A short discussion, I guess.

John Lott debates two gun control advocates on the topic of gun control at Berkeley.

Individuals must apply for a “long gun eligibility certificate” through the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (“DESPP”) to purchase any rifle or shotgun. You are exempt from this requirement if you have a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver; a pistol or revolver retail sales permit; or a pistol or revolver eligibility certificate.

The application includes fingerprints and a training requirement, and the government has 60 days to issue you the certificate. Obviously, it won't stop criminals. They will ignore the law as they ignore all gun control laws.

That's the best the Democrats can do on this issue -- they only got 2/3rds of their own party to vote for repeal.

This is absolutely shameless:

The Internal Revenue Service’s tea party targeting program is still withholding approval of 19 organizations’ nonprofit status, nearly a year after the scandal was revealed, the agency’s commissioner testified Wednesday to Congress — where he faced fierce criticism from lawmakers who said he is stonewalling.

They have an election to win, after all.

Victor David Hanson explains why government statistics can't be trusted.

The House Oversight Committee demands all the emails related to the targets of its investigation. The IRS promises to cooperate, but delivers only documents that match certain search terms chosen by the IRS:

Koskinen has previously said the agency would cooperate with the investigation, but until now the agency has limited the documents to those found using certain search terms, like "tea party," related to the investigation.

When pressed for all the emails, and threatened with contempt, the IRS promises again to hand them all over...

Following heated exchanges with House Republicans, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Wednesday told a congressional committee that he will hand over all of the emails of Lois Lerner, the former IRS official under investigation for the agency's targeting of conservative groups.

... but says that turning them all over will take years:

But Koskinen also told frustrated Republicans that producing all the documents the committee wants will take "years," indicating that the matter is far from settled.

If it takes "years" that conveniently pushes the deadline for delivery past the next election, something Obama has shown a tendency to do in other areas (Obamacare).

Clue: It will only take years because the IRS insists on carefully examining each email by hand in order to stonewall the investigation. The appropriate response is to provide all of the emails to Congress immediately. Anything else is a cover-up.

It's a shocking list of questions to ask someone so young. I'm going to list the questions so they are searchable; follow the link to view the image from which I just transcribed them.

The following is a checklist of psycho-social stressors that may impact a student's academic and social functioning. This list is not comprehensive. These factors should be considered when determining if a student is eligible for special education. These stressors should not necessarily prevent a student from being identified, however, they must be considered.

Severe illness of parent or family member (cancer, HIV, heart attack, psychiatric illness, etc)
Death of a parent or caretaker
Divorce or break-up of a parent's primary relationship
Student has received a threat of violence
Witness to community violence
Severe illness of a student (leukemia, cancer, heart problems, etc)
Experienced child abuse (physical, emotional, or sexual)
Witness to domestic violence in home
Placed in foster care
Moved from one foster home to another
Experienced natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, etc)
Changes schools one or more times during a school year
Financial problems in the home (Parent lost job, etc)
Alcohol or drug abuse in family
Substance abuse problems (older students)
Pregnancy (older students)
One or more psychiatric hospitalizations
Has attempted suicide or has expressed suicidal thoughts
Sexual identity issues
Homelessness
Parent or caretaker incarcerated
Juvenile offender
Health problems (asthma, diabetes, sickle cell, etc)

So here's the problem. These questions are being asked of first graders. Some of them are reasonable, some of them are absurd, and some of them are downright inappropriate for a child of that age. More importantly, though, the answers are none of the school's business unless and until a student chooses to volunteer something. Even if a student does choose to volunteer, it should be privately to a trusted teacher, not recorded on a form that will doubtless be kept in student records forever. Why should a student be expected to reveal such intimate details about their health and home life, including private health information about other family members?

I think there's a causal relationship. They can't be trusted with guns, so they assume everyone else is just as insane.

I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and I’ll be armed, let’s just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and I’ll be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I don’t give a damn, it’s up to you. And you come, meet me someplace, and all of a sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden I’m going to feel real goddamned threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can! Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha!

I'm sure he thought it was joking, but he's the only one laughing.

The Post publishes an inaccurate piece of left-wing propaganda aimed at smearing the Koch brothers and the Keystone XL pipeline. The Powerline blog publishes a piece exposing the inaccuracies. The exposure is so bad that the Post has to defend its piece -- and Powerline responds by using the defense to expose the bias that led to the original piece. It's a tour-de-force of media bias blogging, especially for those who deny such bias exists.

And for those who reflexively boo and hiss when the brothers are mentioned, look at the philanthropy they have engaged in. The left continually attacks them not because the Kochs are evil, or even particularly unusual; they are targeted in order to give them rank and file left someone to hate, and they are used as a threatening example of what will happen to anyone who dares donate to a libertarian or conservative political cause.

Why do you think the Democrats are so concerned with ensuring people and corporations cannot publish their opinions on political issues anonymously? They want to attack the donors behind the message, because they can't successfully attack the message itself.

He's a Democrat, of course. If the FBI and the local police together are going after a powerful Democrat, there's got to be something particularly awful or blatant about whatever was going on.

The gun rights community has been saying for a while that if we aren't careful about what the definition of mental illness is, the government will define wanting to own a gun as a mental illness and use it to take guns away, a classic Catch-22. This is no longer a slippery-slope argument but appears to be actually happening: the VA is declaring veterans incompetent at the slightest provocation without notice or due process, at least one case in New York had a man's guns confiscated due to a brief period of time on antidepressants, and a recent case in Illinois had a man confined for a mental health evaluation and his guns and FOID card confiscated following his complaint to a politician:

[Plaintiffs allege that, as] of February 3, 2011, Plaintiffs possessed FOID cards, owned firearms, and kept their firearms in their home. At some point before February 3, 2011, David expressed “unpopular political views … about his support of Second Amendment rights” to “a locally elected official.” That official, somebody in that official’s office, or one of the individual defendants falsely construed David’s comments “as evidence that [he] had a mental condition that made him dangerous.” On February 3, 2011, [Illinois State Police] Lieutenant [John] Coffman wrote a letter to David revoking his FOID card under § 8(f) of the Act based on the false and unreasonable assertion that David had a “mental condition” within the meaning of that provision. The letter was mailed on February 4, 2011, and David did not receive it until February 7, 2011.

