to get rid of ballistics tests for registered guns? Hey, unless you plan on using your gun to commit crime, you have nothing to worry about, Dick. It’s like a fingerprint. The authorities should know the ballistic profile of every gun sold.
And Heller was able to successfully register a revolver. What’s the matter, Dick? A revolver isn’t good enough for “home defense”? Or will a revolver not be good enough when it’s time to overthrow the government for trampling on your rights, BAH GAWD!
To be fair, though, some of the law is still a little burdensom, like keeping the gun disassembled. But a lot of it is typical conservative fear mongering by Heller, who believes the few seconds it takes to unlock a trigger lock threatens his security, BAH GAWD!
I do love the militia undertones in a lot of whackjob conservative gun nuts, though. Please, rise up against the tyranny of government. I dare you.
Jack, the ballistics profile is a stupid waste of money. While it is true that each gun has a fingerprint, the difference is that it takes about two seconds to score the inside of a barrel and change the “fingerprint”. All you need to do is run some steel wool through the barrel, or swap out a barrel with a different one. That makes all the money and time spent on that stuff useless.
You can argue revolver vs. semi-auto, but for me, revolver grips are too small for my hands, and I prefer the ease of reloading of a semi-auto. Since the Heller decision made it clear that handguns used for self-defense are okay, classifying the most popular kind of handgun as a “machine gun” and therefore bannable, goes too far.
As for the trigger lock nonsense, the couple of seconds could make a difference. You’ve got to put things in perspective – a task that normally could take a few seconds may take a lot longer when you’re nervous or scared. Most folks don’t have ice water running through their veins, especially when there’s an intruder in their home.
And, unfortunately for the anti-gun crowd, the founders seem to have been whackjob conservative gun nuts who thought rising up against the tyranny of government and fighting against the world’s strongest superpower was a good idea. I’m sure plenty of Englishmen dared them to try it, too.
Are you saying that overthrowing our government is an option if they take all of your guns away, BigShow?
And as for your fingerprint/basllistics argument BigShow, your argument is akin to someone saying taking fingerprints is a waste of money because wear a pair of gloves and BAM, no more prints at the crime scene.
So should we stop putting fingerprints on record because it’s so easy to get around if we really wanted to?
Big Show’s last paragraph brings up a very interesting point. If we want to go back to what the founders were thinking when making the second amendment, which seems to be to protect themselves from a tyrannical national government, then I think there’s a pretty strong case that its not incorporated to apply to the states. The States were looked upon as nothing more than an extension of the people, and there was no fear of tyrannical state governments….
Sorry for highjacking the thread…but its a fascinating thought, at least to this dc resident, that i may have a constitutional right that dr. bombay does not have despite him living less than ten minutes from me.
Mojo,
Maybe since you don’t have the right to vote for representation in Congress, the Founders decided that you should get guns instead?
Jack and Show,
You two behave, or I’m going to pistol whip you both.
Jack,
Of course not. My point is simply that you’re making fun of the idea that people may need to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and I’m pointing out that none of us would be arguing here if the Founders hadn’t done exactly that.
As for the ballistic fingerprint issue, the difference is clear – first, there’s no mandatory fingerprinting for every citizen in order for them to exercise a constitutional right. Second, its far more expensive than regular fingerprinting and its less efficacious. There’s no AFIS for ballistic fingerprints. Has anyone in MD been convicted because the gun they used was matched to its ballistic fingerprint? If so, does it happen as often as it does with fingerprints? I doubt it.
If I were still a DC taxpayer, I’d question why the city council is enacting useless nonsense like this that can only be explained as harassment of gun owners when they can’t fill potholes.
It can only be explained as harassment of gun owners? It can be explained as the district’s attempts to curb gin violence. Not every progressive policy decision is a left wing conspiracy to deprive righties of a “fundamental right.”
Jack,
A little common sense in this whole process would go a long way. It is harrassment – how else would you characterize a program that doesn’t work, but requires an inordinate amount of effort on the part of the citizen in order to comply with the law? I did a little research, and as far as I can tell, Maryland has had the ballistic fingerprinting rules on the book since around 2002 and they have yet to solve a single case with it. Not one.
If there were rules about voting that required anyone who wanted to vote to take a test, pay a tax, register in person, take another test, present two forms of ID, be fingerprinted and photographed etc. would you call that reasonable precautions to prevent voter fraud, or would you call it harassment? I’d call it harassment.
Jack,
If you really want to prevent gin violence, shouldn’t we start by scheduling an intervention for Dr. Bombay? Zing!
BigShow,
The efficacy of the law is not the question here. Legislators pass crappy laws all the time with no requirement that they prove their effectiveness. The question here is if the requirements of the laws in D.C. violate Heller, which will presumably be determined after lengthy legal battles. Hooray!
Mojo,
Gin makes me amorous. Tequila makes me want to get into a knife fight.
Dr. B,
When the crappy law infringes on an explicit constitutional right, we should probably pay a little more attention to it.
Show,
It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, and that affected the whole country. I think we’ve got a few more years before Dick Heller’s right to own a Glock hits the same level of indignation as governmental discrimination of millions of U.S. Citizens.
If I had a dollar for every time you kill an argument by bringing up slavery, I could pay off all of my student loans.
[...] BigShow first floated the idea that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens would walk from his corruption trial, I thought he was nuts. After all, Steven’s had a new first floor on his house, and forgot to [...]