Law School Conservative

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg took another tiny step towards a third-party presidential campaign this week by attacking candidates on the left AND the right. 

Speaking in California, Bloomberg said, "The press really is not doing its job of holding their feet to the fire. ... The tough questions are not what are you in favor of, but how are you going to get it through Congress?"

I guess if you're Mike Bloomberg, the answer is “whatever it takes, including lying.” Bloomberg has been demanding that Congress not renew the Tiahrt Amendment, a piece of legislation that restricts ATF trace data to law enforcement only. Bloomberg says the Tiahrt Amendment "restricts cities and police from accessing and using ATF trace data from guns recovered in crimes."  What a bunch of bull.  It's political opportunists like Mike Bloomberg who are denied access to this information, and Bloomberg doesn't like that. 

Instead of Congress, maybe Bloomberg should be blaming Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. A few years ago, Daley and some other big-city mayors tried to get ATF trace data so they could sue firearms manufacturers.  ATF tried to block public access to the data in part because it contains the names of innocent people and law enforcement officers.  But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Freedom of Information Act, everyone is entitled to this information ... Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, or the head of the largest street gang in Chicago. 

Congress responded by passing the Tiahrt Amendment.  Back in 2002, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley wrote then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for his help in keeping this information in the hands of law enforcement only.  He wrote that public access to the trace data "would be catastrophic for law enforcement, would compromise national security, and would signal the end of the trace program, as law enforcement agencies would no longer be able to rely on the current ability to share critical information confidentially."

Now Commissioner Kelley's got his marching orders from Mayor Bloomberg, and he's singing a different tune, pushing Congress to end the law he supported just five years ago. 

This campaign of misinformation and falsehoods is shameful enough coming from the mayor of America's largest city.  But to think it might be coming from a presidential candidate is even more despicable.  Americans not only want honesty from our elected leaders, we demand it and deserve it—but we're not seeing it from Mayor Mike these days.

The Supreme Court finally began to correct a monumental wrong the other day.  In a judicial smackdown to campaign finance laws, the justices ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was too broad, and that groups like the NRA can indeed run some ads related to legislation in the days and weeks before an election. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the decision, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election.  Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." 

It’s great to see the court recognize that this is a free speech issue, not an issue about spending limits on advertising.  Because when you see it as a free speech fight—which is what it is—it becomes painfully obvious that some members in Congress were simply trying to shut up the NRA.  But now they've been smacked down by the Supreme Court.

This is a good first step, and a great day for Americans.  But it's not the end of the fight.  The decision by the high court doesn't wipe BCRA off the books, and those who want to stop the NRA from speaking to its members and fellow Americans will keep trying their best to shut us up, which we'll never let happen.

The Washington Post recently ran a big story about the fact that young people aren't getting out in nature these days.  But a close reading of the article reveals the anti-hunting bias of the paper, and of the nature advocates they spoke to.

Not once in the article is hunting mentioned.  Hiking, walking, fishing, going to the beach and gardening were all discussed, but not hunting?  That's ridiculous.  If parents, educators, politicians and policymakers are so interested in getting young people outdoors, why are we ignoring such a huge opportunity?

The Post says that twenty companies, including Disney, Sesame Workshop, DuPont and others are launching a $20 million campaign to get young people outside.  How about directing some of that money to the National Shooting Sports Foundation's "Families Afield" program?  Or to the NRA's Youth Hunter Education Challenge?  How about supporting hunter mentoring bills in all 50 states?  Or lowering the minimum hunting age, so young people can get out and learn to hunt before they get snared by an Xbox or PS3?

If these people are serious about getting young people to appreciate nature, they can't ignore the positive impact that hunting can have on young people.  It will be interesting to see if their anti-gun, anti-hunting bias is more important to them than their quest to get young people interested in the great outdoors.

What happens when an anti-gun mentality collides head on with an anti-military bias?  You get the administrators at a public school in California.

For ten years, the students "graduating" from elementary school have been decorating mortarboards.  This year, two students decided they wanted to honor the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they decorated their mortarboards with plastic soldiers.  Administrators at Cornerstone at Pedregal School refused to let the boys graduate with the decorations, and instead forced the students to snip the tiny plastic guns out of the hands of the soldiers. 

Believe it or not, administrators are citing the federal "Gun-Free Schools Act" as justification for their actions, even though the federal law has nothing to do with toys.  The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is also pointing to its "zero-tolerance policy" on firearms, but in order to believe that, you’ve got to have zero intelligence. 

Truthfully, I think administrators were so offended by the sight of a tiny rifle in the hands of a tiny soldier that they completely overreacted.  This anti-military bias isn't unusual in our schools, but it's still outrageous that a principal would make a child choose between supporting our troops and taking part in a graduation ceremony. 

As for the kids, they protested in their own way by snipping off the hands holding the rifles and painting bandages on the plastic stumps.  These toy soldiers, disarmed and dismembered by our public schools, never came off the mortarboards of the elementary school students.  And I have a feeling these kids will never forget the day their school told them their expression of patriotism violated school policy.

