Is This Real? — IRS-CID Edition

It's a valid question.

IRS Force!

🤡🌎 pic.twitter.com/Oye4V3w3N6

— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) August 17, 2022

For context, this is supposedly a group of the IRS's 87,000 new Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID) field agents, who will be given agency-issued firearms and arrest powers.

How many 4 Rules violations do you see? Specifically Rule #2; how many times do you think the group muzzle-flagged each other? (I saw the second guy have his gun pointed directly at the first guy's back at least twice.)

I would offer safe gun-handling tips, and maybe some suggestions on how to navigate a space without crossing paths with allies — and thus avoiding Rule #2 violations — but I believe Napoleon had it right: Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

Remember as you're voting this November (or in your primaries, if you haven't yet): Your tax dollars are paying for this; they'll be making sure of it!

Stay safe out there.

[via J.Kb at Gun Free Zone]

Four Marines, One Sailor Shot to Death in Chattanooga, TN

By now you've probably heard, four U.S. Marines were shot to death at a military recruiting office in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on the morning of Thursday, July 16.

Reports are still coming in, and some facts are still unclear at this time.

However, what is clear is that the gunman, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez — a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Kuwait — recently returned from spending seven months somewhere in the Middle East last year (the TV report this morning stated that he traveled "through" Jordan; the linked report says he traveled "to" Jordan but may have visited Yemen as well), and quickly both acquired a weapon and targeted U.S. military personnel at the recruiting office and at a Naval support and Marine reserve station several miles away, all of whom he knew would be unarmed.

How would he know that? Well, as luck would have it, courtesy of CNN we have some images of the front of the recruiting offices. I've taken the liberty of pointing out a few of the offices' "security" features:

Photo credit: John Bazemore, AP

Photo credit: Keith Wheatley

Apparently nobody mentioned to the suspect that guns are not allowed in the recruiting offices. Bullets probably aren't either, but it's amazing how easily copper-jacketed lead moving at ~1100 f.p.s. seems to shatter an "impregnable", rainbow-powered, "No Gun" force field. It's almost like a piece of paper (or as is more likely in this case, laminated plastic) isn't bulletproof, or something.

As for the Naval support and Marine reserve station … it's been well-known since Fort Hood in 2009 (that would be the first Fort Hood shooting; repeat act(s) to follow) that military bases on U.S. soil are "Gun Free Zones".

Reserve and recruiting duty — especially on U.S. soil — is supposed to be one of the safest jobs to pull in America's armed services. But when politically-correct policy turns our trained service members into sitting ducks, it all but guarantees attacks like this will happen.

The other "interesting" (I use the term loosely) point is that authorities are quick to say they're investigating this as an act of "domestic terrorism" and a "lone wolf attack" that may or may not have been "ISIS-inspired", but are loathe to use the I-word, "Islamic". As if those concepts are mutually exclusive.

[UPDATE:] From Katie Pavlich at Townhall, a new tidbit she describes as a "shocker" showed up in the Associated Press's Twitter feed:

BREAKING: FBI: Man who attacked military sites in Tennessee purchased some of his guns illegally.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 17, 2015

"Shocker", indeed. [/UPDATE]

[UPDATE 2:] Reports indicate that one Sailor wounded by the shooter has succumbed to his injuries. Our prayers are with the families of all the fallen:

• GySgt. Thomas Sullivan, USMC
• LCpl. Skip Wells, USMC
• SSgt. David Wyatt, USMC
• Sgt. Carson Holmquist, USMC
• PO2 Randall Smith, USN

Godspeed, gentlemen. [/UPDATE 2]

In any case, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends, and with all U.S. military personnel at home or abroad. May God give them peace and rest, and keep them safe from harm.

And Lord, please give a divinely epic smack upside the head to the policy-makers of this country, and have them authorize our servicemen and servicewomen access to the tools to keep themselves and the rest of us safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Amen.

Stay safe.

On Oregon's New Governor, Kate Brown

I'm attempting to stick to actual facts here, but for full disclosure: I'm not a fan.

TL;DR version: Oregon's conservatives and gun owners will have our hands full.

