Member since: Thu Dec 8, 2011, 04:02 AM
Number of posts: 7,601
Number of posts: 7,601
Here, for example, is a Remington 700:
Some civilians own this type of rifle.
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:02 AM (278 replies)
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
"(CN) - The Federal Circuit gave the Department of Veteran Affairs 60 days to show why it should not be sanctioned for denying veteran benefits.
"Federal law requires the benefits system for veterans to be pro-claimant, laying out procedural and appellate rights for veterans seeking adjudication. VA officials tasked with approving or denying benefits must actively look for ways to improve the cases of veterans both at the regional level and in the appellate process.
"In 2011, however, the VA issued an 'immediately-effective' rule that applied the pro-claimant procedures only to regional VA office dealings, stripping veterans of assistance within Board of Veterans' Appeals hearings. The National Organization of Veterans Advocates (NOVA) petitioned the Federal Circuit to review the rule, arguing that the VA implemented it without a mandatory notice-and-comment period required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
"The VA twice asked the Federal Circuit for more time to file its explanation, claiming the second time that it planned to repeal the rule. In fact, the department promised both NOVA and the appeals court that it would not apply the provisions of the new rule at all prior to publishing the repeal in the Federal Register. After claiming that it wanted the published appeal to become effective before responding, the VA won a third extension. NOVA then submitted evidence that the VA had been ignoring its promises to not enforce the rule, at least 60 cases in a single month alone.
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:09 PM (0 replies)
Can those who recognize that firearms may be needed for home defense be legitimately called gun nuts
A 1/1/2013 Google News search for "home invasion" shows that home invasions have taken place and are taking place in this country.
Some examples from a 1/1/2013 Google News search prior to posting:
Three people charged with assault, home invasion in Taney County ...
Man Pistol Whipped During Home Invasion In San Francisco's ...
Two shot, one arrested in Galva home invasion
Jewelry Store Robbery Began with Bethlehem Home Invasion
Arrest made in south Fort Myers home invasion, stabbing
2 men accused in Prescott home invasion
Help sought in solving home invasion, robbery, murder
Top 10 Stories of 2012: Brutal Home Invasion Attack Leaves Bedford ...
Home invasion suspect steals wedding rings from couple
Police: Men Arrested After Home Invasion
Some communities are even reducting police protection for its law-abiding home owners and other citizens.
See, e.g., Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service
An honest discussion would include a consideration of these issues. Those who wish to squelch an honest discussion may want to call these reports or any references to them "right-wing talking points" or "NRA talking points." To squelch discussions, they may also wish to also call liberals and progressives who recognize a need for firearms to be owned for home defense "gun nuts." What legitimate purpose do they have for doing so?
Edited to add:
In the Heller opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things,
"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. Pp. 2–53."
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:26 AM (112 replies)
Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service
Oakland, California, the fifth-most crime ridden city in America, faced a $32 million budget deficit last year. It closed the gap by dismissing a fourth of its police force, more than 200 officers.
What's the law relating to self-defense?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Aren't proposals to disarm law-abiding home owners as sensible as the reaction to invade Iraq for the 9/11 attack by persons other than Iraqis? Are all reactions good reactions?
Is crime down in Oakland? Can it be that none of the law-abiding home owners will ever need to own firearms to discourage home invasions? After all, aren't their local police just a phone call away? Isn't that true all over?
If the law-abiding firearm owners in Oakland are called "gun nuts," and if there are proposals by those claiming to Democrats to take away or greatly restrict firearms, will that have no effect upon Oakland voters in the 2014 election? By what right do any posters claim to believe that there is a left v right divide over gun ownership and that liberals and progressives oppose gun ownership and that right-wingers are the only ones favoring that? Is such an alleged belief based upon a hoax?
If a hoax has been created to exploit a real tragedy so that the Republicans can repeat their 1994 election victories after the first gun ban, isn't that something that would be appreciated by Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and those who admire their skill with dirty tricks?
If anyone in Oakland wants a cop, just call 911.
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:27 PM (5 replies)
After a jury decided that Chicago has a Blue Wall of Silence which the City used to protect a Chicago cop who brutally attacked a much lighter female bartender, Rahm Emanuel has decided to make an effort to set aside the verdict.
"Northwestern University professor Locke Bowman and University of Chicago professor Craig Futterman say the city is trying to sweep 'under the rug' a federal jury’s finding that the Chicago Police Department had either a code of silence or a policy of failing to properly investigate and discipline officers."
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:50 AM (23 replies)
Bradley Manning is back in the news. Or sort of. Only the British Guardian provided coverage of his testimony with the type of detail that the American press ignored. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33224.htm
His trial - or extended lack of it until now - raises some Constitutional questions. And his trial raises related questions.
How does the reported military holding of Manning incommunicado for more than 900 days, without a trial, compare with the number of days that it has held any other prisoner incommunicado? And under the conditions which Manning was held?
Is anyone besides the military responsible for this? The military didn't act alone. The military didn't act in a vacuum. The military didn't do this without oversight.
