Dumber than Paris Hilton

Even Los Angeles, the land of Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton, thinks we’re dumb.

The bungles of Mayor Hickenlooper and his posse of Democratic boot lickers have made the national press. The Los Angeles Times reported that the city is $10 million dollars in the hole for the convention. Compounded to this, the planning apparently has been done by seven year-olds. The article does a good job of listing some (but not all) of the gaffs:

“[Barak Hussein Obama’s] acceptance speech being held at an outdoor stadium instead of in the arena where the rest of the convention will take place.”-- This was a last minute change on the part of the convention planners. It is a logistical and security nightmare. The secret service has always hated open-aired football stadiums.

“Even special daisies that the city bred partly to show off for the convention are failing to sprout.” Why the hell are we paying for “special daisies” that can’t even grow? Is it a sign of Obama’s plans for the economy?

“[Denver needed to defend its] much-mocked catering guidelines, which recommend organic produce and color-coordinated meals and discourage fried food.” -- Look, 90% of the convention goers will be drinking copious amounts of beer and eating greasy hamburgers. The catered food, meant to appeal to the Democratic fund sources (the environmentalist lobby), will be eaten at official parties but I guarantee many cows will die for the Democrats.

“Local political leaders and the host committee insist everything is fine, and that any bumps along the way will be overshadowed by the attention showered on the city next month.’ -- Do not look at the man behind the curtain! Buy our propaganda, not the truth!

Seriously, Denverites hate these conventions, which amount to welfare for the political parties, precisely because we can see these sorts of issues. Contrary to the mayor’s claims, hosting the DNC will not give economic benefit to the city. Once the costs of the convention-- its security, its protesters, and the lost productivity of workers who skip town to avoid the hassle-- are factored in, the city will lose tens of millions of dollars.

Oh, and do not forget tax free gas and car washes.

Police: Not Above the Law

In an argument on the law, who do you root for: a lawyer or a cop?

Breitbart reported the AP story of a showdown in a Japanese restaurant between a lawyer and a cop. The cop had run into the restaurant for a quick meal-- but he parked illegally next to the curb outside. Now, if you or I did that, we would get a parking ticket. The lawyer brought up this important point.

Bryant testified. "I responded, 'No, you're not.' I told him he was an officer of the law. He's not supposed to break the law. He's supposed to enforce the law."

The cop replied that the law did not apply to him. The best he could come with in court is that he might have to leave quickly to answer an emergency call.

This is a victory for the rule of law. The police should never be above the law. If the law needs to be amended to allow a cop to park illegally for routine meals, then let the legislature do so. I seriously doubt that parking an extra 30 feet away would really hamper the cop in performing his duties of taking reports after a person is victimized. What this is really about is the arrogance of the police culture in assuming power they do not have, but who will argue with the man with the gun?

Nonetheless, until the law is changed, the cops must abide by the law too.

Tangentially, I will never use the LE/"Civilian" distinction. Really, either a person is active duty military or they are a civilian. Either they operate under the rules of martial orders and law or they operate in civilian law. A soldier has vastly different responsibilities to the state than a cop. A cop is a citizen whose given a badge to enforce the law, while a soldier is to defend the very existence of the state.

Lesbian on Lesbian Action Again

To update you on my previous post:

Reuters reports that a court in Athens has dismissed the plea by Lesbians (residents of the Greek island of Lesbos) to ban Lesbians (homosexual women) from using the term. Given the nature of hypersensitivity to the GLBT movement, this ruling does not surprise me in the least.

What bothers me is one particular line in the story:

In a July 18 decision, the Athens court said the word did not define the identity of the residents of the island, and so it could be validly used by gay groups in Greece and abroad.

This holding is patently false. The word's etymology derives from the name of the island and its inhabitants. To be "Lesbian" was originally the same as being an "American" or "English" or "French." When part of a hegemonic league (such as the Delian League), "Lesbian" was roughly equivalent to "Coloradoan" or maybe "Puerto Rican." That is the word has historically been understood to refer to the inhabitants of the island of Lesbos.