You know, it's not every day that someone risks his own life to help a stranger.  And when that hero is "rewarded" by losing his job, there's something terribly wrong.  But that's exactly what's happened to Colin Bruley.

Bruley lived and worked at an apartment complex in Jacksonville, Florida.  Late one evening just a few nights ago, Bruley heard a neighbor scream that she'd been shot.  Bruley could have kept his door locked and turned up his television, but instead he rushed to help his neighbor.  And Bruley wasn't stupid.  He brought along his shotgun in case the criminal was still there. 

When Bruley arrived at his neighbor's apartment, the criminal was gone.  Bruley handed his shotgun to another neighbor for safekeeping and began treating the young woman's injuries.  After police and paramedics arrived, Bruley returned to his apartment.  Just a few hours later he was fired.

His employer says that bringing that shotgun was "brandishing a weapon," and that's a workplace violation.  Never mind the fact that Bruley wasn't on the clock when he responded to the emergency.  Never mind the fact that Bruley may have saved a woman's life.  Never mind the fact that nobody in the apartment complex is complaining about Bruley bringing a shotgun along in case the criminal was still there.  The company has its policy, and Bruley's now out of a job.

Colin Bruley, you're a hero.  And to the Village Green Companies, Bruley's employer: You should be ashamed.  Colin Bruley should have received a promotion, not a pink slip.  You should do the right thing and give him his job back.  In fact, that's the least you could do.

A few days ago, I told you about Bakersfield College in California, where the campus police only carry mace - and the college president proudly advertises that fact.  There's another college in California with an anti-gun attitude that puts your children at risk, and the problem is so bad the college's chief of police has quit in protest.

I'm talking about City College of San Francisco, where an armed attacker on campus means the on-duty police have to call 9-1-1 and wait for armed officers from the City of San Francisco to arrive.

Carl Koehler, the chief of police at City College, recently resigned after the college told him his officers couldn't carry firearms, and instead had to make do with batons and pepper spray.  Many of the officers are frustrated that the college's anti-gun policies are putting their lives, and the lives of the students they're supposed to be protecting, at risk. 

So if your child is looking at colleges, cross City College off your list.  Why on earth would you want to send your loved one to a campus that welcomes violence with open arms and a "gun-free" zone?

In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy last April, a lot of schools and universities are talking about security on campus.  They keep saying, "All options should be on the table." But the truth is, any discussion of armed security remains largely off limits.

In the name of some bizarre political-correctness, firearms are still taboo at school.

This month, the University of California-Davis is holding workshops to teach faculty and staff how to respond in the event of a rampage by a homicidal, suicidal maniac.  According to the Sacramento Bee, some of the instructions include:

"Try to escape ... seek cover ... hide or play dead."

So if you're chain-locked in a classroom, facing a deranged maniac who's armed to the teeth and bent on murder and suicide ... you're supposed to play dead?

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying we should arm every teacher, student and staffer at every school.  But I am suggesting that any open discussion about school security must include evaluation of armed security, at least as a potential local option for individual campuses and schools.

After all, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to the next fatal school tragedy, every one of these violent rampages is ended by a firearm - in the hands of either a good guy, or the bad guy who knows the good guys are coming.  That's the reality most politicians, school officials and reporters don't want to talk about.

What the head-in-the-sand crowd does talk about is the Gun-Free School Zones Act, enacted by Congress a decade ago.  They argue that this law bans guns from schools, as if that's enough to keep a deranged attacker from inflicting tragedy.

There are two problems with that argument.

First, thanks largely to the media, every potential homicidal, suicidal, deranged maniac knows that schools are the most unprotected institution in the country.  If you want to commit the most horrific violence in the least amount of time, an American school is your best target.

And secondly, the media and anti-gun politicians have hidden an important truth about this law.  The Gun-Free School Zones Act actually allows for- and, in fact, provides for- a strategy of armed security at our schools!

The law permits schools to allow armed persons on school grounds.  And it allows persons to be in a school and armed, if they have been licensed by state or local authorities.

The more schools and universities discuss and consider strategies to keep our children safer, the better.  But it's far past time to talk about "hide and play dead" strategies.  It's time to put armed security back on the table.

Parents, listen up!  Because what they're not telling you today could put your child's life at risk tomorrow.

Bakersfield College is dangerous.  They won't tell you that any parent with a college-bound child should avoid this California campus, but I will.

As you know, in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, colleges across the country are taking a closer look at campus security.  Trained, professional, armed guards have been a critical part of the security measures at many campuses.

But not at Bakersfield College, where campus security means guards armed with mace.

No firearms ... just a can of mace.

According to published reports, Bakersfield College President Bill Andrews thinks an armed security presence would make his campus more dangerous.

So he's sticking with mace ... as if that will protect students from a deranged, homicidal, suicidal maniac bent on violence.  As if a can of mace would have prevented Columbine or Virginia Tech.

If my child was interested in attending Bakersfield College, I'd say no.  Hell, no!  And if I had a child already enrolled at that school, I'd be on the phone with President Andrews today.  And my child would be home by tomorrow.

Because Bakersfield College is publicizing to every homicidal nut case that it's a killing ground waiting to happen.