The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, June 19, 2004
This Must Drive The Left Crazy All this bad news about Iraq--and public support for the war increases. The Pew poll completed June 3-13 finds that since May: The number of Americans who think the U.S. military effort is going well has jumped from 46% in May to 57%, despite ongoing violence in Iraq and the widening prison abuse scandal. And the percentage of the public who believes it was right to go to war inched up to 55%, from 51% in May.The poll also finds that Americans are tuning out the war--perhaps because the media coverage is so absurdly biased that it is hard to take it seriously? I'm no big fan of democracy, but compared to a bunch of rich elitists, I'll take my chances with the masses. Friday, June 18, 2004
Putin Backs Up Bush's Fear Of Iraq The Boston Globe carried this story that suggests that Bush's concern about Iraq attacking the U.S. had legitimate basis: WASHINGTON -- President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that his government had warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was preparing attacks on US soil and on American interests abroad before the US invasion of Iraq. But US officials expressed surprise at Putin's remarks.If you want to argue that the Bush Administration did a bad job in administering post-war Iraq, there's a real argument on that. I can think of several mistakes that they made. 1. Disbanding the Iraqi Army, for example. Of course, had we not disbanded the Iraqi Army, leaving a number of Baathists in charge of military units, and some general decided to attack Coalition forces, Bush would have been blamed for that as well. 2. Failing to secure the borders of Iraq. The U.S., of course, knows how to secure its own borders so well, doesn't it? 3. Failure to disarm the population of Iraq, in the hopes of disarming various insurgents. Of course, had we tried that, we would have been blamed for the murders (both political and common criminal) that took place in the aftermath. The U.S. has not occupied and pacified another nation of any size since World War II--and immediate post-war Germany wasn't a cakewalk, either. Thursday, June 17, 2004
Pictures From My Recent Trip To Moscow Moscow, Idaho, that is, where the University of Idaho is located. (I combined a research trip with a visit to my daughter, who is a student there.) Boise isn't terribly pretty; we are on the edge of a desert. But just 25 miles north of here, on the road to Moscow, it gets very pretty. 
One of the more entertaining aspects of a college town are the bumper stickers. The ones that are not just crude are sometimes very clever, and this trip was no exception. (I admit, nothing tops the "Eschew Obfuscation" bumper sticker I saw in the early 1970s.) This one would have been a bit more clear if it had mentioned Dorothy's house: 
This one was on the back of a Jeep Cherokee--certainly more accurate for more SUV owners than the "Trail Rated" slogan that Jeep uses: 
This is a parody of a parody. Remember "Visualize World Peace" and then "Visual Whirled Peas"? 
Here's a cute business sign: 
For those of you overseas, Idaho is known for its potatoes, although they don't grow them in the Moscow end of the state. How can you tell that a car has been sitting too long? When the plants are growing up through the radiator: 
When Did Our Government First Say Iraq & Al-Qaeda Were Working Together? In 1998. See this press release concerning a federal grand jury indictment of bin Laden: According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.If you want to say that Bush was wrong about such a connection, fine. But he seems to be in pretty good company on this. Curious About the Lack of Activity Here? I've been in classes this whole week, 8:30 to 5:00. Discrete Fourier Transforms? Discrete Cosine Transforms? They still seem a little too much like magic to me. Watching the instructor explain how JPEG uses DCT reminded me of why I didn't major in math. I could follow the theory of this pretty well, but I would never have come up with schemes this fiendishly devious on my own. Don't You Wish This Creativity Was Put To Better Use? A new host for computer viruses: The world's first computer virus to be spread by mobile phones has been unleashed. Here's Your Clue: Robbery Isn't Normally Done For Revenge Is anyone really this clueless about why robbers rob convenience stores? From Houston's Click2Houston.com of June 17, 2004: Robbed Store Owners Fight Back Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Promoting Pedophilia Nicole Kidman should be ashamed of herself. And the fact that a major studio has to "consider" whether to withdraw from a project with a nude erotica bathing scene involving a ten year old boy and an adult woman says how far down the society has gone. I guess the only good sign is that Instapundit was apparently sufficiently disturbed to link to the story. (At least, I am hoping that he is disturbed.) Monday, June 14, 2004
