Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
I had thought that this was already settled law. Apparently not.
A couple of people are filming border patrol officers working in plain view of the public. Legal, right? 1st amendment and all. But no; they are arrested and their pictures destroyed.
A district court has initially ruled that national security allows for abridging the 1st amendment. It’s before the Ninth Circuit now.
How do we determine if voter fraud has occurred if we have no means to verify whether or not a vote is legitimate?
Report: Ineligible Aliens Voted in Philadelphia in Recent Years
The National Constitution Center operates an interactive constitution that provides for general and specific discussions of the constitution, as well as external viewpoints on some topics (well worth a look). While reviewing the section on the 2nd amendment, I found a viewpoint opposite to my own with respect to the right to bear arms in public. The opposing viewpoint was written by Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law. It seems to me that he is arguing that one should be required to have a “special reason” – beyond simply a right to self defense – to carry a firearm in public. Here is a sample of his argument:
“Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited.” [bold emphasis mine]
Yes, Professor Winkler – a parade can be required to have a permit. However, a “special reason” to have the parade is not a requirement for receiving the permit. The parade organizer does not have to prove that his message is worthy or needs promulgating to obtain a permit, nor can it be denied because the permit issuer doesn’t think the parade is necessary or its topic appropriate.
Also, while police do have broader powers to search pedestrians in public they still must have probable cause. A person does not need a “special reason” to exercise their right to be in the public space, and the lack of such a “special reason” does not in and of itself provide probable cause.
I understand Professor Winkler’s concerns, but I must disagree. The right to self defense is a sufficient reason for law-abiding citizens to be able to use arms suitable for that purpose. They should not have to prove any other “special reason” to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
In reaction to the covertly-made video of Planned Parenthood workers discussing the sale of aborted fetal body parts, California legislators have passed a law adding penalties for secretly recording health care providers. This is on top of existing California penalties for secretly recording anyone.
The ability to record someone can be critical in exposing criminal or otherwise unsavory activity of public interest. Can you imagine how recent events – for example, some high profile police shootings – might have turned out if it weren’t for independent citizen video exposing the truth? If you don’t want something to be recorded, then don’t say or do it to or in front of witnesses. If you do, recording should be fair game.
Criminalizing the act of proving deceit with video – well, that just seems wrong, particularly when a special interest entity benefits. I believe that this will lead to other restrictions; how long do you think it will be before recording politicians and their secret back-door dealings will be outlawed? I mean, if they pass laws to protect their special interests, then why not one to protect themselves?
The California State University Los Angeles and the University of Connecticut have both established on-campus housing restricted for occupation by African-Americans only. At the CSULA, this is touted as a “safe space for [black students] to congregate” and avoid the “microaggressions” from their white classmates. At the University of Connecticut, the housing is restricted further to African-American males only.
This reverse desegregation (self-segregation?) is troublesome for me. I believe it will foster animosity rather than friendship and further the divide between people of all races. In addition, I believe that it will lead to calls for other “exclusive” living quarters, as evidenced by one University of Connecticut student’s comment: “What about black women and girls – what about us?” Any number of other race-based groups could demand similar accommodations.
Special accommodations based on race serve only to accentuate our differences rather than our similarities and provide fodder for racists. They should be discouraged whenever possible, and alternatives developed to promote inclusivity over segregation.
Why not just fix the FDA instead of creating a new government bureaucracy?
Clinton decreed today that “all Americans deserve full access to the medications they need”, and vowed to “hold drug companies accountable” when they end up with virtual monopolies due to FDA failure to approve generic drugs or alternative drug delivery methods (such as for the epinephrine in the EpiPen).
Clinton has essential made the claim that the EpiPen scandal is the work of greedy capitalists, and so she would step in – with the authority of the federal government – and curb prices by (government) force if necessary. However, the truth is that the over-regulation of drug manufacturers by the FDA allows for drugs that have been in use for decades to become single-source monopolies for drug companies, who then price the drug as they see fit. The EpiPen is a wonderful example – epinephrine, the active ingredient in the EpiPen – has been around for over a century. However, the auto-injection method used by EpiPen – while novel and patented – has few FDA approved alternative in the U.S. This allows the EpiPen to be sold containing a few pennies of epinephrine for $300 a shot (pun intended).
Why a non-auto-injection system is not offered as an alternative, I do not know. How difficult would it be to stick someone in the butt with a pre-filled syringe and push the plunger? It’s not like diabetics haven’t been injecting themselves for years. I think this type of prefilled, manual injection system is well within the capabilities of the typical American and would reduce the costs significantly for this life-saving drug application.
The only people who benefit from more government are the politicians. And frankly, it’s the politicians that I want to see out of business – not the drug companies.
Let’s ignore the 2nd amendment issues for now. When a lawmaker decides to effectively change a law by interpreting it in a radically different way than it is written, then laws becomes an unstable foundation upon which to build a business or household. Actions such as these are a good reason to look for somewhere else to live – someplace where laws are interpreted as a clear text reading would suggest.
The Massachusetts AG has decided to interpret their “assault weapon” law as they would see fit, rather than based on what the law actually says. Their actions effectively ban all “assault” rifles, whether as described in the law as written or not. Note that the firearms in question have been considered legal since the law’s inception and widely sold in the state. It is also important to note that Massachusetts had zero murders last year committed with any rifle, let alone an “assault” rifle, making their expanded interpretation of the law solely an act of political grandstanding.
We heard a lot last week about concerns regarding open carry at the Republican National Convention. Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, went so far as to suggest that open carry should be banned, stating “… I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not…” (reaffirming the need for the 2nd amendment in the process). This is particularly disconcerting given that he represents police officers who are sworn to uphold the law and the constitution. I can’t be the only citizen uneasy about Loomis’ willingness to suspend the constitution as he sees fit. Is there any wonder why people are apprehensive about the militarization of our police?
Yet, what we didn’t hear about is more important:
No shootings. No accidental gunshots. No gun crime. And no issues with open carry.
There are a lot more good people than bad. When good people are legally and sufficiently armed to be able to protect themselves and their families from those who would use force against them, the bad people don’t stand a chance. As it turns out, the criminals know this, too, and they simply choose to stay home or go elsewhere.
The Cleveland police don’t want law-abiding citizens to open carry firearms at the GOP convention next week. However, the way they want to accomplish this is very disconcerting. In short, they want to ignore the U.S. and Ohio state constitutions as well as Ohio law. Here’s an excerpt from a CNN article that should make everyone think hard about this issue, regardless of which side you take in the gun debate Continue reading “Cleveland police and the constitution”
It has been reported that off-duty Minneapolis police officers walked off their job as security for a Minnesota Lynx basketball game as a result of the free speech activities of some of the ball players. I see a real problem with their actions; maybe it’s time we rethink the ability of officers to exercise their police powers in such “off-duty” jobs. Continue reading “Off-duty(?) cops walk off job”