It means that the administration is determined to make immigration a fait accompli, gambling that possession of a work permit or a green card is 9/10ths of the law and that courts won't undertake to decide which to take away once granted. By the time Obama leaves office, the courts will be faced with millions of people holding work permits, green cards, and other documents officially issued by the government in contravention of the law.
How can a court, an employer, a police officer possibly be expected to determine whether such a document is legitimate or not?
The result -- the intended result -- will be chaos and amnesty.
Stay requested in Mance v Holder, the interstate handgun sales ban case
This sort of temporary stay is granted routinely when requested in a case like this. Certainly the BATFE is likely to take more than that time to update regulations and issue guidance to FFLs if they choose not to appeal, and frankly, I expect that they will decide to appeal and a stay will be granted pending the final resolution of that appeal.
What all that means is that, if this stay is granted, it doesn't mean much. A right delayed may be a right denied, but there's nearly half a century of status quo here. Large apple carts tip over slowly.
New York legislators proposes complete ban on machetes
Note that it's already illegal to actually carry a machete, along with any other knife longer than 4 inches. Before long they will be banning kitchen knives and insisting on rounded tips to prevent stabbings.
You can't fix criminals by banning their tools. They will just use different tools.
Does government licensing of professions improve quality?
A friend of mine regularly argues for government necessity based upon such things as food safety; claiming that the private sector combined with the court system could not, or would not, regulate itself to the point that eating out at a local restaurant would be safe.
The obvious counterarguments are:
1) Existing examples of private food preparation licensing (eg, kosher food can be certified through a number of organizations); 2) The obvious logical point that restaurants which poison their customers will rapidly go out of business as customers do not return due to sickness, death, aversion conditioning, or reputation damage; 3) Government regulatory agencies would not actually make the food any safer.
On point three, a recent study on opticians concluded that government licensing doesn't make those services any safer, though it does make them more expensive.
Granted, this is somewhat thin gruel, since it's basically drawing large conclusions from the small, individual conclusions of the national insurance market. Still, the logical train is sound.
Another Gun Control Act provision unConstitutional
Another victory for Alan Gura, this case is an as-applied challenge to the felon-in-possession rules. The plaintiff is an individual who was convicted of a misdemeanor for unlicensed carry of a handgun in Maryland; because that particular crime in that particular state carries a possible penalty of between 30 days (minimum) and 3 years (maximum), federal law counts it as a felony and bars firearms possession by those convicted of it.
But, crucially, the plaintiff in this case demonstrated that he was not a dangerous criminal, and barring him from firearms ownership for life violates the 2nd Amendment.
The decision comes on the heels of another Gura victory, striking down the prohibition on out-of-state handgun sales in the same 1968 Act.
People said the earlier decision was a big deal. This one is far, far bigger. Fundamentally, it says the state cannot simply bar people convicted of crimes from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights; it can probably still do so for serious and recent crimes, but those who are neither violent nor habitual criminals now have recourse through the courts if they wish to possess the tools of self-defense.
It's also worth noting that the crime which barred the plaintiff from possessing firearms was itself a victimless, non-violent licensing issue in a state which makes licenses for carrying a concealed firearm difficult to obtain.
The anti-rights folks will probably attack this decision as allowing criminals to possess firearms. It's more appropriate to say that this ruling blocks states from criminalizing the public exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights in order to deny those rights, both public and private, to you forever.
Recently, Politico published an article claiming that self-defensive gun use was rare, despite much convincing evidence to the contrary. Now, in a mea-culpa moment, they are publishing a refutation of their original article by Gary Kleck -- a refutation which was originally published contemporaneously with the criticisms of their work, in 1997, 1998, and 2001. You'll note that those refutations were published 17 years ago, the first of them in the same issue of the academic journal which carried the criticisms, yet the recent article not only failed to address those points, it failed to even let readers know they existed.
It's the academic version of anti-gun writers closing comments on their articles to prevent their readers from exposing their lies and mendacity.
I think it's very telling that a "final report" is almost ready before Congress has even been provided with the IRS emails recovered by the Treasury Inspector General, and before any criminal charges have been brought. I think they plan on issuing the final report as soon as they are sure they have scrubbed the recovered emails sufficiently to match with the cover story they agreed to originally.
This oversight stuff really needs to go through a truly independent party. DoJ cannot investigate itself or other presidential agencies when it is complicit, and the executive branch must not control the evidence required for independent sources to do so.
Two videos and a lot of links, useful for getting back up to speed if you haven't been following the news on this topic. I've been following this pretty closely, and while it was obvious the banks were being told not to talk about why they were closing accounts, this is the first time we actually had proof.
