The Supreme Court is not hearing Kachalsky v. Cacace, for now. This according to SCOTUSblog. Now what? I was hopeful that we'd have a case scheduled for the Fall session and this was the first one appealed this year. It is the second carry case denied review. The other being the reptile guy sleeping in his car in a national park with a gun and a carry permit.

Maybe the purists in the court want A.) a clean case (like Kachalsky v. Cacace) and B.) a clean split between circuits. Many including lead attorney Alan Gura felt that the win in Illinois and the loss in NY created a split. I always thought it wasn't perfect but good enough. Maybe NY having some form of carry and IL having none was different enough to disqualify it as a clean split? Also, the AG in IL never appealed to SCOTUS so that may have been a master stroke of strategy for the left. Now that SCOTUS denied review, IL can craft a NY style "may issue" scheme and buy some time for the gun free Illinois they so crave.

Do we need a win in NJ, CA at the court of appeals level to force a review? I don't know. Maybe the win at the district level in MD and the overturning at the review level is a good case. Maybe multiple losses will move them to review? Maybe a slight tweaking in the question being presented will force their hand? Maybe IL will now be emboldened to ask SCOTUS to review? I'm not sure what's the threshold one needs to cross in order to get "and bear" before the court. There are more conferences for SCOTUS this session and of course there are cases in the lower court of appeals waiting for ruling.

To say I'm disappointing is an understatement. I do however like the idea of the perfect case before the court that will force a perfect ruling so it can not be undone by some elected officials. I suppose the word for the day is patience.

White House Spam

Got this email from my new best friend David Simas. I'm going to substitute every reference of the scapegoat (guns) with the real problem. See if you can find Waldo in the corrected letter

Hello, all --

For the first time since the 1990s, Congress might be on track to pass legislation aimed at reducing criminal & crazy violence in the United States. And it's because folks in Washington are starting to understand that the rest of the country isn't going to sit by and let them ignore this issue. Your voices are the reason we have a chance to win this debate. The American people expect and demand a yes or no vote.

But this is a critical moment. It's been almost four months since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, thousands more Americans have died at the hands of criminal & crazy violence, and time is on the side of those who would prefer that we do nothing.

We want to make sure that your voices are impossible to ignore. So we're asking people from all over the country to speak out online in concert -- all at the same time. Will you join us?

Pledge to speak out about the need to reduce criminal & crazy violence.

It's easy to participate. Over the next few days, anyone can sign up to tweet or share a message to Facebook. Through that time, we'll gather up as many people as we can. Then we'll make sure that all these individual messages get posted together in the same moment for maximum effect.

That wave of social media will get seen by millions and millions of people.

We're talking about common-sense reforms. Like the idea that any of us who want to be criminal or crazy should have to go through a background check first -- which 90 percent of Americans support.

So let's make sure that there's absolutely no confusion about the public consensus.

Pledge to speak out with us, and then forward this email to your family and friends:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/now-is-the-time/action

Thanks!

David

David Simas
Deputy Senior Advisor
The White House 

Report of the NJ SAFE Task Force - Analysis Part One

"Most mass shootings appear to have been planned events. Regrettably, a person who is preparing for a mass shooting attack is likely to be able to acquire . . ."

As long as this holds my interest, I'll be commenting on this 95 page document. Don't think for a moment this is an exhaustive study of this report. I'm going to just talk about what interests me. For instance, the word planned on page 21 (the 33rd page of the pdf) should have been given a more thorough evaluation. Think about the difference between a crime of opportunity and an obsessively thought out plan. Since the genesis of all these gun control efforts is a school shooting, let's use an appropriate analogy. 

The reason kids have locks on their lockers is to keep someone from easily taking stuff that isn't theirs. The lock is a there to prevent crime of opportunity. Ever hear the expression "keep an honest man out"? Well that kinda sums it up. Contrast that to a kid who wants an iPad that he knows is in a locker during lunch. He knows the owner's schedule, what period they are at lunch, what floor the locker is on, what the number is on the locker, what implement to bring to pop the lock (screw driver is adolescent criminal tool of choice), the patrolling pattern of the hall monitor, what window he'll use to get the contraband out of the building so he can pass an exit pat down . . . Get the idea? That's a planned crime. No lock will stop this kid. He will get the iPad.

Now apply this to school shootings. It makes sense to prohibit teachers from leaving loaded guns on the window ledge while they leave the classroom. Dugh. That action would greatly increase the odds that a child could accidentally or purposely shoot someone. Double Dugh. But what prohibits a child or young man (Newtown, CT) from gaining access to a school and killing people? A "Gun Free Zone" sign? Hardly. How about stiff penalties for bringing a gun on school property? Yawn. How about a locked door? Didn't Adam Lanza shoot out the glass and reach in to pop the door? How about a hot line so people can report suspicious activity? Really.

Let's move on to background checks. In the case of Adam Lanza, they worked. He attempted to buy a firearm in CT and was denied. The FFL who denied him did so because he did his part by calling in a NICs check on this kid. Why didn't law enforcement follow up with Adam Lanza? Now plenty of people are initially denied only to be approved after the error is corrected. If a felon or crazy person is named similarly you too can be held up purchasing a gun. But why no police intervention? It's a federal crime to falsify information on the 4473, this kid obviously failed the check so why wasn't he investigated? Humm. Could anyone in law enforcement be to blame here?