Where "lesbian" achieved its new definition comes from the ancient erotic poet Sappho whose works often featured female homosexual sex. While it is true that Sappho was from the seventh century, B.C., the term "lesbian" had a duel meaning through most of history. During that time, the term was very often, if not most often, understood to mean the inhabitants of Lesbos first and homosexual women only secondarily. It's like us referring to a "special" or "San Francisco" type male today. Does that mean the homosexual community should be able to steal the word "special" from our language? Or should a person be ashamed for being from San Francisco and thus associated with homosexuals? (Wait.. that has happened already...)

The case will almost certainly be appealed, for this is a matter of principle. Don't hold your breath for a different ruling because European courts recently have been going to great lengths to satisfy their GLBT communities.

Good News!

I just found out that I have succeeded on securing a place on CU's Journal for Telecom and High Tech Law. This is a high honor, as there are only 20 spots on the the JTHTL and one must submit an essay successfully complete a "citation exercise" in order to "write on" to the journal. If you do not know, legal citation is about 20 times worse than normal academic citation (get a group of lawyers together to write rules and, well, it gets terribly complicated for complexity's sake).

JTHTL is one of the top five Intellectual Property Law journals in the country (a growing field and more important than ever-- think of iTunes). Further, JTHTL has also been ranked one of the top communications law journals and one of the top technology law journals in the country.

I am really happy about getting on this journal and just wanted to let you know about it.

So, Yay!

DNC Gas Fraud

The DNC has committed fraud. They pretended they were city of Denver vehicles entitled to tax-free gas and “private” car washes. When the Rocky Mountain News broke the story, the fallout was immediate: Denverites were angry, and justifiably so. Some quotes:

"I do know for a fact that they're doing the same exact thing in Minneapolis," Hickenlooper said, referring to the city that along with St. Paul is hosting the Republican National Convention.

But Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said its members are getting their gas at public pumps.

This is the “but the other guys are doing it” argument, and it appears false. Hickenlooper is either lying or he cannot verify his “facts.” Now, it could be simply because I don’t live in the St. Paul/Minneapolis area, but it seems to me that the Republicans are not have nearly the problems of setting up their conference as the Democrats in Denver seem to be having. Only the party of entitlements would think they should get low cost gas paid for by taxpayers.

The host committee, which is responsible for raising money to put on the convention, is using the city's pumps "for safety and security reasons," [Chris] Lopez [spokesman for the host committee] said.

I had no idea I was using unsafe and insecure pumps. Now, every time I fill up, I feel like the oil companies-- and the government too for that matter-- are robbing me. Maybe if I could fill up where the cops fill up their squad cars, I would feel more secure and safe. Nah, I would probably just get a speeding ticket (Denver loves giving them out).

The disclosure brought immediate scrutiny. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said the practice "would seem" to be illegal and referred the matter to the state Department of Revenue.

Yep. This is tax fraud.

Everyday there is a new story about how Denver has bumbled the planning of this convention.

Jet Plane

I will be attending the Federalist Society Student Leadership Conference. Consequently, I will be out of touch for a few days. If I can blog, I will, but don't count on it.

Celebrating with Guns

I have celebrated Heller this weekend. I went shooting with my Dad on Friday. He shot his Glock and I shot my Taurus. We had a good time and angered Obama in the process. What a deal!

Then, I attended the sixth annual Independence Institute Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party. This is our chance to celebrate the fun of being an adult-- while it is still legal. We shoot guns (shotguns on a sporting clay course). We smoke cigars and cigarettes. We drink alcohol. (No shooting after the alcohol, in case you were wondering). We celebrate liberty and the FUN of being an adult (until the nannyists stop us).

Some highlights:

Deer Me!: Stand 9 featured a “rabbit” target, and thus shooters were aiming at the ground for that station. Deer have never been known for their intelligence. The deer slowly mooned across the shooting lane of Stand 9. The deer did not take the large amount of 12ga. fire as a clue that maybe he didn’t want to be there. We released a clay to scare it away. Instead, the deer got the classic “deer-in-the-headlights” stare at the moving clay. I was quite tempted to shoot the deer and put it up on my wall. (Note: there was a sign that prohibited shooting of live birds, but nothing prohibited shooting medium game.) Finally he wandered away and my group could continue attacking the clays.

Heller Celebrated: The expert on the Second Amendment happens to work for the Independence Institute. David Kopel was at the counsel’s table during the oral arguments of DC v. Heller. He gave a great presentation on how it was as best as gun people could hope for, and what the pro-gun lobby would be doing to further the cause (including suing Chicago and San Francisco over their gun bans). He received a standing ovation, and deservedly so.

