Behind many of President Obama’s recent forays into the international arena lies the issue of whether the United States is to retain its sovereign status or merge into something that is new. Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have already decided cases by promoting theories that meld U.S. law with foreign law. Are international norms a prism through which U.S. Constitutional law should be interpreted?
MEDELLIN VS TEXAS was a 2007 death penalty case that decided whether the State of Texas must give a psychopath a new trial. Its sordid origins trace to 1993, when José Medellín, a Mexican national, murdered two Houston teenagers. He was sentenced to death by a Texas jury, but his lawyers argued on appeal that he hadn’t had access to Mexico’s consulate before he confessed to his crimes.
Mr. Medellin’s claim was that a violation of the 1963 VIENNA CONVENTION had occurred; diplomats are supposed to be notified when their nationals are arrested. Mexican authorities sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The ICJ ruled in Mexico’s favor, ordering states to give Medellín and some 51 other nationals new hearings. The question before the Supreme Court was whether such international dictates must be enforced by sovereign state courts.
Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the ICJ finding was not binding because the Vienna Convention is a diplomatic compact that was never intended to automatically create new individual rights enforceable domestically by international bodies. Thus, Texas’s violation of diplomatic protocols called for a diplomatic remedy.
Treaty provisions must be in accord with the plain meaning of the Constitution as it is written, not as some would have them to be. This distinction establishes a fire wall between international and domestic law. The day may come when Washington State’s Attorney General has to defend the protections afforded by our state Constitution against treaties negotiated by folks in Washington, DC.
Washingtonians may just be a bunch of cowboys but so far we are sticking to our guns! Despite the opinions of some law professors and elitists that believe a treaty supersedes the U.S. and Washington state constitutions, we should continue to uphold our Washington State Constitution even if we need to do so in the face of new treaties and/or Medellín being reversed by SCOTUS at some time in the future.
MEDELLÍN also disposed of the Bush Administration’s claims of Presidential power. The Bush Administration had attempted to calm the diplomatic world by directing states to comply with the ICJ ruling in a 2005 executive order. The Court ruled that the President’s power is limited by the Constitution.
For many years, elitist lawyers and politicians have been claiming that the Constitution is always changing based on the needs of each generation. This is not rule of law but an argument for tyranny which would interlineate international norms in place of Constitutional norms.
The crowd that expressed outrage against Bush’s claims of executive power can’t wait to turn greater executive powers over to international politicians who have already banned many freedoms- including freedom of speech and religion- in Europe, Australia and Canada, to name a few! Be vigilant and watch for the propaganda blitz that is coming. If MEDELLÍN is reversed, UN mandates squelching free speech, gun rights and even the ability to practice your religion may follow.
Permalink
WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MATTERS
Last year (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter SCOTUS) ruled that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Why does the decision in DC V HELLER matter to city-dwellers like you and I that live or work in Federal Way and have almost no place in our lives for hunting, target shooting or toting a pistol as we go about our busy routines?
The fact that the Washington State Constitution already guarantees Washingtonians protection if we choose to possess firearms also raises the issue of what was, if any, the HELLER decision’s impact on residents of our local communities. Any law-abiding U.S. citizen of sound mind (twenty-one or older) can obtain a Concealed Pistol License in Washington State. You can even keep and wear a weapon in your own home or business without obtaining a CPL. So why does DC V HELLER matter in the Evergreen State?
To answer the question we need a nutshell course on Second Amendment jurisprudence. When the federal government first got involved with regulating guns pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). In the 1939 case of UNITED STATES V MILLER, SCOTUS took up the issue of whether the NFA’s prohibition against sawed-off shotguns violated the Second Amendment. The MILLER court decided the issue by analyzing whether sawed-off shotguns are militarily useful. Ever since that time gun control advocates, law professors and even a minority of Supreme Court justices in the HELLER dissent have been able to point to United States Circuit Court precedents in which the decisions cited the MILLER case and rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Thus, prior to recent times, a majority of legal scholars and even our own Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have taken the position that the “people” that have the right to keep and bear arms are the states; i.e., the U.S. Constitution only protects a state’s right to maintain a militia.
Pro-gun folks advocate that MILLER only dealt with the issues in a very oblique fashion for a number of reasons, including the fact that the only representatives that appeared to argue the issues in MILLER were the government lawyers! Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to hear both sides of the issues. It is worth noting that, despite the assertion in the MILLER opinion declaring that sawed-off shotguns have no military usefulness, short barreled shot-guns were very much in use as trench guns in WW I.