Governor Kate Brown
(source: Wikipedia)

I've been trying to do research on Gov. Brown since hearing of former-Gov. Kitzhaber's resignation last week, but as Secretary of State elections aren't as … high-profile … as other races, I haven't been able to dig up much.

On the surface, the Secretary of State's job duties are pretty straightforward. As put forth in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 177, the office has very few explicit duties, and most provide surprisingly little wiggle-room for partisan politics. The Oregon Secretary of State is responsible for:

• Keeping records of all official acts of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and informing the legislature of the same; and,
• Affixing the state seal, countersigning, and keeping a register of official acts and commissions issued by the Governor; and,
• The safekeeping of all enrolled laws and resolutions; and,
• Keeping the office open during business hours.

Really, not that much. The Secretary of State's office also oversees elections, which includes monitoring the electorate rolls (i.e. who can vote), approving petitions (including validating signatures), verifying candidacy of electoral candidates, etc. That part of the job has a bigger impact to Oregon, but Oregon's laws and rules for elections are a lot of "if ... then ... shall" language; there's not much room to influence any particular race, or really any race for that matter. Either petitioners and potential candidates meet all requirements and follow the rules and get added to the ballot, or they don't and they don't.

On the other hand, the Office of the Secretary of State is a powerful loudspeaker, elevating an otherwise-mundane official into a powerful spokesperson. People listen to the person who holds this office, and as an elected official, we can look at who supported Kate Brown's last races, when she was elected in 2008 and re-elected to another term in 2012. And here is where it gets interesting (and no, the picture is not pretty).

Looking through her views on the issues particular to her office, she's a vocal opponent to "voter ID" laws — y'know, the ones that keep illegal immigrants from voting illegally. We can also infer from that link that she's in favor of limiting campaign spending. Say what you want about it, but getting the word out about someone's candidacy and position on issues requires money, and at the time she was promoting voluntary (for now) spending limits, she was the incumbent. She already had a metaphorical soapbox and bullhorn, and would have denied an equivalent voice to her challenger (also, he was out-raising and out-spending her by a wide margin).

As far as endorsements and campaign contributors from the 2012 election, it's a veritable who's-who of leftist, "Progressive" groups. Additionally, one of the controversies from the 2008 election was the involvement of the Secretary of State Project, described as "a below-the-radar 527 political organization whose stated purpose is 'wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party' through the process of 'removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count,' namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases."

To be clear, I'll say that again: Kate Brown was supported, by both endorsement and financial assistance, by a (now-dissolved) group committed to removing Republican candidates from power by disallowing and/or disqualifying Republican voters from voting. Whether or not the Oregon Secretary of State is able to do such a thing is irrelevant; her campaign accepted the endorsement and money, so obviously they have some shared interests.

Oregon's Only No Compromise
Gun Rights Organization
(click to visit OFF's site)

So while her views on guns and gun laws may be relatively unknown, her past campaigns and behaviors paint her as a far-leftist — an "extremist", to use the SPLC vernacular — so I'm willing to give the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) the benefit of the doubt when they recently stated, "While many will see [John Kitzhaber's resignation] as good news, since he promised to make more restrictions on gun rights a 'priority,' keep in mind his replacement, Kate Brown, will be every bit as bad as he was on gun rights. There is plenty of reason to believe she will be worse."

I pray for all gun owners and conservatives in Oregon.

Stay safe.

VIDEO: The Hickenlooper Blues

Presented without (much) comment beyond this: Any Colorado readers we might have, there's only one week left! Post it, share it, spread the word! Vote the bum out!

(via the Examiner.com article, ‘Armed American Radio’ premieres ‘Hickenlooper Blues’, by David Codrea)

New York Ebola -- and the Obama Admin

Dr Spencer's walkabout of New York with nascent Ebola has the city in an uproar. 

It should be noted - but, somehow the media is failing to note - that a travel ban and/or quarantine of the Ebola hot zones of Western Africa could have prevented this threat to the 8.4 million tightly packed into NYC. In defiance of centuries of experience and effective practices, the Obama administration has refused to implement these preventative measures. Instead, they have slowly rolled out a patchwork of partially effective airport screenings and self reporting.

