Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell gets an "F" for his fiscal policy

Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell gets the lowest grade for fiscal policies of any serving governor. California governor Schwarzenegger gets the highest grade.

"So why did Ed Rendell finish 41 out of 42 governors? (Eight governors were excluded from the study because they just began office). The only governor ranked behind Rendell was McGreevey, who resigned last year. It appears that Rendell’s plan of siphoning $1 billion a year from working Pennsylvanians to support his massive government spending plan had something to do with his low marks. There’s also those hidden taxes, including higher fees for state inspections and emissions testing. And let’s not forget the $50 tax on workers Rendell pushed through last year, allowing communities to raise their occupational privilege tax from $10 to $52 a year."

Still More on Felons Voting

John Fund has a new piece on felons voting. Among John's other points:

Liberals normally avoid partisan arguments in expressing their support for voting by felons. Instead, they point to the disproportionate racial impact. Sometimes they overstate that impact, as Mara Liasson of National Public Radio did last week when she said that "I would expect if you did a study, you would find that probably the vast majority of [felons] are African-American." In truth, a little more than a third of disfranchised felons are black. . . .

The allegation that laws restricting felon voting are racially motivated is flawed. Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar, author of the classic book "The Right to Vote," points out that many states passed such laws before the Civil War. Later, the laws were passed in many Southern states by Reconstruction government run by Republicans who supported black voting rights. Mr. Keyssar says that "most laws that disenfranchised felons had complex and murky origins," often centering on the notion that "a voter ought to be a moral person." As one judge noted: "Felons are not disenfranchised based on any immutable characteristic, such as race, but on their conscious decision to commit an act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment."

Letters in NY Post Responding to my piece on Felons Voting

HILLARY'S VOTE FOR FELONS
March 7, 2005 -- The fact that most people with felony convictions are poor, working-class citizens who might vote Democratic is not the issue, as John R. Lott Jr. and James K. Glassman seem to think ("The Felon Vote," Opinion, March 1).

How a citizen votes is not a prerequisite to having the right to vote.

The fact is, five Republican governors, including President Bush when he was governor of Texas, have realized that this is about fairness and basic rights.

They were some of the first state executives to urge reform of voting eligibility laws to allow more ex-prisoners to vote.

Their actions clearly signaled that this is a bipartisan issue about fairness and democracy — and not partisan politics as Lott and others proclaim.

The Count Every Vote Act offers solutions to voting inequities that have plagued our system for centuries. I say, let Congress finally have this debate.

Joseph Hayden
Manhattan

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a mockery of public office.

Now Hillary wants to give felons the right to vote. She will apparently go to any length to get elected.

I would love to see the duo run — back to Arkansas.

Howard Taylor

Brewster

The first letter misses the central point. With all the penalties that felons still face after they are released from prison, why is it that this is the one single penalty that Democrats are trying to remove. Why not restore their right to professional or business licenses? Why not their ability to work for the government or unions? Why not their ability to own a gun? it is hard to deny that this is being pushed by Democrats (and this change only for felons) because they believe that it helps them politically.

Cab driver charged after killing in self defense

March 4, 2005 NEW HAVEN-- A cab driver who says he had to kill a customer to save his own life is speaking out.

John Lutters says he is the victim after he was stabbed in the neck during a robbery attempt and fought back.

Lutters is now a convicted felon, having to plead guilty to charges in court. Lutters did not have a permit to carry the gun he used to shoot his passenger, Travis Hazelwood, in self defense.

"It*s cost me everything I*ve had just about, including a criminal record", says Lutters.

More on Felons Voting

Hannity & Colmes discuss the new Hillary Clinton and John Kerry legislation that would guarantee that felons are allowed to vote.

HANNITY: Congressman Fattah, as John Lott pointed out in his recent article that there is some academic work that has studied this. Jeff Mansa and Marcus Britain of Northwestern University. And Christopher Reagan of the University of Minnesota have studied the issue.

And what they found is that Bill Clinton pulled 86 percent of the felon vote in 1992 and a whopping 93 percent in 1996. So clearly the evidence shows it does favor the Democrats. So this is a political move to help in close races, isn't it, sir?

