Law School Conservative

The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won't enforce them. But Nutter says he's going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances. 

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they're probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don't get our way isn't going to solve [violent crime] problems. It's just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we're a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council's actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don't care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?

The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama's problem with gun owners.  Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead. 

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn't just fund gun-banners. 

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."  That's baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never. 

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama's record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn't know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It's forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can't even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can't let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article on Fox News on April 18. "In God We Trust" is the official Motto of the United States. It appears on coins and bills produced by the Treasury. It is also the motto of Florida, where it is also under attack by the ACLU. The first appearance of that slogan in public is in the fourth stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner," which has also been officially adopted, as the National Anthem. In many state and federal courts, the ACLU has launched attacks on the use of this motto in public. All such attacks, in the US Supreme Court and elsewhere, have failed. The latest failure is in Indiana. That state decided to permit residents, by their own choice, to have license plates which bear this motto. These were offered for the same price that regular Indiana license plates are provided to residents of that state. Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller issued a summary judgment against the ACLU on its challenge to these license plates on 10 April. In his decision, the Judge said: "Courts are not to second-guess the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to calculations of this sort...." The Plaintiff, who was the stalking horse for the ACLU in the case, had challenged the fact that his Environmental Trust plate from Indiana had an extra charge associated with it, whereas, the motto plate did not. The Legal Director of the ACLU said they were "disappointed" and would appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The bottom line is that the ACLU attacks every instance where the word "God" appears in public, as if passing strangers would be turned into fundamentalist Christians from simply seeing that word. The US Supreme Court has long since ruled that the National Motto is constitutional, which is why cases like this are allegedly based on other criteria, such as the fact that the use of this plate is free, as well as voluntary. The antagonism of the ACLU to any reference to the religious heritage of America is deep and long-standing. It is hoped that the Court in this case will impose major fees and costs on the ACLU and its attorneys for bringing a frivolous action in this case. Source for this article on the Internet: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html

For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper's news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.

Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won't press charges.

"I'm not inclined to press charges. While my assailant's actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn't kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."

So if a rapist tells you he's going to rape you, doesn't use "much more force than was needed," doesn't rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?

Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he'll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man. 

I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn't just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.

Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost. 

It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone's ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn't stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step." 

You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That's right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state's "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that's a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.

If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:

Your elected officials and local media aren't telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.

Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone. 

Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That's a joke, because these laws aren't designed to reduce crime. They're designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.

Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven't told you that. 

Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they're given. 

The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia's crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren't going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they're alerted to problems. 

Your politicians want you to believe that they've done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they've only engaged in more political theater. And while they're play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk. 

It's time you demanded more. It's time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises. 

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.

The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn't equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure. 

Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What's the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too? 

It's been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he's had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he's proposing isn't about crime. It's about demonizing gun ownership in general. 

It's too bad Wal-Mart's putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect.  If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business.

The ACLU has called on Congress to "demand the appointment of an Independent Counsel" to investigate the "approval of the use of torture" by the Bush Administration. The claimed facts are unsourced. And compared to the ACLU's silence during Democrat Administrations, this attack is nothing more than partisan politics masquerading as protection of the Constitution. The facts for this article should be taken with a grain of salt, since they come from the ACLU's own website. The legal conclusions are, of course, developed for this website, for the American Civil Rights Union. The ACLU issued a press release on 12 April, calling for "the appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate the Administration's approval of torture and abuse." The ACLU claims that "recent reports indicate that high-level advisers including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet were part of the National Security Council's 'Principals Committee' that met regularly and approved the CIA's use of 'combined' 'enhanced' interrogation techniques...." Note the lack of attribution. What reports? From what sources? With what level of prior reliability, or unreliability? Then, there is the content of the claim. "Combined" interrogation techniques could consist of nothing more than keeping the lights on AND playing Barry Manilow records at the same time. (That would be the Noriega method.) The ACLU continues to attack water-boarding as forbidden torture, without noting that the members of America's Special Forces are themselves water-boarded during their training, to help them sustain themselves should they be captured by the enemy. The ACLU has never said a word against the training of the Special Forces. Perhaps they know better than to pick a fight with the best and best-trained of the American military. The ACLU goes directly from unsourced charges to its own, firm belief that the US has both approved and used "torture." It quotes Anthony D. Romero, its Executive Director. as saying, "We have always known that the CIA's use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government...." Toward the end of its demand, the ACLU finally gets specific. It wants Congress to call for the Independent Prosecutor. However, the recent reactions of Congressional leaders to calls for impeachment of, variously, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, indicate the fate of this demand. When a handful of back-bencher Democrats demanded impeachment action, the Democrat leaders made it clear that no such steps would be taken. The same will be the fate of this demand by the ACLU. It is interesting, however, to note the silence of the ACLU concerning similar situations in the past. It issued no demands during WW II for any actions by President Roosevelt, including opening and reading all overseas mail. It issued no demands for investigation when President Clinton ordered bombing in Bosnia, without any authority from Congress "to use military force." It seems that the ACLU is a Democrat organization. Actions by Democrat Presidents with the stated intention of protecting the American people, will not be noted or opposed. However, similar actions by Republican Presidents will be attacked as illegal and unconstitutional. And if the ACLU attacks succeed, the result will be the deaths of Americans, both civilians and military. Source for original story on the Net: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34879prs20080412.html