How does the Obama Administration's act of holding Manning incommunicado for more than 900 days, without a trial, compare with the number of days that it has held any other prisoner incommunicado? And under the conditions which Manning was held?
Even if we assume that Manning released the video showing the helicopter gunship gunning down civilians including children (and I assume that it is true), and even if we assume that Manning released copies of diplomatic cables showing the perfidy of the those involved in the military-industrial complex (and I also assume that this is true), are we supposed to overlook this type of cruel and unusual pre-trial punishment of Manning because President Obama has a big "D" after his name? Are we supposed to cheer "Hooray for our team"?
In April 2001, almost 300 law professors and other scholars (including Laurence Tribe, a widely recognized as a leading liberal scholar of Constitutional law) signed a letter to the Obama Administration. In it, they pointed out something that should be obvious to any law professor or former law professor: The detention conditions violates the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
The names of those who initiated the letter (Professors Ackerman and Benkler) and the others signing the letter be found here:
Are all those law professors wrong?
Does the Constitution still prohibit cruel and unusual punishment? Or has the view that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" replaced it?
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:10 AM (1 replies)
In 1994, when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed as a key part of H.R. 3355, the author of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to which it was attached, was a Democrat from Texas. (Earlier before editing this post, because of my own ignorance, I misidentified Jack Brooks as a Republican. Mea culpa.)
Because 95.7% of the Republican Senators voted in favor the AWB when the vote was taken, although there is no record of the House votes where only a voice vote was taken in the House of Representatives, no one can seriously claim that all or most of the Republican Representatives were opposed to the passage of the AWB.
The 95.7% of the Republican Senators who voted in favor of the AWB include Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY).
Their 1994 position was consistent with Nixon's 1969 position, who told the journalist William Safire at that time that "he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
Their 1994 position was consistent with Bush-41's 1989 position:
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
Their 1994 position was also consistent with Reagan's 1991 position:
"I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
In 2008, when three Republican Representatives sponsored a Bill to extend the AWB, and acted alone with no Democratic Sponsor, the following Democrats signed a letter to AG Holder to express their strong opposition to extending the AWB:
Mike Ross (D-AR), Tim Holden (D-PA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), John Dingell (D-MI), Marion Berry (D-AR), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Gene Green (D-TX), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Gene Taylor (D-MS), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Collin Peterson (D-MN), John Tanner (D-TN), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Eric Massa (D-NY), Steve Kagen, MD (D-WI), Betsy Markey (D-CO), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Ron Kind (D-WI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Walt Minnick (D-ID), John Boccieri (D-OH), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Travis Childers (D-MS), Tim Walz (D-MN), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), John Murtha (D-PA), Bart Gordon (D-TN), Zach Space (D-OH), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Artur Davis (D-AL), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Barrow (D-GA), Christopher Carney (D-PA), Dan Boren (D-OK), Parker Griffith (D-AL), Charlie Wilson (D-OH), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Larry Kissell (D-NC), John Salazar (D-CO), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN),
Frank Kratovil (D-MD), Glenn Nye (D-VA), Bobby Bright (D-AL), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA).
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:21 PM (55 replies)
In his book "My Life," in which he analyzed the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994, he wrote:
"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
Why, exactly, are you crusading for a revival of the 1993 issue?
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:41 PM (59 replies)
Los Angeles -- Jail commanders condoning the beating of inmates. Evidence withheld from inmates accused of attacking guards. A photo of a woman wearing an official-looking badge while brandishing handguns at a nightclub.
Bad news in the past week has come from his own brass, his chief critics and a photo that surfaced in an unrelated federal investigation - all serving to sully the reputation of the popular four-term sheriff, who enjoys the limelight and is flown around the world at the invitation of others to talk about policing tactics.
Last year the civil rights group released a report that documented more than 70 cases of alleged abuse and other misconduct by deputies, many of which occurred at Men's Central Jail. The FBI has launched its own investigation and asked for internal department records dealing with inmate abuse.
On July 6, Capt. Michael Bornman testified before a county commission looking into deputy abuse in the jails that the former head of the jail, Capt. Daniel Cruz, resisted efforts to investigate employees who were accused of excessive force. Bornman described a culture of brutality where Cruz allegedly joked about not hitting inmates in their face so marks wouldn't be visible. Cruz has denied the accusations.
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:12 AM (0 replies)
In June, a US jury convicted former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky Friday on 45 of 48 counts in a child sex abuse case.
A report just issued by a team led by former federal judge and FBI director Louis Freeh has been released showing how other Penn State officials were influenced by group-think and profits to not take action in response to Sandusky's sex activities with children.
The report is a lengthy one. Freeh's firm interviewed hundreds of people to learn how the university responded to warning signs that its once-revered former defensive coordinator -- a man who helped Hall of Fame football coach Joe Paterno win two national titles while touting "success with honor" -- was a serial child molester.
Posted by AnotherMcIntosh | Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:38 PM (2 replies)