It can be argued that the HELLER case is actually the first case in which SCOTUS has dealt directly with the issue of who has standing to assert the right to keep and bear arms. The HELLER decision almost guarantees that many more Supreme Court decisions will follow. Because Washington, DC is not a state there are bound to be cases that decide whether the states are obligated to abide by the Second Amendment and what restrictions are reasonable for the states and the federal government to enact. Keep in mind that many rules dealing with firearms are administrative and are buried deep within arcane intricacies of local, state and federal bureaucracies.
Those of you that resent rampant militarism, the Founding Fathers are on your side! The legislative history of the Bill of Rights reveals that the Founders were conflicted about the wisdom of permitting standing armies that could be used against the people to usurp American’s civil rights. The Federalists compromised with the anti-Federalists by leaving the size of the military up to the President and Congress. By keeping the people armed, Americans would be prepared if the government neglected the national defense and, at the same time, the people would have recourse in the event that the new federal government ran roughshod over our liberties. You have to say one thing for those old boys- they were radical!
Dick Heller, an armed security guard for a government agency, was prohibited under Washington, DC’s draconian gun laws from possessing a gun in his home, even though the United States Government entrusted him to guard life and the U.S. Government’s property. Because he challenged and overturned the DC gun ban, cities like Morton Grove, Illinois are already revising their gun laws to permit at least some private possession of guns within their city limits.
History has demonstrated that the federal government, states and local governments can and will enact laws that deprive individuals and states of the ability to take control of our own destinies. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify economic regulation and federal incursions into almost every area of our lives. Presidents can enter into all kinds of treaties and there are many legal scholars prepared to argue that treaties may be valid even without going through the cumbersome process entailed by the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. My Constitutional law professor taught me that treaties supersede the Constitution!
Consider also that in the very near future, you will be hearing a great deal about a proposed UN Treaty that is being touted as a “common sense” agenda to limit trafficking in small arms- a solution to international terrorism and other criminal activities. The only problem is that everywhere we look in the world, the thugs in high places are busy building up arsenals, while the honest folks are mostly disarmed- except in the United States of America.
The DC v Heller case makes it far more difficult for the executive branch of the federal government, Congress or a federal judge interpreting an international treaty to undermine the protection that Washingtonians enjoy under various state laws.
In a very real sense, the Second Amendment helps to protect our First Amendment rights. But guns have no inherent ability to guarantee that we will remain a free people. Vigilance and prayer must secure liberty.
In conclusion, you should take a final look at a not-so-apparent but self-evident truth. The right to protect our loved ones does not come from a constitution or other legal document. Protecting our families and communities from violence is not really even a right! It is a duty that is placed on us by God. The soccer-mom or senior citizen that might be carrying a concealed pistol often represents as much of a deterrent to violent crime as a six foot, two-hundred pound police officer. Why? Because predators never know where and when the armed citizen may respond with deadly force!
Permalink
STOPPING DOMESTIC GUN OWNER ABUSE
Firearms were used in 54 percent of the state’s domestic violence-related homicides since 1997. The Tacoma News Tribune states that abusers used firearms in 232 of 430 deaths that resulted from domestic violence between Jan. 1, 1997, and June 30, 2008. These statistics must cause all of us to be concerned.
See State Report Takes On Domestic Violence, By Stacey Mulick.
Statewide in the last two years, 68 women, men and children were killed in domestic violence incidents; 33 victims were shot. Should we look at how the criminal justice system can take further steps to get the weapons out of the hands of convicted abusers?
Under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment and Washington state law, people convicted of domestic violence, including law enforcement officers and members of the military, are not allowed to possess firearms- no exceptions for police and military. These laws make it difficult to attract and retain personnel! Even authorizing a soldier to handle a weapon while stateside puts his command at risk of criminal prosecution.
Domestic violence laws like the federal Lautenberg Amendment make recruiting and retention of police and military personnel difficult. At one time there were exceptions for police and members of the military:
“For more than thirty years, the Gun Control Act of 1968 has provided the basic framework for gun control in the United States.” The law prohibited convicted felons from possessing firearms, but it provided an exception for members of the government, such as police and military members. This new Amendment, however, does NOT include such a provision. If, however, an officer is convicted of a felony version of domestic violence, the exception applies and the officer may continue to possess a weapon for the performance of his duties.