There are pervasive rumors - RUMORS - that the large NYC Liberian community is hiding
Ebola deaths within the city. 

 

There's every expectation that this Ebola outbreak is just a pre-test for some truly nasty future infection. A test the Obama administration is failing miserably. 


Remember this November 4th: Elections Have Consequences. Competency Maters.

Why Haven't the West African Flights Stopped?

"Of course, you can’t expect our government to be as competent as Nigeria’s."

Scott Johnson sums it up rather succinctly in his Powerline article Ebola Panic and the Limits of Political Sanity.  Go read it now; we'll wait.

This president is refusing to institute travel bans and quarantines. All for reasons of his own political beliefs, calculations, appearances and future plans. He has willingly chosen this path to the detriment of the men, women, and children of the United States. This is an inconceivable dereliction of a sacred duty. Except... it is completely believable for this president, his fellow-travelers and party.

(Drudge via Powerline)

Feeling the pressure of the public's well-founded concern, Obama appointed the "Ebola Czar" that he was adamantly against, then receptive to the possibility, and then finally wholeheartedly in favor of. This appointment is political eyewash; certainly not as anywhere near as constructive as a quarantine. It's telling that Obama's Ebola Czar is not a doctor, but a lawyer and political apparatchik.

Czar Ron Klain is the former chief of staff to Gore and Biden, a current press flack and lobbyist, and as a well-connected, reliably progressive, and administration-friendly political hack; absolutely loyal to the Obama administration. He has not a whit of infectious disease, medical, or health care system experience. Not the appointment that 'Boma would make if he was concerned with stopping the spread of a Cat 4 infectious disease within America's borders. It reaks of an effort to "massage the message", "keep a lid on things", and "control the damage" (all traditional political flack functions) -- 19 days before the critical Mid-term elections.   

Political Hack - And Ebola Czar - Ron Klain
(indystar.com)

Tell me again how America's in the best of hands.

  

More Thoughts on Ebola, Civilization, and Government Incompetence

Ebola virus (source: Legal Insurrection)

Following up on Charlie Foxtrot's piece on Ebola and civilization, I have a few more thoughts to add.

I'll start off by being blunt: I have little-to-no faith in the various responses we're hearing or the powers-that-be from whom we're hearing them.

(This became a bit of a rant, so I'm hiding the rest below the fold. You have been warned.)

Thoughts on Ebola - And Civilization

An Evolving List:

Citizens! You Have Nothing To Fear!
(Times of India)

21st Century Homo Sapiens is a fantastically interconnected, interdependent species. Where someone sneezing in Liberia can result in someone dying in Texas. 

Political Correctness is more powerful than millennia of experience and science.

Race can be injected into anything.

There is wisdom in admitting you do not know all the facts and are taking a conservative, risk mitigating approach until the situation becomes clearer. Wisdom has never been behind the podium at a 'Boma press conference. 

One point of infection can quickly become thousands of potential points in a modern mobile society; especially when assisted by political posturing and bureaucratic incompetence.

It is fantastically expensive to control a point of infection in a modern, interconnected, mass-service society; best to fight it over there. Sound familiar?

The best way to fight an infectious disease might just not be the 1st Armored. Completely different skill sets. I fear for our soldiers.  

The CDC is a $16 Billion a year clown show. And we're not laughing. 

Viruses evolve. Bureaucracies have a demonstrated ability not to.   

This'll keep me from commercial aircraft, cruise ships, malls, movie theaters, basketball games, DMV lines...  See, there's an upside to Ebola. 

Ye gods, what happens when we get a truly nasty virus? In all likelihood, this Ebola outbreak is nothing more that a pre-test. Somebody has got to go back to school.    

Reality has a rude habit of destroying carefully constructed fantasies. 

Elections have consequences.

Competency matters.

Paranoiac preparations are suddenly less paranoiac. 

On the Bonidy v. United States Case

This tab has been open in my browser for some time now. I believe it's personally applicable, even though I don't have a P.O. box and don't work or collect mail and/or packages at the post office.

David Kopel
(source)

It's personal because, according to David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy (now a part of the Washington Post), it's an "as-applied" challenge to the prohibition on the carry of firearms on property owned and operated by the United States Postal Service.

