Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

June 28, 2012 by

Today is the day that the House of Representatives will probably vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It is also the day in which the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on the validity of ObamaCare. Jim Shepherd of The Outdoor Wire is calling this Big Thursday. With regard to Holder and the mainstream media’s play on his role in Project Gunwalker, he had this to say:

The “spinning” on that is already underway. Mainstream media is characterizing the fight between the Justice Department and the House committee charged with oversight of that agency as a test of the lobbying prowess of the “gun lobby” (that’s the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and they myriad of other local and state organizations).

It decidedly is not. Sorry, it’s just not, and no amount of spinning will make that wish come true. It’s an investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing by officials who swore an oath to enforce our laws, not selectively ignore or violate them with impunity.

Mainstream media just refuses to accept that, and refuses to let their viewers, readers or listeners hear it reported as such. Instead, it’s been diminished and characterized as just another political cat fight.

It’s not about ideology. It’s not about guns. It is not a liberal/conservative, black/white or red/blue debate. It’s about justice – for all- including the people supposed to be equally enforcing the law.

Maybe that’s why some people are nervous at the thought of laws being equally enforced.

Uncategorized

Jason Chaffetz On Contempt Vote Tomorrow

June 28, 2012 by 2 Comments

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was interviewed today by Fox’s Megyn Kelly about the vote scheduled for Thursday on the contempt of Congress resolution for Attorney General Eric Holder. He said that he expects the vote to occur around 5 pm EDT tomorrow and that he sees there is no way of avoiding it.

He acknowledged what we have known or suspected for a long time that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee already has copies of documents, memos, and emails given them by whistleblowers that implicate the political leaders of the Department of Justice. The purpose of the subpoena is to confirm the authenticity of the documents and allow them to be entered into the record.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

The accompanying article estimates that approximately 20 Democrats will also vote to hold Holder in contempt. Other estimates that I’ve read are as high as 35 so we really won’t know until the votes are tallied.

Uncategorized

Jay Carney Takes The Press And Americans For Idiots

June 28, 2012 by 2 Comments

Jay Carney, President Obama’s Press Secretary, must think both the press and the public are idiots. Listen to his explanation of how Obama learned of Operation Fast and Furious.

The full text of what he said, courtesy of Breitbart, is below:

“I would only say broadly that the idea behind that thinking suggests that there was some grand plan behind the Fast and Furious program when, in fact, everyone knows the President did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the Attorney General did not know about it. The tactic itself was employed by the previous administration in a different operation. This was a field office tactic that was flawed. And when the Attorney General learned about it, he took action to ensure that it was no longer used, and he directed the Inspector General at the Department of Justice to investigate.”

How could Obama learn of Operation Fast and Furious from the media when they have avoided reporting it – Sharyl Attkisson and William LaJeunesse excepted – like the plague? It was only this past week that NBC even let the words “fast and furious” touch Brian William’s lips.

My message to Jay Carney is that we just are not as stupid as he thinks.

Uncategorized

Contempt Vote On Holder Will Be Bi-Partisan

June 27, 2012 by

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has expressed his belief a number of times that the vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress will be bi-partisan. He is correct.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who represents parts of Salt Lake City and all of eastern Utah, confirmed to the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday that he will be voting to find Holder in contempt.

Matheson, D-Utah, announced his position Tuesday, joining House Republicans, such as Utah Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, who have railed against Holder’s reaction to the congressional probe into the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” operation. One of the lost guns was later used in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

“It just compounds the tragedy when both sides play politics instead of releasing the facts. The Terry family, the public and Congress deserve answers,” Matheson said. “Sadly, it seems that it will take holding the attorney general in contempt to communicate that evasiveness is unacceptable.”

Matheson faces a strong challenge this fall from Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love in the newly formed 4th District. Love has attracted a lot of attention (and money) as she is conservative, Republican, and African-American. If Love is elected, she will become the first black Republican woman in Congress.

UPDATE: There is also this from House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who says that there will be Democrats voting to find Holder in contempt because the NRA is scoring the vote. Thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for this link.

Uncategorized

Even In New Jersey The Second Amendment Applies

June 27, 2012 by 5 Comments

On Friday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in New Jersey overturned the trial court in a case involving the denial of a firearms permit and ordered the return of Justin Blasko’s firearms absent any new disqualifying events. They made their decision on Second Amendment grounds.

Mr Blasko’s troubles started when his apartment’s building superintendent entered to fix his air conditioner and saw “assault weapons” along with other stuff including a four foot alligator. The super called police and they entered the apartment, seized his firearms, and issued him a summons for the alligator, a snake, and a leg-hold trap. They also filed a complaint that he had an illegal assault weapon.