Since the Lautenberg Amendment became effective, officers who are convicted of a misdemeanor version of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms, even on duty. This inconsistency in the statute has left police and military administrators in a difficult situation regarding the assignment of officers who are affected, although the number of officers affected has been relatively low. This statute also reaches back to prior convictions and applies them to prohibit officers from possessing firearms today, even when they have lawfully been armed officers for years.”
Thus, there are still exceptions that apply for military and police where DV protection orders have been entered and, ironically, where the DV conviction is a felony and not a misdemeanor!
§ 925. Exceptions: Relief from disabilities
(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922 (d)(9) and 922 (g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922 (p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.
The impact on recruitment and retention becomes evident once you realize how little it takes to get arrested for domestic violence when a mandatory arrest staute is in place. Mandatory arrest laws enacted in Washington and many other states make officers liable for any mistakes that result from exercise of discretion in making arrests for domestic violence. Thus, almost any hearsay accusation or circumstantial evidence (such as a case in which an officer responds to a 911 caller that was just driving by) can result in an arrest, no-contact orders and a chain of legal events that becomes so complicated and bewildering that defendants often feel that pleading guilty is their only choice.
The “victim” often pleads with the prosecutors to drop the case and a great deal of pressure, including threats of prosecution against the victim, are often employed in order to gain the testimony of the “complainant witness ” that may have never initiated the complaint at all. The State has sole control over whether to proceed with the charges in Washington State and in King County and Seattle rarely dismisses cases even when the “victim” is vehemently denying that any assault ever occurred.
Even when a woman denies that an assault has occurred her husband or boyfriend is prone to be arrested, jailed and charged despite the responding officers’ common sense determinations. This is because of the technical fact that probable cause exists and failure to arrest makes officers liable for any mistaken judgment that results in death or injury to the “victim“.
Every officer, prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer is familiar with the problem of how unfair the system is to men. Nevertheless, no politician, prosecutor or judge is going to position himself or herself to look soft on domestic abusers! The coalition of DV activists in Western Washington is ferocious to any official that crosses their agenda:
A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section….
© The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes: (i) A felonious assault has occurred; (ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or (iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider:
(i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010;
(ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury;and
(iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved.
“This degree of statutory control leaves the officers with little discretion, imposing a duty upon the officers to make arrests in most cases. The result is that officers make arrests in marginal situations, essentially because they are “afraid not to. Officers tend to err on the side of the statute’s demand for an arrest, even when they believe an arrest is unnecessary.”
See Impact of Domestic Violence On Law Enforcement.
Permalink
George Soros, a billionaire currency speculator whose origins are in Eastern Europe, invested heavily in the Obama campaign.
Is Soros funding tied to Soros’ currency speculation? What about Soros’ alleged international manipulation of currencies? It is becoming increasingly clear that tax exempt foundations, financed through a complex web of interlocking interests, are dictating U.S. economic policy. For instance, the Apollo Alliance has now been identified as the source of much of the stimulous legislation that has impacted the U.S. in an unpredictable way that economists are still trying to fathom at this time.
As the U.S. currency faces a devaluation that may cause the dollar to become worthless, why hasn’t the vaunted free press told us more about Soros, a currency speculator and short seller, and how Soros, an international fugitive, is related to Obama’s economic policies?
According to Michelle Malkin:
The far Left Center for American Progress has its tentacles everywhere.
I noted in my column on the Internet Snitch Brigade this morning that former CAP operatives have been installed at HHS and work closely with the health care czar.
At Newsbusters, Seton Motley reports on the new FCC “Diversity Officer” — a racial engineering czar who has been targeting conservative talk radio since his days working for CAP.
Know your enemy:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.
But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”
Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”
* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Note the use of of “localism” to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations. The National Endowment for the Arts began to use NEA subsidized artists to produce agitprop artistic expressions trumpeting the Administration’s agenda.
We also saw the President go directly to school children with a message that would have focused on Obamahood had it not been for the vigilance of concerned parents. All these developments are part and parcel of the Soros driven agenda.
Accusations against “astroturfers” displaying “brownshirt” tendencies at Town Hall Meetings, agitation and adulation on behalf of the president- all are common denominators in socialistic societies from Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela to North Korea. Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government is also closely associated with the Soros network.
One aspect of the Obama administration that is becoming apparent is that there are so many organizations that are connected at the hip to the President. Many of the communications that seem to originate from the President’s operations may be coming from people that take advantage of the apparent ease with which statements can be posted. Maybe this is by design? In the intelligence world this is called plausible deniability.