It goes like this: federal law prohibits firearms on all post office property, including parking lots. The prohibition applies whether or not any postal employees are present, whether or not the post office building is attached to the parking lot itself (or is on an adjacent lot), or whether any actual security is provided.

In addition, as Mr. Kopel points out, the U.S.P.S. is a monopoly by congressional statute, and while other services (e.g. U.P.S. and FedEx) and methods of communication (e.g. e-mail, text, long-distance phone calls) have become viable alternatives to traditional mail service, nearly every person in America will have to use the postal service for something, simply because there are no other feasible options, or because it's not their choice; they're just picking up a letter/package someone else sent.

In Bonidy, the challenge stems from the situation in the plaintiff's town, Avon, Colorado. There's no home mail delivery in Avon; it's too spread and rural for home delivery to be practical. Residents, therefore, are required to access their mail by going into the post office building, which is only staffed six hours per day — the lobby is open 24 hours per day and has nothing in place resembling "security". As it stands, the current ruling from District Court Judge Richard Matsch is that the post office lobby is among the "sensitive places" provided for in Heller (where gun bans are allowable), but the parking lot is not. Mr. Bonidy can leave his gun in his car while picking up his mail.

So what makes this applicable to me, personally?

I work at **mumble-government-agency-mumble**, where firearms (along with a rather extensive list of "weapons" in general) are banned, per a state law that also bans them in state-owned parking lots — employees with CCW licenses can't even leave the gun in the car. My building is legally "secured"*, and so would probably pass the "sensitive place" test.

The parking lots, however, are another story.

The two state-owned lots nearby (serving several agencies in several buildings) both occupy a full city block (i.e. streets on all four sides) and neither has any permanent structure on it. The lots cannot by any reasonable definition be considered "sensitive places" and therefore subject to prohibitions on carry, but because they are state-owned property, the carry ban stands. The nearest public parking garage is nearly a mile away, and while privately-owned parking areas are available, they're permit-based (expensive, always full, get on the waiting list, etc.), the rules vary, and they're not much closer than the public parking. In short, the state-owned lots are the most feasible for the most people.

If Bonidy is upheld, there's hope that CCW-licensed employees — even if they must be disarmed while at work; a challenge for another time — could legally carry while in transit and store their guns in their vehicles if they use these lots. The parking garages below some of the buildings themselves, being literally under a "sensitive place", could reasonably fall under the "sensitive place" exemption. But progress is progress.

(Hat tip goes to Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner Liston Matthews, whose article I found via David Codrea's blog, "The War on Guns".)
------------
* - "Secured", as in there's a receptionist checking badges/IDs at the main entrance; other entrances are accessible by swiping a badge. They're all glass doors, no barrier to someone willing to make a little noise to gain illicit entry. There's no consistent security personnel; one unarmed guard is posted at each of three entrances if an employee reports a specific threat, but there are a lot more than three entrances. Personally, I can't with any honesty consider this "secure", but the law and I disagree.

More Running the "Euphemism Treadmill"

You remember the "euphemism treadmill", right?

We're seeing it in action, right before our eyes.

Remember when "Ebola" was classified as a "hemorrhagic fever", being that it's a severe fever that breaks down the mucous membranes, causing hemorrhaging?

Well, the CDC (under pressure from the Obama Administration, I'm sure) apparently thought that description was too scary, and so has re-branded the virus as "Ebola Virus Disease".

(source)

[sarcasm] Oh, thank God! Ebola's not a hemorrhagic fever anymore! Now we don't have to worry about it! [/sarcasm]

We're seeing more of the same with Enterovirus D68 — you know, the one causing seemingly-random polio-like numbness, weakness, partial paralysis, and death in "children aged 0–18 years" (i.e.: all children), and sometimes adults. It's now being called "Non-Polio Enterovirus".

I can just hear the low-information-voter-types collectively sighing in relief, thinking it's no big deal — nevermind that the most recent child fatality showed none of the usual symptoms — thanks to the Fed.gov and the CDC.

Ebola and Enterovirus D68: just a "virus disease" and a "non-polio" affliction. No biggie. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Do any of you feel safer?

