HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TeddyR » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Sean
Gender: Male
Hometown: Asheville NC
Home country: USA
Current location: Arlington VA
Member since: Sat Jun 27, 2015, 02:01 PM
Number of posts: 2,493

Journal Archives

Virginia governor McAuliffe (D) agrees to restore concealed carry reciprocity


Gov. Terry McAuliffe plans to announce Friday that Virginia will restore handgun reciprocity agreements with nearly all states, in a stunning reversal of a firearms policy that had angered Republicans and gun rights advocates across the nation.

The about-face is part of a deal that McAuliffe (D) struck with Republican leaders one month after Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) ended the right of gun owners in 25 states to have their concealed carry permits recognized in Virginia.

In exchange, Republicans will agree to a major concession: Anyone subject to a permanent protective order for a domestic violence offense will be prohibited from carrying a firearm for the two-year life of the order. The issue had been a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

Some gun-control activists quickly panned the agreement.

In a Facebook message, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said McAuliffe has bragged about “his administration’s aggressive new approach to confronting the National Rifle Association.”

“Now he’s preparing to cave to them,” the message says. “As far as we are aware, there is not a single gun violence prevention advocate in Virginia who was informed about this deal before it was done. We all stand in opposition to it.”

Sounds like a win/win to me. Not sure why the controllers oppose it.

Are Hillary and Bernie really the best that Democrats can do?

The party of FDR and JFK can't find a better candidate? I was talking to my wife tonight about the candidates and we agreed that we'll both probably vote for Bernie in the primary -- and certainly for whomever the Dems nominate in the GE -- but neither is particularly great. We are both lifelong Dems and big Bill Clinton and President Obama supporters. We were excited about President Obama but feel sort of "meh" about Hillary and Bernie. Hillary has a ton of baggage, including (whether her supporters agree or not) the email issue, which legitimately could lead to criminal charges, and even if not shows a serious lack of judgment. And Bernie is good on a lot of issues, but he's also a recent convert to the party, which makes me a bit hesitant, and he reminds me a bit of Dukakis.

The party was united behind Bill Clinton, and Obama excited a lot of people, but I'll vote for Hillary or Bernie simply because they are the nominee, not because either is a great candidate. At the same time, the Republicans will probably end up with Trump or Cruz as their nominee, perhaps two of the least qualified candidates (other than Palin) in a long time. Where are the great leaders who can unite this country and get something done?

Are there any Dems that aren't running that might be better? I'm not sold on Biden, but maybe Warren?

Gun rights continue to advance at the state level

Including a bill passed in Virginia that allows concealed carry without a permit, also known as "constitutional carry."


The committee approved several gun-rights bills, including one that would allow the state’s judges to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Another would allow retired law-
enforcement officers who annually meet the training and qualifications of active officers to carry concealed handguns in airports and schools.

The most far-reaching of the approved bills was Black’s, which would lift the permitting requirement for carrying a concealed weapon. The measure, which he referred to as “constitutional carry,” now goes to the full Senate for its consideration.

“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government,” Black said. “It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”

Law Enforcement Calls For Citizens To Exercise Their Second Amendment Rights


Sheriffs across the country have been calling their citizens “the first line of defense” against crime — a call to arms that some say is a new phenomenon following terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

A sheriff in Wisconsin wants “as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this country as we can get.” One in New York state told people who are licensed to carry a gun to “please do so.” In Florida, one sheriff said: “I can tell you the probability of needing a firearm is remote, but it’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.”

The proclamations come after suicide bombers and gunmen terrorized Paris, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and two attackers – since linked to Islamic extremism – gunned down a crowd at a social services center in San Bernardino, Calif.

Good advice. Unfortunately certain areas, like DC, make it virtually impossible to legally carry a firearm, preventing folks from protecting themselves and discouraging others from interfering in a crime, like when a young man was stabbed and beaten to death in front of numerous witnesses several months ago on a DC metro train.

Good Memorandum re Cruz's Eligibility

Bryan Garner at the Atlantic wrote a legal piece about Cruz's eligibility that I found informative. Goes into the legalese and explains why it is "highly likely" the Supreme Court would determine Cruz is eligible. I don't really care one way or the other about whether Cruz is actually eligible, but I do find the history and the question interesting. Here's the conclusion from the piece:

We have seen that the law in 1789 treated mother-citizens less favorably than father-citizens in conferring citizen rights when a child is born abroad. We have seen that in 1961, the Supreme Court upheld just this type of differential treatment. Was there a rational basis for the distinction? Not in the modern era of the equal-protection analysis: The only basis for the differential treatment was that we lived in a patriarchal society in which paternal lines of succession were considered more important than maternal ones. Judged by current standards of equal protection, no such discriminatory difference would be upheld by the Supreme Court today. But an originalist interpretation would almost certainly be to the contrary.

All in all, it seems highly likely that the Supreme Court would today hold that the foreign-born child of a mother-citizen is eligible for the Presidency under Article II of the Constitution.


WaPo OP Claiming Cruz isn't a natural born citizen

WaPo ran a piece today from a professor at Widener who contends that Cruz isn't a "natural born citizen" as required to be president. I did a bit of reading on this issue when the crazy wing of the Republican party claimed a few years ago that President Obama wasn't eligible and I tend to agree with the author of the article.

Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.


As a Democrat

I'll vote for the nominee in the GE. My personal preference is Hillary for several reasons, but I like both O'Malley and Sandwrs. All that said, I expect Hillary to be the nominee. The WaPo ran a piece this evening noting that Bernie could carry Iowa and NH. If he does, that might change the analysis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-fantasy-scenario-that-could-become-reality-for-clinton/2016/01/10/085496a6-b7d6-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_mondayfix-520pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

In addition to the idiots in Oregon

ISIS, and global warming, North Korea now has hydrogen bomb capability. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/asia/north-korea-seismic-event/index.html

President Obama's EOs on Gun Control

Here's two articles from the WaPo (one from yesterday) discussing the impact of President Obama's executive orders regarding gun control. The one expanding background checks is described as having "modest" impact though taken together the impact of all the orders could be "substantial."



Go to Page: 1