Sunday, December 19, 2010

Quantum machine built

I want my food replicator dammit!

Link
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Owner of stolen car held liable for crash after theft.

Link

Apparently being stupid enough to leave your keys in the car is now something that can get you sued.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Obama's Royal Visit To Mumbai

So apparently our royal highness is visiting Mumbai. Presumably he is trying to get the hell out of the country that just bitch slapped his party.

Tell me this does not sound like a royal visit though:

First they are removing the coconuts from the trees near his visit
All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum, one of Mr Obama's stops in the city, are being taken down.

Mani Bhavan, where Mahatma Gandhi stayed during his freedom struggle against the British, is among five places the US president is visiting in Mumbai.

"We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Mani Bhavan's executive secretary, Meghshyam Ajgaonkar, told the BBC.


And they are building a bomb proof above ground tunnel for his vehicles:
Since it is difficult to monitor such a congested area, they came up with a quick solution which left the Indians accompanying them amazed: A bomb-proof over-ground tunnel — to be installed by US military engineers in just an hour.
The tunnel would be a kilometre long and measure 12ft by 12ft — enough to let Obama’s cavalcade pass through. The tunnel would be centrally air-conditioned, fitted with close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point, including, of course, its entry and exit.


Finally they are banning fireworks:
But for many Mumbaikers, Obama will get in the way of what they like best - a good party.
Fireworks, a highlight of any Diwali - after all, it is the festival of lights - will be banned in much of South Mumbai, where the president and his entourage will be based.


Finally, he will have 3000 people accompanying him along with a full compliment of 34 US Navy ships including a carrier:

He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday.


Apparently no one in the white house has ever heard of GoToMeeting...

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

New Jersey Gun Lawsuits On The Horizon

Link:

New Jersey’s extensive gun statutes may become ground zero in the coming litigation battles, said John Vincent Saykanic, a criminal defense attorney. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control group, ranked the state’s laws as the second strongest in the country after California’s.

New Jersey’s gun statutes require a person to obtain a police-issued permit for each handgun purchased. Permit applications also require a series of state and federal background checks, including fingerprinting. There are also limits on semi-automatic weapons.

Now, I believe that NJ is actually the perfect place for challenging a statewide AWB. The reason is that their AWB includes tube-fed rimfire weapons and there is no method for people in NJ to legally dispose of a banned weapon should they come to possess it. So if you find granddad's old .22 in the attic and even if you know it is an illegal assault weapon under state law, you are still a criminal if you try to turn it into the police.

For example, this rifle below is an illegal assault weapon in NJ.


That is a early 1950's J.C. Higgins .22 rifle that was sold in Sears and Roebuck stores. In all likelihood someone that reads this will have a parent that had one of these. In NJ, it is a Felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison to possess this rifle unless you registered it in the 1 year time frame after the AWB was passed.

That's right, the very rifle that many older readers may have carried to and from school on a regular basis, hunting rabbits and squirrels on the way home, back in the 1950's and 1960's is now an illegal assault weapon in NJ.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Mcdonald - More Comments and Quotes

Pg 37:

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

Pg 39:

It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

Pg 48:

First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.

Pg 49:

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

Pg 50-51:

We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered.

More tomorrow.

SAF Suing NC Over Guns In Emergencies Statute

From the SAF:

SAF NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA’S 'EMERGENCY POWERS' GUN BANS
For Immediate Release: 6/29/2010

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Grass Roots North Carolina – the state’s leading gun rights organization, and three private citizens, Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr. Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit contends that state statutes that forbid the carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also contend that a North Carolina law that allows government officials to prohibit the purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are also unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Second Amendment ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

“Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

SAF is once again being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who led the legal effort in the McDonald case and also won the historic Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. Local counsel are Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis with the firm of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC in Raleigh.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

NRA Preparing More Lawsuits

Story from Politico:

NRA prepares lawsuits in wake of Chicago verdict

The National Rifle Association is preparing legal challenge to restrictive gun laws in the wake of today's Supreme Court verdict that states — like the federal government — must allow their citizens to carry guns.

Gun control groups are minimizing the verdict, arguing that it doesn't necessarily conflict with carefully written, stringent laws (other than Chicago's). But NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox said the association sees an opportunity to dramatically expand the rights of citizens in liberal jurisdictions to carry guns, naming New York in particular as a target for change.

"The NRA is preparing [our] next round of legal challenges," Cox told me, declining to specify targets. "What [the Supreme Court] said is what we’ve said all along. Every law-abiding American has a right to a gun regardless of where they live."

"We’re going to be in coutrtooms making sure these aren't just words on a piece of paper," he said, adding that the NRA would also continue to work on loosening gun regulations in federal and state legislatures.

He turned to New York, though, as an example of restrictive laws.

"If you’re a Wall Street buddy of Bloomberg, if you’re a political buddy, if you’re a celebrity, you can carry a gun," he said. "If you're a regular working person in the Bronx who has to walk across parking lots late at night, absolutely not."



So much for all the people that I constantly hear say that the NRA does not do anything to help gun owners.

SCOTUSblog Commentary

Here

Here

And here

All great reads.

Clayton Cramer - McDonald Citation

Looks Like Clayton Cramer was cited in the decision.

McDonald Press Conference

Plaintiff Colleen Lawson and her attorney have a press conference:








McDonald Heh


Heh

McDonald V. Chicago - Notes on the Decision

Notes from the ruling:

Pg 4:

Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here.

Pg 5:

If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavor-able—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.
The respondents above refers to Chicago and it's suburbs.

