From the Barrel of a Gun
Lurking Rhythmically
Random Nuclear Strikes
Daily Pundit
Only Guns and Money
Mostly Cajun
Massad Ayoob
The View From North Central Idaho
Armed and Dangerous
Hell in a Handbasket
View From The Porch
Guns, Cars, and Tech
Legal Insurrection
Irons in the Fire
Volokh Conspiracy
Snowflakes in Hell
Shot in the Dark
Power Line
Michael Bane
The Smallest Minority
Sharp as a Marble
The Silicon Greybeard
3 boxes of BS
Of Arms and the Law
Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives
Speculative Fiction
John Lott
IRS Scandal
Monster Hunter Nation
Right to be Armed

Most Popular

Featured Posts

Subscribe to Atom Feed

Tweets by @TriggerBlog


Ammoland reports on Maryland's gun owner license code...

Remember when Nazi Germany insisted that members of a particular religion wear identifying symbols so they could be ostracized and oppressed by everyone else? 

You may find that situation uncomfortably close to reality if you live in Maryland.  Legislation introduced in both the state House and state Senate will require that gun owners have a special license to purchase handguns, and will mark their status as a license holder with a "scarlet G for gun owner" on their existing drivers license

UPDATE: SaysUncle notes that he can't find that language in the bill.  I looked, and I can't find it either; in my original post I was relying on the summary at Ammoland, specifically this language:
It is uncertain whether or not a "gun owner" designation on a driver?s license will constitute "probable cause" to search a vehicle during a routine traffic stop.
It could be I jumped the gun a bit by not checking the language myself. 

2010-02-10 16:53:37.0 by TriggerFinger. 0 comments

McCain-Feingold struck down in Citizens United

The Supreme Court has issued a decision striking down the vast majority of the Campaign Finance Reform Act, normally termed McCain-Feingold for its two primary authors.  This is a good decision that restores the right to free political speech.  But our politicians are already promising to ensure that new restrictions on political speech are enacted.  Why can't we have politicians who respect free speech and seek to advance it, rather than pass laws that are offensive to the Constitution and the First Amendment?

It's worth noting that the decision was 5-4.  The 4 dissenting votes came from the so-called liberal wing of the court.  It used to be that the rule of thumb was "vote Republican for economic freedom, and Democrat for social freedom."  That's clearly changed.  The new rule seems to be, "vote Democrat for tyranny now, vote Republican for slightly less tyranny."  But occasionally they do get it right.

2010-02-10 11:54:14.0 by TriggerFinger. 0 comments
<-- Previous Next -->

If you would like to receive new posts by email:

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice. this site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.