(Slightly off-topic, but is anyone else feeling the urge to check the Book of Revelation to see what comes after Pestilence? Just me? Hello?)

Oregon's New Political TV Ad from Bloomberg's Everytown Moms

I just saw this while watching the news this morning:

Oh HELL No!

The majority of gun owners want background checks in place.

Indeed, the majority of gun owners support background checks. The majority of gun owners, however, DO NOT support expanding or enhancing the current background check system.

We need to be clear(er) on this point. The polls and surveys ask, "Do you support background checks on gun sales?" Most of us are OK with them as long as they're non-intrusive and cannot be used to build a registry of guns or gun owners, but the poll answers are being conflated to include actions we don't support.

[sarcasm] Because everyone knows, if we support background checks, then we obviously must support a draconian mental-health-evaluation, traffic-tickets-included, due-process-stripping, 90-day-waiting-period, 100-page-questionaire, felony-if-you-answer-wrong, strip-naked-and-get-up-on-the-probulator* "background check" applicable every time a gun passes from one hand to the next, even if only for a few minutes, right? [/sarcasm]

On top of that, he claims to be a gun owner, but he's playing on his victim status, having lost his brother during the Clackamas Town Center shooting. I'll be the last to downplay his loss, but let's do some fact-checking here.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the shooting. Like a lot of Wikipedia articles, it's a bit short on details, but the pertinent bits are there.

• The Clackamas Town Center mall has a "No Guns" policy.**
• The shooter stole his rifle, so no background check was performed; he exploited the "steal-a-gun loophole", I guess.
• Even if he had tried to purchase the rifle at a gun store or gun show (no "gun show loophole" in Oregon since 2001; see ORS 166.433), he had a clean criminal background and no previously reported mental health issues. He'd have passed.
• The shooter evidently planned this to be much bigger (he'd purchased ammo and AR-15 magazines before stealing the gun), but seemed to be shooting randomly, without aiming; he attacked a crowded food court, but missed with 13 of his 16 shots (#17 was used on himself).
• Importantly, but disregarded by many news articles on the shooting, the shooter was confronted early on by a concealed handgun license (CHL) carrier who did not fire due to the proximity of bystanders, which may have caused the shooter to retreat and take his own life, ending the incident.

So like we tend to ask after every such tragedy: Which new "common sense" law being proposed would have stopped this?

And on that note, I will NOT be supporting John Kitzhaber's re-election campaign for Governor of Oregon.

------------
* - Yes, that's a "Futurama" reference.
** - It's worth mentioning that in Oregon, "No Guns" policies -- even clearly posted ones (which this one isn't, IIRC) -- carry very weak force of statutory law (case law is different; IANAL, yadda yadda). If a person is discovered carrying against the policy, he/she can be asked to leave. If they don't, they can be arrested/charged with trespassing -- a misdemeanor (see ORS 164.265). However, it's a distinction only LEOs, attorneys, and CHL holders would recognize. I doubt the shooter considered it.

On "Common Core" Education Standards

Representative Dennis Richardson (source)

I'm going to take a moment to stump for Oregon's Republican gubernatorial candidate, current State Representative Dennis Richardson (R - District 4). It's fantastic to see him running for Governor, but as he's a Republican candidate in a solid-blue state, he'll need all the support he can get.

Rep. Richardson puts out a newsletter that he writes "on issues of significance for all Oregonians." Quite a few of them, like this latest one (which came out August 20th -- yes, this post is a bit behind the times), should be significant to all Americans, even if he only claims to represent Oregon.

This one tears into the new "Common Core" education standards. (I'll be borrowing heavily from the newsletter's sources, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing. If that link doesn't work, it can also be found on the State Capitol website here.)

Now, for full disclosure, from what I can tell Common Core is intended to create standardized benchmarks and methods for the whole nation. To be honest, I think there are quite a number of benefits to this. For example: a more objective measure of student achievement (everyone is taught the same curriculum at the same relative time, so knowledge and mastery should be closely correlated); consistency between districts (a student moving from one district or state to another will experience little disruption when the schools are teaching the same thing); less spending on curriculum, textbooks, and materials (these can be mass-produced for economic scale benefits).

