This time its Gordon Jenkins, of Monticello, NY, arrested for taking bribes and intimidating the witnesses. We need to bust MAIG for RICO violations! Where are DoJ's Organized Crime Task Forces when you need them?
This is hilarious. 'Nuff said.
Court allows suit against Aurora theater, based on allegations of inadequate security. The court notes that it is only saying the issue is sufficiently disputed to require going to trial, not that either side might necessarily win.
Patterico pretty well takes it apart, but I'd add a thought.
One of the two charges is violation of a statute which penalizes anyone who "misuses" "government property, services, personnel or any thing of value." Sounds to me like it's void for vagueness. "Misuses" is hardly clear; there are many uses of government property which some would say was "misuse" and others would say was a proper use. An is a veto government "property" or "any other thing of value"? No one can possess or transfer a veto.
There's a couple of Supreme Court cases relating to this, applying the federal mail fraud statutes, which punish any use of the mails as party of a scheme or artifice to defraud. Federal prosecutors sought to apply this is "theft of honest services," i.e., a scheme to deprive the public of honest services by a public official or a corporate executive. In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court held the statute simply didn't allow for this. Congress then amended the statute to expressly provide that it did cover theft of honest services. In Skilling v. United
States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010), this was challenged as void for vagueness. A majority of the Court held that the statute could be "saved" by a "narrowing construction," which construed it only to cover bribery and kickbacks, and not conflict of interest or anything else -- thus implicitly accepting that if broadly applied, the statute would indeed be void. At that, two Justices (Scalia and Thomas) said that the statute could not be saved, it was void for vagueness, period.
I'd think that the Texas statute is equally void. "Misuse" is no clearer than "honest," perhaps less so. We probably have a broader consensus on what is "dishonest" than on what is "misuse."
"He says nearly 100 percent say they are buying them for defensive purposes. "They're buying AR-15s, home defense shotguns, handguns, personal defense handguns something for conceal carry." said King."
He'll be presenting on "Are there lessons for us today from Nazi Gun Control?" on CSPAN-2, Book TV, this Sunday, August 17 at 5 PM EDT.
Here's his closing coulumn.
"I began over a decade ago because I was one of those well-meaning liberals who believed the propaganda that we'd be safer in a disarmed society. I believed that gun owners were the problem. I believed that the Brady Campaign were the good guys.
Then, at the behest of a law enforcement client, I set out on my own research journey. I learned that gun control is both racist and sexist in its impact on the real people who have to live in disarmed societies. That offended my liberal sensitivities: I was outraged. So I began to write, first for small local sites, and then for progressively large sites. PJ Media was kind enough to hire me to write features in 2010, and it's been a good run."
Dave Workman has the story. Use a load of money to buy mass media advertising ... their methods are SO twentieth century!
Vesely v. Armslist, LLC (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2014), as discussed by Prof. Volokh. A person was killed by a stalker who bought a handgun, from a private individual, illegally since they were not residents of the same state, via the online site Armlist. Brady's legal theory was that Armslist facilitates private sales without background checks, and facilitates illegal interstate sales.
The Seventh Circuit upholds dismissal, without getting into the Federal statutory issues. A person generally has no legal duty to protect others, absent a special relationship with them (landlord to tenant, etc.). Armlist did not aid an illegal sale; it simply allowed someone to advertise, and was entitled to assume he meant to sell in compliance with the law.
Just in, an email from CT Carry announcing the defeat of John McKinney in the governor's primary. They describe him as an architect of the 2013 gun restrictions (I'm not up on CT politics and so cannot say).
Here's more on that issue.
Why I'd never join the Pompous Association of Empty Suits.
Retired BATF agent. It's a oft-repeated story. A corrupt LE agency will still have some honest officers who really want to shut down bad guys for the good of all. Here is how it deals with them. Now, if only Congress gave a hoot....
And we now know those of New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain. NJ has a diversion program for first offenders, which enables them to have their charges dismissed if they stay out of trouble for a time.