The controversies surrounding Van Jones (the Obama Administration’s Communist Green Jobs Czar) have become a case in point. Jones, a product of the environmental movement, had previously directed a Marxist group that followed the police around in order to monitor civil rights violations. He emerged from a tangle of George Soros funded foundations. Over the weekend of September 6, 2009, as the Administration defended the President’s unprecedented bid to insert his own personality into the educational process, Jones suddenly resigned.
But who is Deepak Bhargava?
Permalink
Nickels Missing; Seattle Finds Smoking Gun Dec 17, ‘08 1:14 AM
by Mark S. Knapp, Federal Way
Subsequent to publishing the following article, Nickels issued his edict. He is now out of office and his successor and the City of Seattle are battling at least two legal actions that the City cannot expect to win:
Mayor Nickels wrote to the Speaker of our State House of Representatives, Hon. Frank Chopp, on May 4, 2006. Greg Nickels stated:
“State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”
-Mayor Greg Nickels, May 4, 2006.
For several months after the Mayor Nickel held public hearings on his plans to ban guns on City property, he seemed to know that the legal action ready to be filed by the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington can seriously hurt the City. Then in March, 2009, the Mayor’s office indicated that the edict will go into effect on a yet to be announced date. See Workman.
During his nonappearance at the public hearings held to air his edict banning carry of weapons on most city premises and parks, the Mayor clearly created an unrebuttable presumption that he has delusions of grandeur that are more characteristic of Cook County political personalities than the traits we see in our Seattle politicians.
Maybe guilty of malfeasance and violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by reason of insanity will be his plea? Official misconduct to deprive citizens of privileges and immunities is a form of reckless disregard of the Mayor’s official duties and oath of office, according to one retired Coast Guard member. “Gun free zones don’t work,” the indignant citizen proclaimed as he stood there, still a watchman on the stormy sea of liberty. This theme was repeated by several speakers until finally one impassioned lady cried, “The reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you guys just don’t hear us!” The people of Mumbai seem to have heard the message better thsn the Mayor.
I read in the newspaper this week that a guy in Mexico makes a little boat that stays right below the water and leaves no heat signature because the exhaust pipes are under water. They cost a million dollars but drug dealers buy them up faster than the government can eliminate them. A terrorist could never bring a crew to Seattle like that? Those guys only know how to handle weapons of mass destruction like nukes and crude biological stuff. They would never get in an underwater boat and come to a friendly town like Seattle where everybody except Weyerhauser Corporation loves trees. But then again, the boat has a range of 2,000 some miles…. I digress.
According to FBI crime statistics, there were 9,000 hate crimes in 2007 and 41% of those crimes occurred in public buildings such as the Seattle City Hall. Back in 2008, the Mayor announced that he had legal authority to ban weapons on City property. That is when the public hearings occurred. Since then, the number of approved applications for Concealed Pistol Licenses has increased and so have gun sales in King County.
Yvonne Ward, a civil rights lawyer that represents crime victims, was present at the hearing and told the City of Seattle exactly why Mayor Nickels’ gun ban will make victims more vulnerable to men that prey on women. The Mayor’s edict victimizes women twice by making criminals of those that disobey the law.
Ms. Ward, an Asian-American leader who definitely carries, was among many that provided public comment and then asked, “Where is Mayor Nickels?” The Mayor was conspicuously absent. The hearing, held on Bill of Rights Day, was replete with doctors, retired veterans, academics (including a UW professor emeritus) and victims of violent crimes- all opposed to Nickels’ decree.
One of the few that favored the ban claimed to speak for the Jewish Federation insisting that disarming honest people on City property is a “common sense” way to stop hate crimes like the shootings that occurred at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters. I asked the speaker wouldn’t he be safer having armed citizens nearby? He abruptly cut off the discussion with me in the hallway.
A survivor of the same hate crime (committed by a menatlly ill person of Middle Eastern ancestry who became agitated when Israel went into Lebenon a few years ago) said her niece was also a victim. She also stated that she is a board member of Washington Ceasefire. These were some of the few that favored the gun ban. Several speakers made reference to Hitler and Lenin’s outspoken support for gun control, the point being that all dictators share the same sentiments as Washington Ceasefire.