On February 5, 2011, with Lieutenant Coffman’s approval, Agents Pryor and Summers entered Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant or consent, conducted a search, and seized Plaintiffs’ firearms, which Plaintiffs used for personal protection, hunting, investment, and enjoyment. These actions[, plaintiffs allege,] were taken even though “[t]here was no reasonable basis to conclude David Rhein had a mental condition that presented a clear and present danger to himself or anyone else.” It follows, the amended complaint claims, that the seizure of Plaintiff’s firearms and the revocation of David’s FOID card was “in no way … justified under this statute [§ 8(f)].” Kim’s FOID card was not revoked.

Plaintiffs hired an attorney, and in Summer 2012, as a result of a court order, their firearms were returned to them. Plaintiffs plan to continue engaging in political commentary in support of the Second Amendment, and they fear that their speech will put them at risk of being labeled “mentally unstable and dangerous” and having their firearms seized and FOID cards revoked.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun. The Fourth and Fifth guarantee the right to be secure from unwarranted search or seizure, and to due process of law. It seems obvious that the Illinois' government's actions here violate all of them, if they took place as alleged.

Details here. If firearms can be provided to someone else for safekeeping instead of being confiscated, that's an improvement. But then, that's also the usual procedure under current law, so in that case, why pass a law?

Glenn Singleton is one of the people in charge of solving the problem of racial disparity. In hundreds of school districts around the country, his company has been hired to show this cohort of young, white, liberal and female teachers how they are racist; how their racism is responsible for the achievement gap; and how they have to admit their own racism in a series of “Courageous Conversations” if they ever want to be successful educating black students.

This is an indoctrination technique. I'm only surprised they think public school teachers need to be indoctrinated.

I don't know exactly what the problems are in the public schools, but I'm pretty sure "the teachers are secret racists" isn't one of them.

Emily Miller is there to report on the case, no matter how stupid it is to press felony charges against someone because they kept a single misfired shotgun shell in their home.

'They've blown off the subpoenas,' the aide said, referring to legal demands the committee issued to the IRS on August 2 and February 14. 'If the DOJ keeps dragging its heels too, and can just get away with it, why do we have an oversight committee in the first place? It's like the White House has never heard of the separation of powers.'

That's pretty strong language, but I think accurate.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said Wednesday that he won’t be able to produce all of former employee Lois G. Lerner’s emails and those of other key employees by the end of this year, pushing it beyond this year’s congressional elections.

In a heated exchange over whether he and his tax agency employees are cooperating in Congress’s investigations into tea party targeting, Mr. Koskinen said the amount of time it will take to look through and redact private information from the documents could last years.

If they can cover the emails up until Obama is safely out of office, that's all they need. And if there wasn't anything that linked to Obama in those emails, they wouldn't mind releasing them after, say, the midterm elections. But years? One of those emails is smoking.

Volokh summarizes:

The case is today’s Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014). The court concludes that the ban is constitutional, even though it applies even to people who aren’t living with children (most such locked storage requirements apply only when children could otherwise access the gun), and even to people who are living alone. The court also upholds the ban on sale of hollow-point bullets, though it repeatedly stresses that the law doesn’t ban possession or use of such bullets.

Problem: the Supreme Court in Heller explicitly overturned safe storage requirements, though the requirements in DC were so strict as to prevent any use of a firearm for self-defense.

UPDATE: The decision will be appealed.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington-based family organizations as “hate groups” for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a “resource” on the FBI’s Hate Crime webpage, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.

I think it's entirely appropriate to remove the group, seeing as it is run by partisan anti-gun hacks, but that's never bothered this administration before. So why now?

The school claims the teachers came up with the workbook themselves. But it looks a bit more professional than that.

“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison,” the handout says.

The actual text of the Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nothing about "certain" weapons or "providing that they register them" or "have not been in prison".

The school system responsible for this is in Illinois, which has gun owner registration in state law. I don't doubt their little rephrasing makes it easier to explain state gun laws to curious schoolchildren who might wonder how gun registration and "shall not be infringed" go together.

“I own, personally, approximately $30,000 of guns, contrary to what Cease Fire New Jersey Says, that they do not make 10-round magazines for,” he explained. “I also have in my possession at my range over $20,000 of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

He then asked the chairman of the committee who exactly would be compensating him if the items suddenly become illegal.

“Have you guys seen what is happening in Connecticut right now?” he continued. “One million gun owners in New Jersey are also gonna say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that we will not comply. And I can tell you here and now, I will not comply.”

Aside from the obvious and strongest point -- "We will not comply" -- he also makes a potent and as yet untested argument: banning guns is a taking of property, which the Constitution forbids without just compensation. The 1994 assault weapons ban and the National Firearms Act got around that by allowing existing weapons to remain in public hands, while banning sales of newly manufactured weapons.

Connecticut's law requires militia rifles to be registered by a date (already past) or destroyed, so anyone possessing an unregistered militia rifle in Connecticut has been subject to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. I wouldn't be surprised if New Jersey's law takes a similar approach, and I am interested to see if anyone tries the taking argument in court.

If you have to manufacture incidents of racism in order to keep your ideology alive... then maybe you should find a new ideology.