Blasko entered a Pre-Trial Intervention program and the charges were eventually all dismissed. Moreover, the state later acknowledged that the alleged “assault weapons” were not in fact assault weapons as covered by NJ law. Following the dismissal of the charges, Blasko requested his firearms back.

The Superior Court in Passaic County denied Blasko’s request and ordered him to surrender his Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. They also permitted the State of New Jersey to sell his seized firearms and ammunition. The trial judge said that because Blasko’s firearms were “in plain view, accessible to a third party” his conduct was contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare which is a disqualifying factor for gun ownership in NJ. It should be noted that Mr. Blasko’s apartment was in a building that had locked access and that only the super had a key with which to enter his apartment (with prior notice and permission).

[T]he police report shows that Blasko kept his firearms in an extremely negligent and unsafe manner because he kept dozens of unsecured firearms and abundant ammunition in plain view in his apartment. . . . [He] chose to store these items in this manner knowing that his apartment was never truly “locked” since the building superintendent had a master key that he was permitted to use (or give to a maintenance worker to use) at any time even if [he] was not home. [He] in fact signed an agreement which permitted such access.

The Appellate Division examined all the instances that allowed for the forfeiture of firearms in NJ based upon negligent conduct. They found that Mr. Blasko’s past behavior and conduct did not rise to the level of negligence as needed by the law to seize his firearms.

The facts at hand present none of the circumstances found in the prior authorities to result in disqualification under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5). No weapon was discharged as found in Cunningham; no possession of narcotics occurred as cited in Sbitani; no domestic violence, drunkenness, or criminal conduct while intoxicated (assault, hit and run, and DWI) existed as relied upon in Freysinger, or a disregard of the gun laws as found in Osworth. Here, after eliminating the erroneous finding that Blasko possessed an assault rifle, the remaining facts 13 A-3848-10T2 underpinning the trial judge’s conclusion Blasko was disqualified under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5) were that he owned a significant arsenal of weapons, which were strewn haphazardly in his small studio apartment.

The court then examined whether New Jersey law required Mr. Blasko to keep his firearms locked up in a safe or with other devices such as a trigger lock. More importantly, they examined this in the context of the US Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. They concluded safe storage laws did not apply to Mr. Blasko as he was neither a commercial enterprise nor did he have minor children. They also concluded that based upon the Heller decision he was allowed to have his firearms accessible.

Despite a preference for the safe storage of weapons with safety locks, we conclude a law abiding adult, living alone without children, who openly leaves weapons in a locked apartment, insufficiently supports a finding of conduct contrary to the interest of the public health, safety or welfare pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5). See Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S. Ct. at 2822, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 683 (holding “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment.

Mr. Blasko’s attorney was well-known gun law attorney Evan Nappen. More on the case can be found here. Nappen notes that this is the first time a higher court in New Jersey expressely applied the Second Amendment to a gun seizure case. This is definitely a win for gun rights in New Jersey and it was made possible by the careful building of Second Amendment case law by Alan Gura and others.

Uncategorized

Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Filed In California

June 27, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees have filed suit in US District Court against Alameda County, California due to the county’s use of a zoning law to present a gun shop from opening. They are joined in the suit by John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza who had attempted to open a gun shop there.

The County of Alameda requires that all gun shops be 500 feet away from the nearest residence, liquor store, or school. The location chosen by the businessmen above had met that standard until the county changed how it measured the distance. Alameda County Board of Supervisors made this change after the gun shop had been given a condition use permit and a variable by the local Board of Adjustment. In doing so, the supervisors negated the variance that had been issued by the Board of Adjustment.

I have served on my local Board of Adjustment for over 18 years and am the current vice-chair of the Board. The actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to change the ordinance after the fact and nullify the variance is most unusual. As boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies, appeals of their decisions are usually made in the local Superior Court.

Below is the joint press release on Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The County of Alameda’s zoning law requiring that gun stores be located 500 feet away from residential properties is not rational and cannot withstand any form of constitutional scrutiny, argues a new federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco, California. Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

The complaint describes how plaintiffs Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamza had actually been granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the property on which they intended to open a gun store until the variance was revoked by the Alameda Board of Supervisors. “John, Steve, and Gary did everything right. They had their paperwork in order,” said attorney Donald Kilmer. “Their store was moving forward, things were going great, and then they were blindsided by the County long after putting money, labor, and time into opening their store. That’s a serious due process problem for the County.”

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga, and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

The City of Sunnyvale recently conducted a study that showed gun stores had no correlation with area crime. “The right to buy firearms is just as much a protected part of the Second Amendment as the right to buy books is protected under the First Amendment,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Just like we saw in the Nordyke case, Alameda County continues it’s long-running effort to undermine the fundamental civil rights of it’s citizens to purchase firearms that they have a right to buy.”