Joe Waldron came from sunny Florida to point out that if you lock your weapon in the car in order to comply with the Mayor’s edict you run the risk of getting your weapon stolen like Gil Kerlikowske- the former Seattle PD Chief’s gun was stolen from his vehicle and is now a potential instrumentality of criminal violence on the streets! Evidently the Obama Administration overlooked little problems like the lost gun and the fact that his son has a drug problem. He is now slated to be the nation’s new drug chief!
Speakers favoring responsible self-defense included self-professed “liberals” and gay people that are opposed to becoming victims. A rape victim stated that she would be terrified to walk in a Seattle park near her home without concealed carry. Many fathers also expressed safety concerns about taking their families to parks without the ability to protect their kids. Judges and prosecutors might also have concerns about their own personal safety traversing City property but none were present to testify. In Seattle, many folks use Metro and cannot lock their weapons in the car to enter property belonging to Mayor Nickels. You may or may not be surprised how many lawyers carry- for good reason.
One of these days I would like to write an article analyzing the statistical probability that ethnic minorities will be victims of violent crime compared to statistics for non-minority Caucasians. Of over 150 people present from many races and backgrounds, there must have been twenty that favored the Nickels Gun Ban.
Most of those that favored the change seemed to be spokespersons from Ceasefire. They used words like illogical to characterize armed self-defense. Hmmmmm….
Permalink
Yakima Mayor Edler recently announced that he joined Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Yakima is dealing with a string of gang-related shootings that have rocked the City of Yakima. MAIG’s Mission Statement declares:
“We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns.”
The anti-gun mayors’ group does not support the right to bear arms, however. MAIG has stated that “a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”
Many of the positions taken by MAIG around the U.S. violate our Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.290 which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” within Washington State. Thus, our state firearms preemption law prohibits local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law.
Yakima’s City Council recently decided to repeal two illegal firearms restrictions that violate state preemption law.
A nineteen year old man was shot dead during an argument yesterday (September 17, 2009) at the Federal Way Transit Center. There have been previous shootings there, including the death of an innocent bystander.
Federal Way’s neighboring mayor, Pete Lewis of Auburn, and other Washington mayors presumably join Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to combat violent crime and make cities like Auburn safer.
According to MAIG, more than 450 mayors from big cities and small towns across the country have joined the coalition. MAIG claims that it just seeks common sense solutions that may vary for different localities but MAIG’s real agenda (possibly unknown to well-intentioned mayors like Mr. Lewis- but unlikely at this point in time) is to restrict folks from exercising many of our gun rights, gradually removing the ability of citizens to stop violent crimes immediately by armed self-defense.
Legislation supported by MAIG includes repealing the Tiahrt Amendment which provides for trace data to be provided to law enforcement and prosecutors but prohibits providing firearms information for lawsuits aimed at closing down gun manufacturers and gun shops. The NRA and The Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing such data as releasing some of the data could jeopardize officer’s lives.
Mayor Bloomberg would restrict people on the terror watch list from buying or owning guns. Earlier this year, Homeland Security warned that some of our troops returning from combat zones pose a potential terrorist threat.
Do we want our returning servicemen and women placed on a watch list and losing their right to keep and bear arms? Once on the list, many Americans have found that there is no way to get off of it- even where the government admits a mistake has been made.
Mayor Nickels of Seattle, a founding member of MAIG, announced again that he is prepared to proceed with an illegal gun ban on city premises despite the certainty that he will soon be leaving office (he did not make it past the primary due to the unpopular style of his governance in the Emerald City). Despite Washington’s firearms preemption law and an imminent legal challenge that Seattle cannot win, Seattle’s lame-duck mayor is foisting huge legal expenses on Seattle’s taxpayers. Isn’t it less expensive to simply punish violent predators to the maximum extent of the law? But Nickels, like a few of Seattle’s other anti-gun politicians now in Washington, DC, is feathering his own nest in hopes of a salaried position with MAIG or even a position in the Obama Administration.
See Dave Workman.
MAIG is against HR 2296 and S. 941 which would clarify the standards and improve the process for imposing penalties related to intentional violations of federal gun laws. MAIG’s opposition is apparently because the proposals are not hard enough on simple paperwork mistakes that can presently result in the BATF harassing and even closing down legitimate gun dealers!
MAIG’s present goal in Washington State is apparently to remove the so-called “gun show loophole”. The argument (shown to be false by Department of Justice statistics) is that, since people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check, many criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows. The Washington Arms Collectors, the organization that hosts many gun shows in Washington, requires that only WAC members (all of whom have passed background checks) can purchase weapons at gun shows. Dealers still have to perform NICS checks at gun shows just like they do in their regular place of business.