FATTAH: Well, Sean, really, it's just a distraction from the real problems of the country. The reality is Republicans control the Senate and the Congress. If they don't want this bill to pass, it won't pass.

Not exactly a strong denial from Fattah.

In the UK you must "scare off their prey before opening fire"

COUNTRY sportsmen keen on pigeon pie will need to put the cat among them first. Farmers and landowners will also need to hone their windmill gyrations and scarecrow impersonations if they are planning a potshot at crop-eating birds. The Government has ruled that it is now illegal to shoot a crow,  rook or pigeon for the pot without scaring it first. The legislation says shooters must attempt to frighten off the birds before pulling the trigger. Only when the birds fail to respond can he or she shoot it for dinner. The same rule applies to farmers who have shooting days blasting woodpigeons and rooks to protect their crops or gamebirds. At this time of the year thousands of people pull on their camouflages for a day's rough shooting. They are now acting unlawfully. They too must first engage in frightening techniques to disperse the birds. Only if their antics are ignored can they shoot legally. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to £5,000 or a maximum six months in prison.

93 year old man uses gun defensively

He might not have been a cop since 1966, but this 93 year old still new what to do to defend himself.

"I was sitting here in the front room around quarter after three, and I saw this van pull up," Thomas said Friday, recalling how his police instincts kicked in. "Something told this old retired policeman to go out and get the license number.And then I sat down again and started reading the sports page." While he was reading, the doorbell began to ring repeatedly. Said Thomas, a widower who lives alone: "The next thing I know, these two guys are going into my back yard." Thomas saw them go behind his house and then heard a sound at his window just five feet away. "I heard it first and then saw them fooling around with the window," he said. "I knocked once, and they ran." Despite the pair's quick retreat, Thomas' day was far from over. Both men eventually returned and began prying off the screen. He got his service pistol from his bedroom, "the one that was issued in 1943," Thomas said. "I got me a gun out of retirement — like me." Thomas left his house through the back and began to walk toward the men, gun in hand. "Somehow or other they smelled me," he said.

Thanks to Goodwillhntg@aol.com for providing this.

More Defensive Gun Uses in Stores

Charlotte, NC, 3/3/05

This is the second time in less than a week police are investigating a robbery that ended with a suspect shot and killed. Three masked men armed with guns stormed a shoe store on East Sugar Creek Road and took cash from the register and started to rob customers. The manager pulled out his own gun and shot two of the robbers. One of the suspects was killed and the other was seriously hurt. Police are still looking for the third robber and the manager is moving out of the state because he is worried about retaliation.

GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas, 3/3/05

TA North Texas store manager refused to become a victim when a robber jumped over the counter at his convenience store and attempted to rob him. . . . "He said, 'Do you want to die?' I said, 'No, I don't want to die,'" Qasem said. With the crook's arm tight around his throat, Qasem then reached for his gun that was kept under the counter. He aimed at the robber and fired, but nothing happened. Qasem then used the gun to repeatedly hit the robber in the head. "I felt that was my opportunity to just keep hitting him, take him all the way down," Qasem said.

Video on Tyler, Texas Shooting

This video on the Tyler, Texas shooting does not include anything on the defensive gun use by either Mark Wilson or the security guard. The tape ends just before they enter the scene. The text that comes with the video also ommits Wilson and the security guard.

On the tape, police officers can be seen running out of the courthouse with their guns drawn and ducking for cover from flying bullets. As the glass in the front of the courthouse is shot out, people scramble to take cover. The gunman, David Hernandez Arroyo, shot and killed his estranged wife and a bystander outside the courthouse. Arroyo was shot and killed by police officers. Authorities said Arroyo and his wife were involved in a child support dispute. Arroyo's son and three lawmen also were wounded in the shooting

I have additional posts on this case at Tyler, Texas here, here, here, and here.

Thanks very much to Gary Marbut for supplying me with this link.

Did a Security Guard In Tyler, Texas Also use His Gun to Distract Killer?