Adam Lanza planned this killing spree for a while according to released documents. What could have either predicted or prevented this? The dead mom knew he was nuts. She tried to get him some help but as an adult he couldn't be institutionalized against his will. The failed purchase was data that something may be up. Prevented? Since predicting this was exclusive to few, that leaves prevention. Signs, laws, doors and 911 didn't work. What else may have stopped the carnage? Maybe NJ restricting my magazine capacity would have stopped this. See how dumb that sounds. 

The only way to prevent the unpredictable is to be be prepared for it. If someone with a gun were present in the school, Adam Lanza may never had killed anyone. He may not have target the school in the first place if he knew people were armed. It's why there are never any spree killings at police stations or guns shows. Too many armed and dangerous good guys for an armed and cowardice crazy guy.

Illinois, Slavery & the 2nd Amendment

Thought I'd have some fun with an Illinois Herald Review story: "Quinn says local governments should be able to impose strict gun laws" All's I did was replace 2nd Amendment with 13th Amendment references. Just shows you how stupid these people sound.

SPRINGFIELD — Gov. Pat Quinn wants to give cities and towns the ability to impose slavery exemptions as part of the General Assembly’s push to put an "abolishment to slavery" law on the books. With the legislature facing an early June deadline to approve a law allowing slaves to become freedmen, the Democrat said Chicago and other cities should be able to impose additional slavery regulations over whatever restrictions the state ultimately approves.

 “I do think there should be a local option where a home-rule community can make rules that fit its needs for safety,” Quinn said. “I think that’s a good way to go.” His comments drew catcalls from civil rights supporters, who said the governor is advocating something that’s already been shot down by the courts. “He can support whatever he wants, but it’s already been ruled against in the U.S. Supreme Court,” said state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro.

State Rep. Adam Brown, R-Champaign, also opposes Quinn’s idea. “The 13th Amendment should be guaranteed for all citizens,” Brown said. Negotiators in the House and Senate are attempting to hammer out an agreement that would bring Illinois’ slavery laws in line with 49 other states. Lawmakers have agreed to some restrictions on freedmen, but no proposals have been floated that would give cities the ability to impose their own rules.

Quinn told reporters he is no fan of the December 2012 decision by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals calling on Illinois to legalize freedmen. “I didn’t agree with the federal court mandating that our state pass a law,” Quinn said.

Why We Need Stricter Parolee Control

I would go out on a limb here and say that the Russell Duffney's of the world are not the root problem. The world is full of machete wielding people. The problem isn't the machete (could substitute SUV, gun, nuclear missle). The first time Russell got picked up for a violent crime was the last time Russell was 100% of the problem. The "lengthy criminal history" reported in an AP story and that crazy liberal notion that somehow being on probation makes us all safe is the problem.

Please, don't catch and release. Don't let a known criminal with a life history of criminal activity out on probation and then blame the machete (or gun) when Russell acts up. That's crazy. If you have an irresponsible neighbor (you could substitute parole board) who lets his mean dog (you could substitute Russell) outside without a leash and unattended, don't blame me and my leashed dog if Russell chops off someones ear. Don't say my German Shepard is a military style dog and needs to be put down because some idiot used one to kill kittens. Russell is the problem.

If you have any compassion left over after letting poor Russell out of the slam, can you use it to consider the poor guy who's ear he will eventually lop off. Your compassion has to be balanced with my need to keep body parts safe from the likes of Russell. Don't turn around and blame the machete. Machetes do not commit crimes, Russell does. Him and dumb parole boards are what you need to control.

Mark Kelly & Gabrielle Giffords' Dog has Killed More Baby Seals Than My AR-15

OK, so it wasn't their dog. The assault dog belonged to the spaceman's daughter. The point is that a dangerous weapon of war was on vacation with the three of them. The irresponsible astronaut allowed the killer to get loose and murder a person. Uh, a baby. Wait, a baby person seal.
Why do NASA employees need these types of dogs? Can't police dogs kill the seals? Did he have a permit to keep and walk this dog? So many questions.

Police Loophole & Police Straw Purchases

According to the Police Loophole website, there are over 100 firearm companies that in some way are refusing to do business with 2nd Amendment infringing government entities. The recent actions by the unctuous governor of NY seemed to be the catalyst. My guess is that companies decided that enough is enough. Good for them. There is an interesting scenario that may play out as police departments try to place orders for gear. We may see a rise in Police Straw Purchases.

Here is how it works. The chief of police in Newark decides he needs some 30 round mags for the AR's in the armory. He has one of the admins work up a PO and make the purchase. The company replies back. They refuse to make the sale due to dumb NJ firearm laws. The admin goes and contacts her cousin in Texas and asks her to buy the mags for her. Cousin then ships them to the Newark PD. That's a Police Straw Purchase.

I'd like to see a federal law that prohibits this activity. It may not be fair to the Newark PD but there's unintended consequences with dumb laws. Supposedly 30 round magazines are evil. States must think criminal and insane people will misuse them and therefore law abiding citizens can't own them. Kind of like banning private and company ownership of tour buses because some idiots drive them off cliffs killing everyone on board. Only the government can be trusted to drive buses. Wow, now I feel safe.