McClain earlier allowed diversion in the case of Ray Rice, who was accused of having beaten his wife unconscious before dragging her out of an elevator. But he denied it in the case of Shaneen Allen, a 27 year old mother, who mistakenly thought that New Jersey recognized her Pennsylvania license to carry, and now faces a 3.5 year mandatory minimum sentence. Rice was, however, a sports star, and we all know they don't have to follow the law.
Bloomberg group decides to annoy pro-gun candidates at the Iowa State Fair, offers "volunteers" free admission, parking, and food. Pro-groups suggest their members call it to RSVP and get free admission, parking, and food.
Astroturf financed by millionaires is SO twentieth century!
Telling a woman whose house is being burglarized to "put the gun down."
I like her response: I'll put the gun down when I see the police."
"When a Psychiatrist Shoots to Kill". It's by a psychiatrist.
Clayton, the pro-gun historian whose research among other things initiated the downfall of Michael Bellesiles, has had a stroke. It's described as minor, weakness on one side of the body, but will require a month of rehab. You can contact Rhonda Cramer at the link. (Update: my email just bounced).
Yesterday it passed by a popular vote of 61%-39%. Pretty extensive changes. The right as guaranteed extends to ammunition and accessories (no magazine bans). Any restrictions are reviewed under strict scrutiny. The State must defend these rights and may not decline to do so (which will put the Attorney General in an interesting position if any future legislature enacts a gun restriction.
Language that said the guarantee will not affect the ability of the legislature to restrict the carrying of concealed arms is replaced by language saying it will not restrict the ability of the legislature to restrict convicted felons or those found mentally infirm by a court.
There have been proposals by antigunners to ban firearms receipt by those on the "terrorist watch list," which make this article quite relevant. Based on a "leak," it points out that:
(1) Between 700,000 and 1.5 million people are on the list;
(2) The standard for listing is "reasonable suspicion";
(3) More than 40% on the list, some 280,000, are not even suspected of links to any known terrorist organization;
(4) 900 times a day, a person is added to the list or information on him is supplemented.
I must wonder how useful any "watch list" can be that has 700,000 people on it. Obviously that number cannot be "watched." The list just takes on a life of its own; it is maintained because it is supposed to be maintained.
He may have been on the other side, but by all accounts was a nice guy. I met him briefly in the Supreme Court elevator, coming back from the argument in Sheriffs Pritz & Mack v. U.S., and with some effort he managed a smiling "hello."
I was in D.C. on the day when Hinkley shot him and President Reagan, and heard all the sirens going off, back 33 years ago.
UPDATE: I'm too much of a historian to relish myth, and some of the descriptions coming out are pure myth. Understand, Brady was not just confined to a wheelchair; when I saw him he was in one of those crosses between a wheelchair and a gurney, and he could manage to utter one word. A description of him at a later rally said that he managed with effort to say "fight ... fiercely." But this editorial says that he "personally called the then-state [CT] attorney general [Blumenthal] to encourage his efforts," with Blumenthal saying they "maintained a working relationship for nearly 20 years as Blumenthal became a Democratic senator from Connecticut." It adds that "Blumenthal said Brady was also active on the state level..."
One thing I find a bit irksome is that the history, dare I say revisionist history, of the Brady Campaign entirely omits the person who made it into a powerful organization: Nelson "Pete" Shields, who started in when it was a miniscule group called the National Council to Control Handguns, and turned it into a much larger group known at Handgun Control, Inc., recruited the Bradys, and ultimately turned it over to them. And within a year or two he became at most a footnote in its history. I wouldn't be surprised if the organization is smaller, and certainly it's less powerful, than when Shields finished building it up.
I doubt that Shields and Harlon Carter ever met, but they were counterparts, individuals who formed the opposing organizations, largely from the ground up (NRA had been around since 1871, but in the mid-70s was considering abandoning politics entirely). NRA has a bronze bust of Harlon in its HQ, and recognizes his leadership; Brady has made its real founder almost a non-person.