Jonathan Hoenig: Jonathan Hoenig, the founder of CapitalistPig LLC, gave a fantastic speech on the role of the welfare/nanny state and how it makes us, as a community, poorer. It was entertaining and informative on the real economic impacts of false “government safety nets.”

The ATF party is a great event and will be on my calendar every year in the future. It is a fantastic chance to get to have fun and meet with like-minded people (maybe there I can find a woman to be my wife on day). We get to anger the nannyists who want to run our lives.

Slam it. Smoke it. Shoot it.

Guns and DC v. Heller

The SCOTUS has handed down the biggest case of the year: DC v. Heller (opinion here). Justice Scalia, the most philosophical/logical of the conservative justices, wrote the majority opinion. Had Kennedy wrote the opinion, the reasoning/protection of the rights would not be as strong. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents representing the four liberal justices. The opinion is long, so I give a brief synopsis here. My full(er) discussion is below.

Synopsis: I am happy with the fist holding (2d Amendment is an individual right). I understand the reasoning behind the second holding (allowing limits on the right) but am weary that it could lead to back door bans. I am happy that the third holding strikes down the DC gun ban. Yet, the holding still allows for licensing programs and that is dangerous (DC had a gun licensing program, but simply never issued licenses). This was the best the pro-gun side could hope for. There is still going to be a lot of litigation to flesh out the limits of the right and or the limits of the government to regulate the right. The second and third holding in particular have some troubling caveats to the general rule. Yet, the opinion was well reasoned and fairly exhaustive and will provide a launching point to challenge other silly gun laws.

Admittedly, I am an extremist when it comes to the second amendment (and constitutional protections generally). Thus, Scalia didn’t give me all that I wanted, but the opinion is certainly the absolute best the pro-gun rights side could hope for. It is a good day. Also, this commentary is long, but so is the decision (157 pages). It is difficult to compress all of the information.

The post below has my full(er) discussion.

Heller, Guns, DC FULL(ER) DISCUSSION

Full(er) discussion of DC v. Heller:
Holdings:

1. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
2. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
3. “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

The first holding, that the Second Amendment is an individual right is fundamental. Had the court gone the way of the liberal justices, the second amendment would apply to the National Guard only. Scalia did a good job going through the history of the meaning of the purpose clause (“A well regulated militia…”), the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), and the relation between the two. Of particular note, Scalia does a good job of refuting the dissents’ contentions that the second amendment applied only to militias.

The first holding is so important because it gives the foundation on which to challenge/examine other gun laws. Not only does this case establish the individual right in the SCOTUS jurisprudence, it also gives a through justification for why it is a right. Also, the Court does not rely on “hunting” or “target shooting” as the rationale for the right, but one of personal security. That will be key in future cases.

The second holding, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” troubles me a bit, but the rationales are actually pretty reasonable. Laws the prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and the like are expressly upheld (generally) by this ruling. I’m still bothered by Scalia’s upholding of banning guns at “sensitive places” like government buildings and schools only because the list of “sensitive places” keeps expanding. (Like I said, I’m an extremist in this area, and the discussion of which places should be able to ban guns is for another day.)

So too with the discussion of Miller, which was a case 70 years ago about a sawed off shotgun. The “unusual and dangerous” exception can make sense (really, the argument for allowing possession of RPGs, tanks, and claymores is on somewhat shaky ground). Historically speaking, the militia that won the Revolutionary War did so without the latest in military technology. While the language under this holding seems to indicate that the M-16 type tactical weapons may be banned, I think the language under the third holding may save the right to have “military looking/style” weapons (more on that later).

However, it is a real danger in the opinion’s language that modern military weaponry may be banned. It may come back as a back door ban on guns. For example, the Mexican Constitution allows for the right to bear arms that are not militarily useful. Since militaries use all sorts of calibers for various purposes, the end result of the Mexican law is that a Mexican citizen can only have a .22 which is useless in most self-defense situations. Most other calibers have been adopted by the Mexican military at one time or another and therefore are banned to the general populace. If we are not careful, that same reasoning could be applied under the language of the second holding in this case.

The third holding actually pertains to the Draconian gun ban in place by DC (Chicago and San Francisco have similarly harsh laws). It is important to note that DC is a federal district and therefore this ruling does not necessarily apply to states and normal cities.