Objective, consistent, less expensive. Sounds great!

The problem is the devil living rent-free in the details of the implementation. It's one thing to come up with a good concept, but it's quite another to put that concept into practice in the real world.

Or, in the words of Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

 As Rep. Richardson points out (underlined emphasis added):

At Common Core’s outset, when the federal government offered “stimulus” money to the state Governors that accepted Common Core, the standards and tests involved had not even been written. In other words, the Governor and state education leaders unilaterally committed all Oregon’s school districts to adopting a new statewide curriculum before it had even been developed, and Oregon was committed without Legislative consideration or approval.

Moreover, it's being developed behind closed doors by "educators" with little-to-no classroom experience, at least one of which even has an incomplete Master's degree in an unrelated subject to the standards he's helping develop.

Plus, being a brand-spanking-new set of methods and standards, by definition it's entirely untested. We have no idea yet how the kids will absorb the material or how the test scores will turn out.



Cartoon by John Trever, Albuquerque Journal
May 21, 2008 (source)

Nevertheless, the plan is to tie the anchors millstones test outcomes around the necks of to teacher evaluations, with no adjustments allowed for "high-risk" students or kids with documented learning disabilities* (PDF warning). It's expected -- by no less than the State Deputy School Superintendent Rob Saxton (who supports Common Core, BTW) -- that only 35% of students will actually pass the new, untried, untested, standardized tests**. For those who are math-challenged, that means it's expected that 65% of Oregon students will FAIL! Oregon already has a 35% high-school drop-out rate; what sense does it make to aggravate that? And to tie teachers' job security to an untested system approaches criminality!

Last, but certainly not least, it's being revealed that there are some serious corporate financial conflicts of interest, wherein the companies in charge of designing this new curriculum are the same ones who stand to profit from its mandated use***.

Cartoon by Bob Englehart, Hartford Courant
August 27, 2013 (source)

So we have Common Core's aforementioned objectivity, consistency, and lower costs, which are now overshadowed by its non-transparent development by inexperienced (and arguably lacking in knowledge) people, untried and untested methods of instructions and testing, and an abysmally low expectation of standardized testing success, all being linked to teachers' job evaluations. Plus, there's also the strong potential for corruption from closed-door corporate/government inside dealing.

And we're supposed to be A-OK with this?

Quoting Rep. Richardson again (emphasis in original):

Who will flourish in this setting? Gifted students will be bored, students who already dislike school will be even more inclined to skip, and students with obstacles to learning will simply be unable to succeed.

I'm inclined to agree. The whole systems seems designed for the lowest common denominator -- all but ensuring that gifted (and average) students will suffer -- while simultaneously guaranteeing the failure of the lowest common denominator.

It's no wonder so many states are now opposing the implementation of Common Core, and even two teachers' unions -- one national, one state-level -- are calling for a moratorium. This is not a normal, partisan political issue; Common Core opponents represent both sides of the aisle. The question is: Why should we be implementing this at all? The newsletter provides several examples of individual teachers and schools going above and beyond, and building highly successful programs (another reason to read the whole thing; success stories are awesome!). If those local programs are working, we should be using them as a template for other schools and districts. Why should we mandate changing (read: ending) them, in favor of a top-down, untested, unworkable, one-size-fits-all "standard"?

That, for the record, was a rhetorical question.

(Hat tip: Rep. Dennis Richardson's e-mail newsletter.)

(Obligatory message to Electoral Commission types: While I would love to see Mr. Richardson elected Governor of the great State of Oregon and support making that happen, I am writing this article of my own volition and initiative, using my own words [except where noted], and no compensation of any kind has been offered or accepted for it. Go bother someone else.)

------------
* - "Students with disabilities ... must be challenged to excel within the general curriculum and be prepared for success in their post-school lives, including college and/or careers. These common standards provide an historic opportunity to improve access to rigorous academic content standards for students with disabilities." Translation: Push 'em harder, disabilities be damned! Because nobody's tried that before, right? Right!
** - Money quote from that article, from teacher Elizabeth Thiel: "We're not assessing their ability to think, the test is assessing knowledge." A-yup.
*** - Why am I not surprised to see Andrew Cuomo involved? And the anti-gun folks wonder why we stand against so-called "smart guns" being mandated?

