Federal Judge Strikes Down DC's ban on concealed handguns, for non-residents DC is at least temporarily a constitutional carry area

A copy of the decision and some analysis of it along with key quotes is available here.

Obama correctly insisted for years that he had absolutely no legal authority to slow deportations on a broad scale, well forget about that

Remember Obama's repeated public claims that he had no legal authority to ignore immigration law and purposely slow deportations?  Presumably he repeatedly made that promise because he didn't want to scare voters that he might do something radical.  Well, now that he no longer faces voters again, that repeated point is being ignored.  From Politico:

Obama’s pledge to use his executive powers by the end of the summer marked both a dramatic reversal in rhetoric and a major strategic shift on immigration. The president is no longer emphasizing his own powerlessness but rather his determination “to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress.” 

The administration is examining how far it can go, legally and politically, to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. Despite the flow of young Central American children across the southwestern border, Obama remains committed to taking significant action, according to senior advisers and advocates who have attended recent meetings with White House officials. 

In other words, Obama has signaled that he intends to do exactly what he’s long said he’s unable to do. . . .

Obamacare: Jonathan Gruber blatantly lying about whether federally run health insurance exchanges get a subsidy

It is rare for a prominent academic to so blatantly lie repeatedly for purely political purposes.  Unfortunately, for MIT's Jonathan Gruber there are videos to prove it.  Here is a video of Gruber in January 2012 where he makes it completely clear that only state run insurance exchanges get federal subsidies (see discussion starting at 31:55 in video):

JONATHAN GRUBER: What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

It is crystal clear that the subsidy was limited to only state run insurance exchanges to force states to set up their own exchanges.

Well, that was then and this is now.  This past week on MSNBC Gruber can be seen claiming that there was never any intention to limit federal subsidies to state run exchanges and that the exclusion of the subsidy was just a result of an unintentional "typo" (video available here, transcript from Grabien).

MATTHEWS: "Why would Democrats put in a poison pill that says, 'oh, if you don't have a state exchange you can't give subsidies and you can't have the individual mandate so the bill is dead.' Why do that? Where is the logic?" 

GRUBER: "Someone wrote today a clever thing. When we fight about the Constitution we wonder what the framers really mean. We don't have to wonder. We know what the framers meant. We can ask them. We can go to the people who wrote it and say did you ever intend this as a poison pill or is it a typo every single one says it's a typo? And every single one of them will say this is just a typo. So there is no mystery here. There is no wondering about original intent in writing the law. This is just a typo. And if the courts pass it and it makes it to the Supreme Court, we are talking about 7 million Americans who would become uninsured because of this typo, if they really interpret it this way. It's just crazy."

Gruber is racking up a long list of whoopers:  promises that Obamacare would "for sure" lower health insurance costs, hiding that he was being paid $400,000 from the Obama administration to help work on and promote Obamacare while pretending to be a purely independent analyst, and possibly changing his positions on health care issues after he started working for the Obama administration.

Fortunately, doctor with a gun critically wounded shooter who attacked hospital, gun-free zone sign didn't stop attack

This attack apparently occurred in a gun-free zone.  Here is a great quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"There's a sign on the door that says you have to check your weapons at the front," she said, "But you can't expect every crazy person to do that."

From Fox News about an attack at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, PA that was stopped by Dr. Lee Silverman:

A doctor who was grazed by gunfire from a patient in his office at a suburban hospital on Thursday helped stop him by apparently returning fire with his own weapon and severely injuring him, but not before a caseworker was killed, authorities said. 

The patient opened fire after entering the office with the caseworker, District Attorney Jack Whelan said. Witnesses reported hearing yelling before the gunshots. 

Several hours after the shooting, investigators had only limited information on what happened inside the closed office but believe the doctor, a psychiatrist, "from all accounts, would have acted in self-defense," Whelan said. 

The doctor, who suffered a graze wound to his head, "faced a situation where his life was in jeopardy," Whelan said. . . . 

Another doctor and a caseworker were among those who helped wrestle the patient to the floor of a hallway and grabbed his weapon after he had already been critically wounded from several gunshots, Whelan said. . . .

It seems extremely likely that this doctor was one on the almost 900,000 concealed handgun permit holders in Pennsylvania.  The Associated Press has information on how important that it was that the doctor was armed:

. . . Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux said that "without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives."