Under present Washington law, private parties can presently buy or sell weapons away from gun shows without any background check. Will MAIG want legislation closing the private party loophole next?
Efforts to prevent the existence of any loopholes work better in totalitarian societies. Laws already enacted need to be enforced more strictly before we give up our freedom. Let’s make society safer by making things harder for the predators, not for law abiding gun owners.
You can find out whether your mayor is a member of MAIG with the handy NRA list from the NRA-ILA. The following Washington mayors (as of August 20th, 2009) are involved in this anti-civil rights organization:
Mayor Peter B. Lewis
Auburn, WA
Mayor Cary Bozeman
Bremerton, WA
Mayor Greg Nickels
Seattle, WA
Mayor Bill Baarsma
Tacoma, WA
Mayor Royce Pollard
Vancouver, WA
Mayor David Edler
Yakima, WA
I have recently been collecting links to articles about organizations like ACORN and other tax-exempt organizations, many funded by billionaire George Soros. Looking at how extreme left-wing Marxists (like Van Jones) seem to be appearing, often without Senate confirmation, within the upper levels of the federal government made me think of a book that I read many years ago about the vast array of strategies that wasps have developed for producing larvae within the living bodies of other organisms, including their own kind. Eventually the larvae destroy the organism within which they hatch but a horrifying variety of deceptions occur in order to ensure that the wasp life-cycle is perpetuated.
As I recollect, a certain female wasp seduces a male and then reaches around behind the male with her long tail and injects her eggs into her partner. Thus, the elegant cpmmencement of the male’s slow demise occurs during the sex act while in in flight! There ware many more scenarios that cover a bewildering variety of wasps existing in every conceivable natural environment upon the earth. I was looking for the book when I came across the following article at the Jerusalem Post’s website:
REGARDLESS OF their huge size and fearsome appearance, tarantulas are themselves the prey to a specialized and efficient predator, the spider wasp. Sometimes called tarantula hawks, they are solitary wasps belonging to two genera: Pepsis and Hemipepsis. These insects are large and conspicuous. Most species have bright red, yellow or orange wings with iridescent black or blue bodies. They are impossible to miss.
Several times I watched female Israeli spider wasps of the species Hemipepsis brunnea search for and find a tarantula, sting it with their paralyzing venom and then drag it to their lairs where they deposit an egg onto the still living, but paralyzed spider. The wasp then closes the lair and in some cases camouflages it. The egg develops into a larva that feeds on the living spider. The stuff of horror movies.
In a variation of this story, David Ward and Joh Henschel from the University of British Columbia in Canada studied a different spider wasp (Pseudopompilus humboldti) that lives in the Negev. They found that these wasps placed their paralyzed spider at the entrance of the spider’s own nest, exposed to birds and other animals which sometimes ate them. Why would the wasps not do more to protect their developing progeny?
Ward and Henschel hypothesized that temperatures in the Negev were so high that if the wasps didn’t place them thus, their larvae would be unable to develop. Sure enough, when the scientists moved the paralyzed spiders to a deeper, more protected area of the nests, the wasp larvae became too hot and died. It was better to risk some predation than the certainty of their larvae dying from excessive heat.
BUT THE adaptations of these wasps are dwarfed by Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga, another solitary wasp studied by Dr. William Eberhard of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Costa Rica. He found that this wasp actually changes the behavior of the spider for its own benefit. These wasps don’t paralyze the spider, instead they stick their egg on an active spider and the wasp larva feeds on the spider’s juices, much like a tick sucks blood. However, right before the larva is about to build a cocoon so that it can metamorphose into an adult wasp, it injects the spider with a drug. Suddenly instead of building a typical web, the spider builds a tangled structure that is devoid of the sticky threads normally used to catch insects, and is instead perfect to carry the wasp’s cocoon. After doing the wasp’s bidding the spider dies.
So the wasps prey on the spiders, sometimes with extraordinary powers, but what preys on the wasps? It turns out nothing preys on these creatures; they live la dolce vita at the very pinnacle of the food chain.
