The Peruta case is the California shall-issue concealed-carry case that, if you recall, make the 9th Circuit shall-issue for a while. Sort of. Not living there, I don't know exactly how it worked out, but I recall at least one sheriff voluntarily went shall-issue and others were pretty open about it already.
I think, if we follow the template set by the Left on gay marriage, the right procedure to protect our civil right to bear arms in California is:
1) Everyone run out and get a concealed carry license while the shall-issue policies remain in place. The decision doesn't overturn issued licenses and some county sheriffs went shall-issue voluntarily; it may take time for them to change policies back, or they may just go on as normal.
2) When sheriffs start denying licenses again, get a group of people who were denied licenses and have them sue on equal protection grounds given that other people with identical reasons (ie, self-defense) were granted.
Or, of course, just wait for the Supreme Court to take a case, but it's nice to have favorable outcomes to point to.
Details aside, putting body camera footage up on the web for public view by default rather than waiting for public interest to focus on a specific case is a step forward. Are there privacy implications? Sure. But I think those can be addressed, and it will be useful to experiment with doing so.
There are a lot of ways that Congress botched the probe, but they all pretty much boil down to accepting excuses rather than aggressively acting to obtain the necessary information within a reasonable time period. Remember, there are still groups waiting for the IRS to act on their applications: the targeting did not stop while the investigations were stonewalled. It just went underground.
Requests for correspondence between IRS and Dem Congressmen still not fulfilled
It's clear that the Obama administration is hoping that if they just drag this out long enough the Republican investigators will give up and go away. Considering how long they are trying to delay this, there must be some pretty awful stuff in those records.
It's rare to get an actual statement telling the Demanding Mommies to buzz off. Usually they get ignored, or a placating letter that doesn't actually change policy. Thanks, Kroger, for making your position clear.
An "individual mandate to buy coverage" is "conservative" only if the alternative is a complete government takeover of the health care system, ie, single-payer... AND the "conservative" is a Massachusetts liberal.
I think we can take this to mean that Obamacare has jumped the shark.
So, does this database include just the stolen or wanted cars (what exactly makes a car "wanted" to the NYPD?), or will it include an entry for every time one of the scanners saw any license plate, stolen or not?
I think we need a constitutional amendment to restrict the government's ability to aggregate data. If you want to have your police force look for a particular license plate, that's fine. If you want to have a list of license plates to look for, with appropriate probable cause requirements, that's fine. If you want to have a computer with a camera watch for license plates on the list, I'm OK with that.
But if the computer keeps a historical database, and all the other computers in the country contribute those observations to a single national database, then you have created a surveillance state. The only place I can think of to draw the line is at the point of history and aggregation. (I'm open to better ideas). Until we find a way to draw and enforce that line, things are only going to get worse.
It is, in fact, an end run around the Congressional power of the purse, both the spending power and the taxation power. In the case that prompted this story, the man will get his money back. But that's the exception, not the rule.
A political "journalist" (aka a Democrat operative with a byline) has three reasons that the public hates political journalism (ie, him). Two of them are completely wrong. The second one is mildly interesting.
Has there been a big problem tagging the spouses of politicians for criticism lately? Not that I've noticed. But there's about to be when 2016 gets moving, so this is clearly battlespace preparation for Hillary 2016, given who she's married to and what he's gotten up to. It's so transparently this, rather than some sort of sincere moment of self-examination, that the original author should quit his job and ask Microsoft for a job selling Windows.
This is why the article was written. That's it; full stop; no other reasons need apply.
The key here is not only the ideological targeting aspect. Karl Rove makes an obvious target, and the other groups still being delayed are probably just cover to prevent the IRS from being accused of blocking only Rove, an even more transparently political move. However, the failure to decide is just as important. If the IRS were to approve or deny the applications, the respective organizations could move on or adjust their business model. So long as they are kept in limbo, they are effectively paralyzed. And from Obama's perspective, that's even better than a denial. After all, deny Rove's rather well-funded group and he's likely to bring the issue up in court. It's much easier to defend the idea that you haven't made up your mind yet.