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected be-cause they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

I bet that slap hurts, I am sure there are more to come.

Pg 7-8:
We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

That is the money quote there.

More later as I delve into the meat of the opinion

Another McDonald Presser

This time from Buckeye Firearms Association:

Buckeye Firearms Association is thrilled that the United States Supreme Court has ruled to strike down the ban on private ownership of firearms in Chicago. Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. The decision is a result of a case brought by Otis McDonald (and others) against the city of Chicago. Leaving no room for doubt, the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies to Mayor Daley and Chicago.

"While there is much work to be done, this decision is the first critical step towards universal self-defense rights," said Jim Irvine, President of Buckeye Firearms Foundation. Buckeye Firearms Foundation teamed up with the United States Concealed Carry Association to file an amicus brief in support of Mr. McDonald.

Irvine summarized the importance as follows: "The members of the United States Concealed Carry Association and the supporters of Buckeye Firearms Foundation travel regularly, and a robust Second Amendment applied against all cities and states is needed to insure that the right to self-defense travels with these people, the same as all their other rights. Finally, the Second Amendment is afforded equal dignity with the other constitutional rights we enjoy."

The Court's decision is being welcomed as a day of liberation for the law-abiding citizens of Chicago. After years of being held hostage to the murder and mayhem that has plagued the city without a means of self-defense, Chicagoans can finally exercise their right to bear arms and defend their home against the common thugs that used to act with impunity.

Chicago native and Buckeye Firearms Foundation board of directors member Gerard Valentino was elated by the ruling and is already making plans to help his elderly mother in purchasing her first gun. "Finally, my elderly mother and grandmother can live a little safer and with a little less fear because if someone breaks in they can have a gun for self-defense."

This article will be updated throughout the day.Buckeye Firearms Association is thrilled that the United States Supreme Court has ruled to strike down the ban on private ownership of firearms in Chicago. Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. The decision is a result of a case brought by Otis McDonald (and others) against the city of Chicago. Leaving no room for doubt, the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies to Mayor Daley and Chicago.

"While there is much work to be done, this decision is the first critical step towards universal self-defense rights," said Jim Irvine, President of Buckeye Firearms Foundation. Buckeye Firearms Foundation teamed up with the United States Concealed Carry Association to file an amicus brief in support of Mr. McDonald.

Irvine summarized the importance as follows: "The members of the United States Concealed Carry Association and the supporters of Buckeye Firearms Foundation travel regularly, and a robust Second Amendment applied against all cities and states is needed to insure that the right to self-defense travels with these people, the same as all their other rights. Finally, the Second Amendment is afforded equal dignity with the other constitutional rights we enjoy."

The Court's decision is being welcomed as a day of liberation for the law-abiding citizens of Chicago. After years of being held hostage to the murder and mayhem that has plagued the city without a means of self-defense, Chicagoans can finally exercise their right to bear arms and defend their home against the common thugs that used to act with impunity.

Chicago native and Buckeye Firearms Foundation board of directors member Gerard Valentino was elated by the ruling and is already making plans to help his elderly mother in purchasing her first gun. "Finally, my elderly mother and grandmother can live a little safer and with a little less fear because if someone breaks in they can have a gun for self-defense."

This article will be updated throughout the day.

Blogger Link Roundup - McDonald V. Chicago

Make sure to visit:

Saysuncle

Snowflakes in hell

The Volokh Conspiracy

Reason

SCOTUS Blog

David Codrea

Fox News On McDonald

Fox:

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail
Thanks again to Saysuncle for the link:

June 28, 2010

Firearms Industry Hails Victory in Supreme Court Second Amendment Case

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the trade association for the firearms industry - hailed today's United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito that ruled the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states and local government.

"Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said NSSF President Stephen L. Sanetti. “All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

The case before the Court, McDonald v. City of Chicago, was filed in 2008 a day after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller -- in which the high court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision, however, did not reach the question of whether the Second Amendment also applied to the states.

Immediately after Heller, several Chicago residents including retired maintenance worker Otis McDonald filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's long-standing gun ban. The Chicago-based federal courts ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and local governments, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to decide the question it left unanswered in its Heller decision.

"Today's decision marks the beginning of a new era of civil rights litigation as laws and regulations that infringe upon and violate the individual right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, are challenged,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “As the trade association for America’s firearms industry, our members make the products through which our Second Amendment rights are realized. Just as the First Amendment protects and shields newspapers and media, the Second Amendment secures constitutional protections for our industry.”

NSSF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of McDonald.

NRA Statement On McDonald V. Chicago

Thanks to Saysuncle for the link:

Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago

Monday, June 28, 2010

Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizen’s constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.

But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.

The intent of the founding fathers -- and the Supreme Court -- was to provide access. Words must have meaning.

The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

I’m a practical guy. I don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!

This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.

The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.

What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can’t buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?

Here’s a piece of paper – protect yourself. That’s no right at all!

Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.

McDonald V. Chicago

Alternate download link for the decision in case the .gov servers take a crap.


Here

McDonald V. Chicago

214 page opinion, Thomas apparently went for the P&I argument.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Monday, June 21, 2010

Shamless Post

M.D. Creekmore at The Survivalist Blog – a survival blog dedicated to helping others prepare for and survive disaster – with articles on bug out bag contents, survival knife choices and a wealth of other survival information is giving away a 1,000 round case of 9mm – 124 Grain FMJ (a $200 value – donated by LuckyGunner)! To enter, you just have to post about it on your blog. This is my entry. Visit The Survivalist Blog for the details.