Even if we suddenly had a new administration tomorrow, the larvae of a new kind of politician has hatched within the party machines and within the bureaucracy itself. The body of the host organism- the American people and our political leadership- has lost the ability to formulate reasoned policy responses in the face of a number of challenges, any one of which threatens our continued existence. The news media lack the will to report many of the threats. Maybe due to anxiety about obtaining stimulus money when the “mainstream” news media’s house of cards crashes.
A case in point is the way in which ACORN now receives billions in federal stimulus money- no one is even sure exactly how many billions! Nevertheless, ACORN which agitated for affordable housing via loans to low-income, high-risk borrowers, is one of the biggest recipients of the largesse distributed by the Obama Administration. The funds are going to encourage “community organizing” at exactly the time that the housing bubble created by ACORN’s allies in Congress (along with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac- Government Sponsored Entities overseen by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) has reduced the American financial system to a state of helplessness. Now the introduction of more affordable government sponsored health care is being sold as a cure for the current economic ailments. Enuf said?
Permalink
If you falter in times of trouble, how small is your strength! Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.
Proverbs 24:10-12
The terrorist attack on Mumbai, India in November, 2008 lasted 60 hours. The fact that news media focused on the attack for such an extended period of time amplified the emotional impact.
A 2006 train bombing in Mumbai killed more people but the 172 people that were gunned down marked a new level of terror because of the way that ten shooters were able to move through the city without any effective response from India’s law enforcement or military for several hours. Experts studying the operation have concluded that many aspects of the attack demonstrate new tactics that should be expected in future operations.
Detailed surveillance and planning began at least as early as 2007. The attackers sailed from Karachi but, according to some accounts, at least some of the shooters had already been in the city posing as students. The ten attackers hijacked a trawler, killed the whole crew and then beheaded the captain when they got near enough Mumbai to come ashore in two inflatable boats.
Each terrorist carried a Chinese version of the AK-47 (AK-56 automatic assault rifle) with seven 30 round magazines and 9-mm pistols with two clips. Additionally they carried 8-10 grenades each and IEDs containing RDX, ball bearings for shrapnel, and a timer. There were Heckler & Koch MP5 machine guns that may have been taken from downed Indian security personnel and accounts of prepositioned ammunition caches.
The four teams were able to keep moving and created enough confusion that the police could not seal off an area quickly enough to contain the shooters. The Indian police were totally outgunned as a result of the fact that their government does not trust the police to arm officers properly or even to provide enough ammunition for officers to practice properly. Nevertheless, whenever the shooters were confronted with armed force they moved on to other targets.
Mumbai is a financial center and contains a hub of hotels and other facilities that cater to elite businessmen and foreigners. The terrorists targeted middle class Indians and American, British and jewish travelers that normally utilize the restaurants and hotel facilities.
A two man team went to the train station and opened fire. Then they went to a hospital and began killing again. The team hijacked a police car and headed to a hotel when they were intercepted by the police. One terrorist was killed and the other captured but they caused a third of the total fatalities.
Meanwhile, a second team went to the Nariman House, a Jewish complex. This second two-man team killed eight. A third two-man team went to the Trident-Oberoi Hotel and began cutting people down with automatic weapons fire. During the 17 hours that the hotel was under siege two terrorists killed 30 people and then were themselves killed. The fourth team was a four-man team and deployed to the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
Chronology of the Attack
November 26, 2008 (all times are local)
21:20 Gunfire outside the Hotel Oberoi at Nariman Point in south Mumbai.
21:20 Terrorists run into Nariman House, where they take control of the Chabad Lubavich center.
21:30 Gunfire outside the Leopold Café at Colaba in south Mumbai, about 100 meters behind the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
21:40 Gunfire near the Bade Miyan Café (behind the Taj Hotel in south Mumbai).
21:45 Terrorists enter Taj Hotel lobby and fire indiscriminately.
21:45 Gunfire inside the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), Mumbai’s central train station. There are ten fatalities there.
22:30 Gunfire at the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai headquarters gate 2, opposite the CST.
22:35 Gunfire at Gokuldas Hospital, near the CST.
22:40 Gunfire at the Cama & Albless Hospital, near the CST.
22:50 Gunfire at the Metro Theatre (Metro Cinema Junction).
23:00 Explosion in a taxi in Vile Parle in north Mumbai. (This is one of the IEDs left behind in the taxi.)
23:00 Explosion in a taxi in Mazgaon—probably the second IED left behind.
23:10 Two explosions at Napean Sea Road in south Mumbai.
23:30 Explosion at Dhobi Talao.