Aside from the practical effects of that secrecy demand making it harder to figure out what was going on, secrecy is the first refuge of the criminal who knows his actions are illegal. That "Operation Chokepoint" was a secret operation conducted by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, designed to operate by threat of regulatory force in silence and darkness, never to be brought to a court of law for a fair trial, speaks volumes.
How should a democracy resolve questions of income distribution?
The guys at Power Line are pretty much the Republican Establishment, and they get this question totally wrong. Yes, "questions of income redistribution" are usually decided by the legislature these days. Arguably, that's only to be expected in a democracy. But we are not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic, and the powers of our federal government are limited and do not include income redistribution.
Thus, the proper place to resolve questions of income redistribution in federal law is in the courts, and the proper answer is no.
The states will need to look to their own founding documents individually if they wish to tax the middle class to give to the middle class.
When they break their own laws, throw the book at them
A prominent anti-civil-rights lawyer got caught allegedly trying to sneak a gun onto a plane. He claims it was accidental, which would be quite believable for someone who took a shooting class recently. It's somewhat less believable for David Malik, who is known for his anti-gun politics. While I would normally argue for leniency in a case like this, because I do not believe that people making innocent mistakes with no harmful intent should be punished, I make exceptions for gun control advocates who get caught violating the unjust laws they have been imposing on the rest of us.
Physics teacher spending a week on so-called white privilege
He was inspired by the teachers in English and History, who in his words, "got to talk every day in class about society and how it worked and how to be moral and caring and kind." I don't know about you, but my English and History classes actually taught English and History, not political indoctrination.
5th Circuit judge issues restraining order against Obama's amnesty
The Obama Administration has two possible responses here. First, they can stop any implementation activities on the amnesty until the case is decided. Historically, this is the correct response from the executive branch. However, the Obama administration has already demonstrated a willingness to outright defy similar court orders. That leads to the second response: "How many divisions does the judge have?"
The answer is none. The sole defense of the Constitution lies in the respect each official, elected or appointed, holds for the rule of law. When the president and his appointees are lawless, there is little that can be done to stop them.
BATFE plans regulation change to ban certain rifle ammunition
Tam has the details and instructions on how to leave a comment. This is basically gun control by slight of hand; there is no legislative change to justify this, nor is there a crime problem with the ammunition being banned -- M855 and M2 surplus ammunition, also known as 30-06 and .223.
Note that BATFE is not required to honor any of the comments received or change their mind, but if they get a large number of comments they will understand that the public is watching this issue. If we let them know it matters, it also lets Congress know it matters.
Executive Amnesty plan makes it easier for illegal aliens to vote, drive drunk
If illegal aliens weren't already voting in large numbers, the Democratic Party wouldn't be so desperate to cater to them. This is only going to make it worse.
And that's not the only bizarre side effect of Obama's amnesty, either.
So if a Border Patrol agent stops someone at a border checkpoint who appears to be driving under the influence of alcohol, they should just ... wave them through? On what planet does that make sense?
Not only does Obama want them to vote, he wants them to be privileged from arrest on the way to the polling place, and he wants to redistribute our tax dollars to them.
So, if you are an illegal alien, and you get a work permit and social security number under the new rules, not only can you do a job an American would like to do, you can drive to that job drunk, vote, get a tax "refund" via the Earned Income Tax Credit every year, and get a one-time bonus payout from the IRS. And if you have three children and file for the past, say, 3 years, the payout is nothing to sneeze at: over $18,000 in one lump sum. Despite being here illegally.
National concealed-carry reciprocity law introduced in the Senate
It's long past time we had legislation like this. A concealed-carry permit should be at least as honored in other states as a driver's license is.
There are, admittedly, some federalism issues when you compare states with highly restrictive gun laws (New York, for example, where you have to be famous to carry) to states with very open gun laws (Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska, where carrying a gun does not require any sort of permit at all). However, we're talking about a protected constitutional right here; there needs to be a national minimum standard for gun rights that includes "bearing" arms as well as keeping them.
The blue states are just going to have to start respecting the civil rights of visitors.
If you are IN the situation, and not armed, your best bet is to get OUT of the situation as fast as possible. If you can't escape, hide. If you can't hide, fight -- and fight smart, not in a panic.
If you are a police officer or private citizen who happens to be armed and nearby, you have two choices. If you are the first person who arrives at the scene, you can wait for the police to arrive in enough numbers to feel safe before you enter the building, and the odds are that you will arrive in time to help clean up the mess. Or, you can take it upon yourself to enter the building and do your best at risk of your life.
According to the ruling, the plaintiff cannot prove that she was surveilled via the internet and thus lacks standing to sue on that matter. Other means of surveillance, notably telephone records collection, are still at issue.