According to the lawsuit, the county allowed an objection to the businessmen’s permit to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate. “The outcome of this lawsuit may very well have far-reaching implications for firearms dealers not just in California, but across the United States,” noted co-counsel Jason Davis. “Hopefully we can address these issues for dealers once and for all.”

“Alameda County has a long track record of denying Second Amendment Rights to its residents, even those enumerated in our Constitution,” explained Cal-FFL president Brandon Combs. “We’ve seen over and over again how local rules like those Alameda County adopted are sold to municipalities by anti-gun extremist groups like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, and other Joyce Foundation-funded spinoffs.”

“They want to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that’s simply not going to happen on our watch. We will make sure Americans have a neighborhood gun dealer to sell them the tools they need to defend themselves from violent attackers.”

The case is captioned as Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. The docket and filings as they become available can be viewed at http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html.

Uncategorized

Crime On Campus

June 26, 2012 by

I received an email yesterday from CollegeStats.Org about crime on college campuses. I was a little skeptical until I read the article in question.

It was fair and made excellent use of graphics to get the point across that the number of targeted assaults on college campuses has more than doubled from when I was in college in the 1970s until now.The article breaks down where you are more likely to be attacked and with what weapon.



From CollegeStats.Org

The author of the article then examined the status of bills in ten states that would allow students or faculty to have a firearm on campus. I found the article well written and full of useful information.

You can find the full article on campus crime here.

H/T Shanna Houston

Uncategorized

WTF?!

June 25, 2012 by 15 Comments

A reader reported that he got this from Symantec’s Norton Antivirus when visiting my blog.

The reader also reported that he got this when visiting John Lott’s blog.

I must say I’m a bit disconcerted about this. It is not like I’m paranoid or anything but I wonder if this is a new thing aimed at either conservatives or gun bloggers. If you follow Twitter, you know that there has been a campaign to report certain conservative Twitter users such as Dana Loesch’s husband Chris as a spammer in an effort to block them.

ADDENDUM: If you use a Norton product and you are getting the fraud warning, please let me know at jpr9954 AT gmail dot com. I’d like to keep track of this. If you are getting this from any other product, please try and capture a screen shot of it.

UPDATE: This gets weirder and weirder. I just ran the blog URL through Symantec’s SafeWeb and it reports “OK”. Laura below who uses Norton products is having no problems.

Uncategorized

What’s Next For The Fast And Furious Investigation

June 25, 2012 by

Rep. Darrell Issa made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows today. In addition to ABC’s This Week, Issa appeared on both Fox News Sunday and NBC’s Meet The Press. His message was consistent across all the shows – he didn’t want it to come to this, he just wanted to know the answers to the questions they posed, and that the investigation would continue.

The Fox News Sunday appearance is below. It also featured Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) who is the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Cummings repeated the usual nonsense about this being a witch hunt.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

It was a bit surprising the even NBC News has finally noticed Operation Fast and Furious after ignoring for some many months. On Meet the Press’ Political Roundtable, the panel included NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Politico’s Jonathan Martin, and Rep. Issa. I must admit the desire to slap the smirk off of David Gregory’s face more than once in his interview with Issa. Chairman Issa is a much more patient man than I am and can handle the nonsense from some of NBC’s questioners without getting riled.

Uncategorized

“You Can’t Play Liar’s Poker” – Darrell Issa

June 25, 2012 by

Rep. Darrell Issa was the lead guest on ABC’s This Week. Issa was interviewed by Jake Tapper who was sitting in for regular host George Stephanopoulos.

Issa outlined this morning that before the House committee he leads voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, he tried to reach an agreement with Holder.

“They came with nothing. Not even an offer in a form of a piece of paper. What they said orally was ‘we will brief you. We will then give you the information we believe supports that briefing, but you have to first agree to dismiss your subpoenas and your contempt,” said Issa. “You can’t play liar’s poker when you’re looking for who killed somebody, when you’re looking into this kind of a crime, and when you’re looking into the cover-up. Remember, it was deny, delay, and recuse.”

On the issue of gunwalking that happened during the Bush Administration, Issa acknowledged that it was wrong then and it’s wrong now. He did go on to point out that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had requested and received plenty of information from Attorney General Eric Holder on prior gunwalking. However, he said it was like a small child getting caught in a lie over some incident and then saying “my brother did it too.” It doesn’t excuse the young child and it doesn’t excuse the current Department of Justice of its complicity in walking guns to the narco-terrorists.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player