There is more news on the Tyler, Texas attack that was stopped by Mark Wilson. THe title of the article in the Tyler Morning Telegraph ("SECURITY GUARD ALSO DISTRACTED KILLER ARROYO") is pretty unambiguous that Michael Mosley, a security guard, also helped stopped the attack.

The Tyler Morning Telegraph has learned the identity of a second armed civilian who was in the line of fire of a heavily armed man clad in body armor who fired on the Smith County Courthouse with a semi-automatic assault rifle last week. Witnesses reported to the newspaper last Thursday that an un-identified man pulled up behind the courthouse in a silver colored 1990s Chevrolet Caprice Classic and exited into a defensive position with his wea-pon drawn and pointed in the direction of David Hernandez Arroyo. . . . Mosley refused to talk to the newspaper in detail, but did make a brief statement on Wednesday. "I am no hero. God watched over me and protected me that day. I am praying for all the families involved and that is all I have to say," he said. After repeated phone calls to a Southwestern Securities office in Houston, Joseph Morales, a supervisor for the company, told the Morning Telegraph his officer did not fire his gun last week. "According to him, he did not fire his weapon on that day," Morales said. However, at least one eyewitness believes Mosley was another deterrent during the tragedy.

This is the only news mention that I have seen of Michael Mosley. Given all the media coverage of the attack, it is a little surprising that the local Tyler, Texas newspaper is the only paper that has mentioned this.

Thanks to Goodwillhntg@aol.com for telling me about this article.

I have additional posts on this case at Tyler, Texas here, here, and here.

Democrat's proposal to "Ban" so-called 'Cop-Killer' Gun

CNSNews.com provides a valuable discussion of legislation introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). The legislation would ban the Five-seveN gun. The bottom line:

"It is a semi-automatic pistol, just like millions of other semi-automatic pistols. BATFE has determined that it is 'particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,' and has approved its importation. "There is also nothing special about the 5.7mm ammunition being sold to the public," the NRA said, since under federal law, only non-armor-penetrating types of 5.7mm ammunition may be sold.

There are plenty of useful points in the piece, but it shows how much of the gun control debate relies on misinformation.

Gun tax in Maine?

"A gun and ammunition tax that would create a fund to increase security at the state's courthouses has been proposed by several members of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee. The 7 percent tax would be in addition to the 5 percent state sales tax that consumers already pay when they buy guns and ammunition from licensed dealers in the state. . . . Entry screening is conducted an average of 10 days each year for each of the state's 41 courthouses, she said. The chief justice also told the Legislature that during that limited time screeners had confiscated more than 1,400 knives or related weapons and five firearms."

Possibly a knife tax would make more sense? In any case, while I am open to argument, it is not clear to me how a gun and bullet tax can be any more constitutional than a newspaper tax.

New op-ed up on news coverage of Texas Defensive Gun Use Case

Foxnews.com has my latest op-ed up on guns. It discusses the news coverage of last weeks' mulitple victim public shooting in Tyler, Texas that left two people dead.

But what makes this case different is that 21 percent of the news stories actually mentioned that a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon used his gun to try and help stop the attack.

This is a pretty long piece and I think that it has a lot of interesting information.


UPDATE: I have been getting a lot of feedback about this op-ed. Thanks. One thing that has upset a few people is the comparison of the civilian version of the AK-47 to a deer rifle.

Only two stories mentioned that the AK-47 was a semi-automatic, not a machine gun, and, while it is understandable, none of the articles provided context by explaining that Arroyo’s weapon functioned the same as deer hunting rifles, firing the same caliber bullets, at the same rapidity, and doing the same damage.

People seem to realize that the caliber of the bullets are the same, but they focus on the fact that the clip is so much larger on the AK-47. For example, "Only a fool or a liar, Mr. Lott, would believe that deer hunting rifles have magazines capable of firing off more than 50 rounds of ammunition." My response: "Thanks for your note, but once a gun can accept a clip there is really no limit on the size of the clip. The AK-47 used here and owned by Americans is a civilian version of the military weapon. They are semi-automatic guns and do indeed have the same firing mechanism as your regular 30 caliber deer rifle. By the way, any handgun that can take a clip can have a clip that extends down below the grip."