It Almost Reads Like a Parody... of attempts to get the attention of 20-something guys long enough to interest them in politics. "Swimsuits And Politics From Bikini Supermodel, Political Columnist And Celebrity, Gabrielle Reilly," in which a conservative fashion model shows enough to be stimulating, as opposed to crass--while making some pretty thoughtful remarks about politics. I found the link here, and that link here. Rhode Island Supreme Court Decision The first time that I have been cited in a state supreme court decision! (Okay, it's the dissent, but I'm still happy.) (The more I think about this decision, all I can say is, "If the guy that wrote this decision was driving instead, I'd ticket him for weaving.) Rhode Island has a discretionary permit law; the Rhode Island Supreme Court has just handed down a decision based on a lawsuit by two people who applied for permits, but were turned down. The decision is here. There are a variety of interesting points in the majority opinion: In 1998, plaintiffs submitted separate applications to the department seeking permits to carry concealed weapons pursuant to the Firearms Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 47 of title 11. The department, under § 11-47-18(a), is authorized to issue a concealed weapons permit “upon a proper showing of need.” According to plaintiffs’ complaint, Mosby sought a permit because he is a gun collector who sometimes travels with large amounts of money. Golotto, a self-employed shopkeeper, submitted his application because he also travels with large amounts of money and is concerned about the number of robberies in the area where his shop is located.After rejecting the plaintiffs' applications, and refusing to reconsider: In June 1999, the department first promulgated a document setting forth its guidelines for reviewing applications to obtain a permit under the Firearms Act. At the time plaintiffs submitted their applications, the department had no written guidelines explaining the application process or the criteria used to review applications. The plaintiffs’ applications were judged based on an unpublicized standard, under which individual applications were considered on a case-by-case basis. Decisions of the department were made based upon whether the applicant had demonstrated “an articulable risk” to his life or property and whether the applicant could change his lifestyle to prevent the need for a permit.I'm not sure what "lifestyle" would put you at risk. An occupation might; a particular residence might. Tell me, why should any law-abiding citizen have to change their "lifestyle" to reduce their risk? It might be wise, but why should the victims have to change, rather than put the criminals at risk? The decision is definitely trying to have it both ways about what the Rhode Island Constitution's right to keep and bear arms provision protects. First, they make the claim--without any supporting evidence--that: Article 1, section 22 of the Rhode Island Constitution provides that: “[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By its express terms, it cannot be denied that art. 1, sec. 22 recognizes some form of a right to keep and bear arms. To discern the nature and extent of the right, however, we must look beyond the plain text of that provision. It seems clear from even a cursory review of the various versions of the right to bear arms, as reflected in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and in several state constitutions, that these provisions implicitly, if not explicitly, encompass the concept of “bearing arms” for the common defense.There are a number of state constitutional provisions, some of which, like Massachusetts, that refer to "the common defence," but many others that are just as unadorned as the Rhode Island provision, which make no reference to common defense at all. The Rhode Island Supreme Court then went on to acknowledge that its only previous ruling on the meaning of the Rhode Island Constitution's provision, in State v. Storms (R.I. 1973) found it to be an individual right: As we discuss infra, based on the text, structure and history of the constitution, we hold that art. 1, sec. 22 provides individuals with a right to keep and bear arms, subject, however, to reasonable regulation by the state in exercising its police power.Hmmm. So why would a right "for the common defense" be an individual right? Then the Court agrees, after much hemming and hawing, that the right is individual: There is no indication that the framers of the Rhode Island Constitution intended to attribute a restricted meaning to the phrase “the people” in art.1, sec. 22. Accordingly, we attribute the ordinary meaning to the phrase “the people;” i.e., that it includes all inhabitants of the state. Thus, like the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and other rights provided to “the people,” we believe that the right provided in art. 1, sec. 22 flows to the people individually.Okay, that's clear enough. Now they start hemming and hawing again: We now must consider what the right to “keep and bear” arms entails. We are of the opinion that the “keeping” and “bearing” of arms involve different concepts. So holding, we are able to attribute significance to both of the terms use in that phrase. See Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 45 (noting that constitutional terms imply a definite meaning).Then they claim that Aymette v. State (Tenn. 1840) should be