November 27, 2008
00:30 Gunfire after a police van was hijacked at Dhobi Talao.
01:00 Immense blast in the Taj Hotel, possibly caused by two grenades.
02:00 Army arrives at the Taj Hotel.
03:00 Large fire breaks out at the Taj Hotel.
09:15 Army arrives at Oberoi Hotel, storm hotel.
09:15 Security forces engage in first attempt to retake the Taj Hotel.
10:30 Security forces engage in room-to-room searches at the Taj Hotel.
17:30 NSG forces arrive at Nariman House. Helicopters begin surveillance.
November 28, 2008
07:30 NSG forces storm Nariman House.
11:00 Hostage siege ends at the Hotel Oberoi, hostages released.
11:00 NSG forces report that they have cleared the new section of the Taj Hotel.
13:00 Indian security forces report 30 people dead in one Taj Hotel hall.
18:00 Operations reported to have ceased at Nariman House. However, NDTV reports that one floor still has not been cleared.
19:45 All NSG forces emerge from Nariman House, stating that no one was found alive.
November 29, 2008
04:30 Gunfire and explosions heard at the Taj Hotel.
07:30 Fire breaks out on the lower floors of the Taj Hotel.
08:50 Taj Hotel hostage siege declared over, according to Indian police.
By moving constantly, the shooters eluded commandos for 60 hours. Explosions, demands to release imprisoned Muslim fighters in exchange for hostages and detailed knowledge of buildings and streets all contributed to the tactical team’s ability to sow confusion and continue moving. The attackers only attacked in areas where the security was nonexistent or very light. They used cell phones, Satellite phones and Blackberries; handlers in Pakistan provided tactical advice and urged the young men not to be taken alive and to continue killing because the prestige of Islam was at stake.
By identifying goals that exceeded anything that had occurred prior to the attack, the planners boosted LeT’s ability to recruit jihadists within India and worldwide; the organization also gained prestige within the culture of terrorism, thus grasping parity with al Qaeda. The planners, almost certainly affiliated with elements of the Pakistani government also were attempting to destabilize the Pakistani civilian government’s relationship with the United States and other countries, including India itself. The Indian government demonstrated a complete lack of ability to protect its citizens.
Even though it had recently created an elite anti-terror force and intelligence personnel intercepted “chatter” pertaining to an imminent attack, the information was not disseminated from the central security agencies to the local police and coast guard at least in a manner that local security forces took any effective action.
The local Anti-Terrorism Squad was inadequately trained to seal off multiple attacks designed to create exactly the kind of confusion experienced by the first responders. Local army personnel took five hours to arrive. The elite National Security Guard, India’s most elite strike force, did not arrive for almost 10 hours. Counterterrorism experts allow 30-60 minutes from the time an incident commences but the NSG (or Black Cat Commandos) headquartered in Delhi had no aircraft and so the 200 commandos had to patch together air transportation in a helter-skelter manner.
Police officers were often seen hiding behind buildings with their heads down. Helmets and vests were substandard and many officers carried British .303 bolt-action rifles from the 50s. Most Indian officers are only provided with 50 rounds of ammunition per year with which to practice because of corruption and a colonial mentality that deems weapons to be dangerous even in the hands of law enforcement officers.
According to a TimesOnline article, Outgunned Mumbai police hampered by First World War weapons, Dec. 3, 2008:
Most of the police involved were carrying .303s or self-loading rifles like those adopted by the British Army in the 1950s.
Some officers said that they were not given enough weapons training because of a shortage of ammunition and shooting ranges. In theory, all officers shoot 50 rounds a year in training. In practice, senior officers get their full quota with small arms.
“The rest is all bunkum,” Mr Pereira said. “It’s target practice with a .303 rifle. I wouldn’t call it suitable knowledge of weapons and their uses in urban policing.”
All those interviewed said that the issue was not money: the Government allocated £154 million for modernising the police in 2007-08 alone. The problem, they said, lay with the Home Ministry’s procurement system, which is dominated by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians rather than technical experts.
“It’s a cartel,” Mr Singh said. “The Government is spending millions, but the police isn’t getting the equipment it needs.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5276283.ece
Thus, India’s strict gun laws severely hampered the ability of citizens and law enforcement to protect themselves from the armed attacks.
The low-tech nature of the equipment, the drawn out horror of a paralyzed city and the prestige garnered by mass carnage ensures that such an attack is being planned in the U.S. Are we ready?
Permalink