Further Update: Comments on my piece can be found here and here. I have additional posts on this case at Tyler, Texas here, here, and here.

Flight Marshall's Are Apparently Covering Many Fewer Flights than Government Claims

Flight reports by the Federal Air Marshal Service show that federal agents were on less than 10 percent of the nation's flights in December, a number several air marshals say was inflated to make it appear to Congress that commercial air travel is better protected than it is. . . . Based on the number of guns issued, there are about 2,200 marshals stationed nationwide to fly seven days a week. . . . Marshals always travel in teams -- a minimum of two agents and sometimes as many as four per plane. This means a minimum of 1,100 teams protect domestic and international flights. With sick days, regular days off, vacation and medical leave, it is statistically impossible to cover even the minimum number of flights listed by the report on any given day, the marshals say. "The numbers don't add up; it's way too much," a marshal said. "Several field offices have complained about it and were told to shut up. This is a scam." More than 2,600 flights were listed as covered on Christmas Eve, 2,039 on Christmas Day and 2,893 on New Year's Eve. "The numbers are impossible," said another air marshal.

Calvin and Hobbes

The complete Calvin and Hobbes is now online.

Justice Scalia’s Dissent on Juvenile Killers case

From the beginning of Justice Scalia dissent:

In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

Justice Kennedy's majority decision points out: "Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49-50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty." By this reasoning one day I suppose that whatever makes American's unique could be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Kennedy's other claim that "Juveniles' susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior means 'their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult' " is bizarre. In this case the murder committed the crime with a great deal of premeditation and calculation. But what does this imply about all the other Supreme Court decisions on issues such as abortion?

NRA's Armed Citizen Column for February 2005

NRA's Armed Citizen column for February 2005 has seven defensive gun use cases from the end of last year that are worth a quick look.

New Op-ed on Hillary Clinton and John Kerry Introducing Legislation to Let Felons Vote

Jim Glassman and I have a new piece in today's New York Post on the push to let felons vote. I think that it is one of my better pieces.

It is hardly a radical notion to penalize felons long after they have left prison or completed parole. Laws deny ex-cons the right to hold office, to retain professional licenses (lawyers, for example, lose their ability to practice), or to serve as an officer in a publicly traded company. Felons, by law, can in some cases lose their right to inherit property, to collect pension benefits or even to get a truck-driving license. . . . When people harm others, we learn something about them. Do we want someone who has committed multiple rapes helping determine how much money will be spent on social programs that help rape victims?

"Anti-gun activist arrested after firearm found at home"

"A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home. Annette 'Flirty' Stevens, however, said Monday she's innocent, and the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city. . . . She helped establish and is president of a Springfield chapter of the Million Mom March, an organization that aims to prevent gun violence. Last fall, she appeared with other anti-gun advocates at a Statehouse news conference to urge federal officials to renew a ban against semiautomatic assault weapons. Jonathan Lackland, Midwest regional director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the march's partner organization, said he was shocked to hear about Stevens' arrest. He wished to withhold comment on the case until he learned more about it . . . ."

Note: The Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March are now part of the same organization.

Coming to the wrong lesson on Right to carry laws

Just a couple of days ago I pointed to a case in Tyler, Texas where a concealed handgun permit holder used his gun to save at least one life, though the good semaritan was himself killed in the attack. Now there is a discussion in Texas on what are the right lessons to draw from the experience:

But gun control groups say his death is further proof that carrying a gun increases a person's chances of getting killed.

Tyler police spokesman Don Martin warned gun owners to carefully weigh the risks before intervening.

State Representative Suzanna Hupp is a supporter of the state's concealed carry law.

Hupp says Wilson's actions and his access to a gun improved the odds that Arroyo would be taken down before more people were killed.

The murderer in this case was wearing body armor that protected him from Wilson's shots. But more important, the one thing that struck me in my research with Bill Landes on Multiple Victim Public Shootings was how the number of people harmed in these types of attacks was related to how quickly a gun got to the scene to stop the attack. Mark Wilson was obviously able to get there well before the police.