"Without that firearm, this guy (the patient) could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition," the chief said. . . .

From Channel 13 WGME there is information on how the attack started:

. . . The caseworker killed at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital on Thursday afternoon was Philadelphia resident Theresa Hunt. Authorities say she had accompanied Plotts to an appointment with Silverman at a psychiatric crisis center next to the hospital in Darby, just southwest of Philadelphia. . . .

CBS News has some more details:

The patient, who had psychiatric problems, opened fire after entering the doctor's office with a caseworker Thursday afternoon, Whelan said. The female caseworker was killed. The doctor appears to have suffered only a graze wound and was expected to be released from treatment later in the day. 

Authorities have not publicly identified the gunman or his two victims. CBS Philly reports Whalen said the gunman was shot three times. Both the doctor and the suspect were taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for treatment, according to the station. . . . 

The name of the attacker appears to be Richard Plotts. 

Fortune Magazine completely mangles story on gun sales "declining"

Fortune magazine's Laura Lorenzetti makes a lot of logical mistakes in her "news" article here.

It looks like Americans may be buying fewer guns this year. 

Smith & Wesson  SWHC , the 162-year-old gunmaker, lowered its guidance for the quarter and rest of the year, even as it reported better than expected sales in its fiscal fourth quarter that ended Apr. 30. Shares of Smith & Wesson’s stock had dropped nearly 9% by the close of trading Friday following the announcement. 

The company reported sales of $170 million in its fourth quarter, higher than the average analyst estimate of about $164 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue was almost 5% less than the year-earlier quarter. . . . 

The once high-selling gun industry may be facing a comedown as incidents of gun violence have soared this year. There has been an average of almost one school shooting every week for the past year and a half, the Washington Post reported earlier this month. . . .

Does reporter Laura Lorenzetti have any idea how inaccurate the Bloomberg claim is that there was one school shooting every week for the last year and a half?  The claim that increased gun violence is responsible for a drop in sales makes many errors.  Does a sales drop for Smith & Wesson imply an overall drop in gun sales?  No.

So what do the NICS checks numbers show on gun sales (click on screenshot to enlarge it)?  NICS checks are not a perfect measure of gun sales, but it is hard to see how its biases have changed in a systematic way this past year.

With the exception of background checks in January and February, 2014's background checks exceed those in 2013 and they are well ahead of those in 2012 for all months.  Fortune incredibly fails to even mention the explosion of gun sales right after Newtown and President Obama's re-election.  Does anyone believe that January and February sales in 2013 were normal sales to make comparisons with?  Even if Smith & Wesson's sales might be down for the last quarter, sales for the entire industry during the April through June quarter look like they are still higher than 2013.  How the Fortune reporter can spin a discussion from one gun maker into a general commentary on the entire gun industry is pretty disappointing.

Very amusing piece by Chris Friend on "Seeing red over Indian nickname debate"

The piece starts this way, but I strongly recommend that you follow the link and read the entire article:

Life is good. 

Summer is in full swing, the Trayvon/Zimmerman soap opera is finally fading away, government is probably reading only half our emails now, and the excitement of football is in the air. 

Most important, though, is that America apparently has solved all of its problems. Otherwise, how could you possibly explain the fact that a cadre of congressman — both Republican and Democrat — recently sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, every league team, and Redskins sponsor FedEx urging them — demanding, actually — that the Redskins name be changed because it was so racially demeaning to Indians. Oops. Native Americans. 

Sorry. 

Really? That’s the most dominant issue consuming our elected officials? Granted, if we had an Indian nickel for every boneheaded thing Congress does, we’d all be millionaires. But those congressmen need to be scalped for this one, and publicly admonished until they turn red-faced with embarrassment. 

This is no time for peace pipes. We must, without reservation, not just hold down the fort but go to war with those riding roughshod over hallowed American traditions — fighting the people who love nothing more than to chop away at things no one actually finds offensive. As with most issues though, we lack a political chief brave enough to tackle this type of political correctness. The biggest irony? If a leader painted this picture as the insanity that it is, it wouldn’t be his last stand, but a feather in his cap, because the vast majority of Americans recognize that using Indian names isn’t offensive, but complimentary. . . . 

 The rest of the piece is available here.