Since the first holding established that the second amendment pertains to the right of self defense and guns are included in that right, then DC cannot outright ban handguns. What is interesting is that Scalia bases his rationale on the fact that handguns (as opposed to long guns) are overwhelmingly the choice for most Americans for self defense. This is where I think that the AR-15 and other “military style” semi autos will be found to be okay. Since so many people choose to buy them for home protection, then, under the reasoning of this third holding, the military style rifles cannot be banned (does not apply to full auto). This of course is reading into the text, but that is where I would start my argument in a future case to stop bans on semiautomatic rifles. This may be the saving grace from the problem that Mexican citizens face.

The third holding strikes down the outright ban on handguns in the home, the requirement that long guns be disassembled and have a trigger lock on at all times, and other nonsensical laws. One of the worst parts of the DC law was that a homeowner could not move his gun from room to room in the house. Wherever the gun was when the law was enacted in the 1970s, it must remain for all time.

I am bothered by the Court still allowing “licensing” of guns in DC. To license is the ability to restrict and ban. Indeed, DC had a licensing system—but NO ONE was ever granted the license. Thus, it was a practical ban. The court did not really address this problem and it should have. I suppose that’s another day’s litigation.

Scalia failed to explicitly state which standard of scrutiny the Court would take in examining gun laws. Of course, I want the strictest (“strict scrutiny”) that would make the government show a compelling state interest in the law-- which is a very difficult test to pass. The dissents wanted the lowest level of scrutiny: rational basis (asking, “Did the government have a rational reason for this law?”-- which almost any law can satisfy). Reading the tea leaves, it appears that the Court wants something higher than rational basis but I doubt the votes will be there for strict scrutiny. They may settle on something in between (intermediate scrutiny of some sort) in the future.

This was the best the pro-gun side could hope for. There is still going to be a lot of litigation to flesh out the limits of the right and or the limits of the government to regulate the right. The second and third holding in particular have some troubling caveats to the general rule. Yet, the opinion was well reasoned and fairly exhaustive and will provide a launching point to challenge other silly gun laws.

Who Polices the Police?

SCOTUSblog does a great job of covering the Supreme Court Of The United States. In a recent article about the grants and denials of certiorari and various other orders, one case thrown in at the end caught my eye.

The case of Arizona v. Johnson (No. 07-1122) intrigues me. The issue is:

Whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.

HT: FourthAmendment.com

According to a passing reference in the New York Times,

A Tucson police officer testified that she had searched a passenger, Lemon M. Johnson, because he was wearing gang colors and seemed dangerous, not because he was suspected of having committed a crime.
The search yielded a gun and marijuana. An Arizona appeals court overturned Mr. Johnson’s conviction, saying the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the search was unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS jurisprudence is very complex for Fourth Amendment searches for occupants in a car. Due to the late hour, I cannot recall the exact names of the landmark cases (please feel free to help out in the comments section), but Fourth Amendment priciples are generally based on a balancing test. On one side is the individual's interest in "privacy" (really, his interest in not being molested/abused by the police) and on the other side sits the police officer's interest in self protection.

Certainly, as the gang shootout last night near the DNC's convention site demonstrates, the police have legitmate security concerns. (However, they get to carry guns and handcuff people too, so they are far from defenseless.)

Yet I cannot help but believe that our rights are very important. We do not want the police state that the United Kindom has become-- where big brother watches over your shoulder and it is a crime for old men to wear a hat lest they "hide their identities."

Lest you think I'm jumping too far: look at what the officer identified as the "basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous." She said he was wearing gang colors. Guess what folks, gang colors encompass just about every general color possible. Indeed now police are saying that gang members no longer display their colors to avoid police detection. In other words, anyone wearing any color or "looking dangerous" (whatever that means) can be searched in a car they are riding in if the SCOTUS upholds the police officer's actions.

Based on the SCOTUS' tendancy to defer to the police, I suspect that the officer's actions will be upheld. Remember that it is police officers who serve as security detail for high-ranking judges (in the case of the SCOTUS, it is the Secret Service) and thus, in a very real way, the judges' lives depend on the police. That is why the judicary is so deferential to the police.

I do not fully know the facts of the case and I suspect that the suspect was a gangbanger scumbag, but rights need to be upheld for everyone, otherwise they apply to no one.