D.C. Still Hoping to Limit Lawful Carry

From Peter Hermann at The Washington Post (via Bitter):

The Second Amendment does not include an “unalloyed right” to carry guns in public, District officials argued in a court pleading filed Monday that seeks more time before a judge’s ruling takes effect and overturns the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public.

Putting aside how ridiculous the brief sounds by using the word "unalloyed" to describe a right the Constitution guarantees shall not be infringed when discussing doing just that ("alloying" the right?*), why would they need more time?

I mean, the stay expires October 22, so we're now ... what ... 27 days into the 90 days already granted.  Nearly 1/3 of their time is gone.  What have they been doing?

The purpose of Monday’s pleading was to ask for an extension of that stay for two possible scenarios. In the event the District decides to appeal instead of enact a new law, officials want a new stay to extend until the appeal process is exhausted. In the event they seek a legislative remedy, they are asking for the current stay to extend an additional 90 days.

Oh, I think I see now.  They've lost, they've spent nearly four weeks trying to decide whether they want to take it or risk losing a second time, and still haven't figured that out.

However, exhausting the appeals process - even if they ultimately lose - is certain to last longer than 90 days, so maybe they can call that a "win"?

Here's my opinion (worth every penny you're paying for it!): D.C. officials are hoping to stall as long as they can before trying to do anything, a la the Illinois legislature after Moore v. Madigan overturned their ban on carry.  IL waited until the very last minute, passing their carry law (IIRC) on day 179 of their 180 day stay - with barely hours to go until unregulated, "Vermont-style carry" would be the law.  I can see something similar happening in D.C.

Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
(image source)

I did find this bit especially interesting:

The filing also counters U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.’s ruling by arguing that the “core” of the Second Amendment is “the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home . . . not the right to carry handguns in public.”

This motion from D.C. is going to the same judge, right?  If this is accurate, they're asking for an extension on account that the judge ruled incorrectly, and they're making this argument to his face!  The judge says the ban on carry outside the home is unconstitutional, and D.C. says, "You're wrong, banning carry IS Constitutional, and oh-by-the-way can we please have more time to decide whether to comply with your ruling?  Pretty please?"**

If I were Judge Scullin, I'd be sorely tempted to read this and say, "No stay for appeal, no extension.  People are being denied their rights as we speak, and the clock is ticking.  You have until October 22, which should be more than enough time.  And for the love of Pete, if you're going to make a law, make something good and fair; I don't want to have to see you again on October 23rd."

But that's just me.
------------
* - Personally, I think "alloying" the Second Amendment with the First Amendment is not that bad an idea.  "Congress shall make no law ... limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has a nice ring to it, and the general recognition of free speech wherever you have the right to be is a definite plus.
** - Yes, I understand this is basically how the appeals process works; you try until you (hopefully) get the answer you want.  Still, asking this of the very same court who not only ruled against you, but also gave you time to comply, is pretty brazen.

This is My Shocked Face (More IL Gun Laws)

"It's Groundhog Day here in Chicago."

The irony: it burns.

Although Chicago Police Superintendent Garry (hippie parents much?) McCarthy was decrying the recent spate of gun violence in the gun-free paradise of Chicagoland, he could have been ruminating on the all-too-predictable response of the politicians to a firearms related tragedy:

1. Run to the sound of the ambulances. (There'll be cameras!)
2. Hold a press conference. (Extra points for using cops and families as props)
3. Decry the loss of life. (Try to find a KIA that wasn’t a banger or terminally stupid)
4. Blame the easy availability of guns. (In Chicago? For Reals?)
5. Pound the table about the lax gun laws. (In Chicago? For Reals?)
6. Propose yet another anti-gun law. (Disarm and punish the law-abiding)
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Predictable as a tax increase, Illinois governor “Pat” Quinn bellies up to the cameras to bloviate for another law banning “Assault Rifles”, limiting ammunition capacity, and increasing background checks. The fact that the law would have actually done nothing to stop the violence goes without saying. It’s just the natural political cycle.

One we have to break.

HT: TheTruthAboutGuns.com,
       The Federalist Papers