the controlling determinant of what "keep" and "bear" mean, and that only for a military purpose should the right to "bear" arms be understood. The problem is that the Tennessee Constitution's provision does specify "for the common defence"--unlike the Rhode Island Constitution's provision. Furthermore, the Aymette decision explicitly rejected the dichotomy between "keep" and "bear" that the Rhode Island Supreme Court is making here: The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence.Then the decision goes weird on us. Having argued that there is a right to "keep" but not to "bear," the Court then decides that the particular statute by which the Rhode Island Attorney General "may" issue a permit is somewhat irrelevant, because another statute requires issuance: Two separate and distinct licensing procedures are set forth in the Firearms Act: § 11-47-18, now before the Court, provides for the discretionary grant of a firearms license by the department “upon a proper showing of need,” and § 11-47-11(a), a mandatory licensing provision that provides in pertinent part:Wow! At least we have a clear statement of a right to possess a firearm in one's home, and that cities have very limited discretion to refuse a concealed weapon permit--even for non-residents.“The licensing authorities of any city or town shall, upon application of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence or place of business within the city or town, or of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence within the United States and a license or permit to carry a pistol or revolver concealed upon his or her person issued by the authorities of any other state or subdivision of the United States, issue a license or permit to the person to carry concealed upon his or her person a pistol or revolver everywhere within this state for four (4) years from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.” (Emphases added.)Because the Firearms Act provides for both discretionary and mandatory licensing to qualified applicants, the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms is fulfilled. Mosby, a resident of Massachusetts who holds several gun licenses from other states, was entitled to a carrying permit from the licensing authority of any city or town. An avid gun collector, plaintiff has a proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver and there is no suggestion that he is an unsuitable person. In contrast to § 11-47-18, the statute now before the Court, § 11-47-11 is mandatory – an applicant who meets the criteria set forth in § 11-47-11 is entitled to a gun permit.... Even with respect to the discretionary authority of the Rhode Island Attorney General on the issuance of permits, there are some limits: Although we are satisfied that the licensing scheme set forth in the Firearms Act is both reasonable and lawful, we are mindful that decisions of the Attorney General in licensing matters are not immune from judicial review. As this Court’s decision in Storms clearly indicates, the Attorney General’s role under the Firearms Act is that of a finder of fact, not a master of puppets.And then they tell the Attorney General that they had better behave themselves: As a matter of policy, this Court will not countenance any system of permitting under the Firearms Act that would be committed to the unfettered discretion of an executive agency. Although the court’s authority to review the decision is limited, it is not nonexistent. One does not need to be an expert in American history to understand the fault inherent in a gun-permitting system that would allow a licensing body carte blanche authority to decide who is worthy of carrying a concealed weapon. The constitutional right to bear arms would be illusory, of course, if it could be abrogated entirely on the basis of an unreviewable unrestricted licensing scheme. Such review is available through a common-law writ of certiorari.I am overjoyed to report that this is the decision that the gun control groups have been crowing about all weekend long. They seem to have recognized a right to keep a gun in your home; a requirement for cities to issue permits on a non-discretionary basis (although the definition of "suitable" may cause some problems); a requirement for the Attorney General, even when issuing discretion, not to be corrupt about it; and that a permit system must not be "illusory." The dissenting opinion by Justice Flanders, of course, is wonderful, because it cites one of my books (my first citation in a state supreme court decision), but also because it points out the absurdity of the majority's opinion that tries to make "keep" an individual right, but "bear" a collective right: Thus, deciding constitutional cases is not an exercise in mediation or alternative dispute resolution. Attempts to “split the baby in half” when resolving constitutional questions are more apt to result in a doctrinal bloody mess than a correct resolution of the issues to be decided.While my book For the Defense of Themselves and the State gets cited a number of times, even better is how many obscure cases from my book get cited in the dissent as well--and using the points that I made from those cases. Labels: gun rights |
