ID marks for Bullets

Washington State Election Fraud

More and more comes out on the 129 vote victory that Democrat Christine Gregoire had last fall over Republican Dean Rossi. Beyond the 10,000 provisional ballots that were discovered in King County, as well as the 94 new uncounted ballots were discovered just last month, here are a few additional points:

-- some 700 felons voted illegally in King County, given the 90 percent rate that felons vote for Democrats, this is by itself made the difference in the race.
-- illegal votes were also likely cast when 700 provisional ballots were fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity.

Ridiculous coverage of Florida's new self defense law

Alphecca has a link to how international news coverage is inaccurately misreporting Florida's new self defense law.

GREG DREWES: That's him, that's Mark. That's about three weeks before it happened.

LEIGH SALES: Mark and his mates were out one night, playing doorknocking pranks. Jay Levin was one of their targets. He was home alone and heard noises outside, imagining it was a burglar. He opened his front door, gun in hand, just as Mark was running away. In panic, Jay Levin shot Mark Drewes in the back, killing him.

Mr Levin was charged with manslaughter because under Florida's old laws, that level of force was considered excessive.

But this week, the law changed, and today, Mr Levin would be innocent of any wrongdoing.

The coverage is outrageous and I doubt that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will bother getting their story correct, but in any case I sent an email to them at currentaffairs@your.abc.net.au:

Dear Sir:

Your story on "Florida widens right to use deadly force" was extremely inaccurate and completely misstated Florida's law on self defense. There is still a "reasonable person" standard for whether a reasonable person would view themselves as being in danger. You can only engage in responses that are commensurate to the danger that you face. Shooting someone in the back who was running away would not be viewed as a reasonable response. Someone has to be actively threatened to use a gun in self defense. For example, is the attacker pointing a weapon at you or charging you. What the new Florida law changed was whether you must also first retreat between you may use self defense.


John R. Lott, Jr.
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute

More on the Breast Implant Scare

Steve Milloy enters in again on the breast implant debate.

Despite the absence of science indicating that silicone breast implants cause the alleged harms, the trial lawyers were greatly aided by a bungling FDA that decided very publicly in 1992 to restrict silicone breast implants availability to U.S. women who elected to have reconstructive surgery follow mastectomy. Silicone breast implants have continued to be available without restriction to women in other countries.

The media compounded the FDA goof by reporting the agency action as a scary “ban” -- and the lawyers were off to the races. Manufacturers were hit with thousands of lawsuits, eventually deciding to settle class action claims as a matter of business and not because there was a factual basis for genuine liability.

I am not sure that I would classify this as a "goof." Given the rest of Milloy's arguments, it seems more likely that the original ban was much more a political decision than a scientific one.


The External Benefit from Hunting

Rush Limbaugh's Take on Florida's New Self Defense Law

Rush nails some media bias on guns. This is pretty blatant.

Listen to this sound bite. This is a guy from Good Morning America today; this is the correspondent from ABC, Jeffrey Kofman and his report on Florida's new gun law.

KOFMAN: What was it Clint Eastwood said, "Go ahead, make my day?" Well, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has done just that for gun owners here in Florida. It's going to be a lot easier to shoot and kill someone in the name of self-defense. Under the old law, people had to feel trapped before responding with deadly force, not anymore.

RUSH: Can you believe this? People had to feel trapped before responding, now you don't have to feel trapped, you just have to be acting in self-defense. See, this is great stuff. I mean we're illustrating exactly who these people are, but in the past, Florida residents outside their homes had a so-called "duty to retreat" when confronted with potential for violence. They had to retreat. They had to back up. They had to get out of there. But now they can meet force with force. Ho-ho-ho, and the left fit to be tied over this, ladies and gentlemen, as I say, a great illustration of who these people really are, despite their rhetoric.


Armed Pilot Program Still Moving Slowly

I don't have the link for this, but the entire article is worth reading.

Guns in Cockpits Program Still Half Cocked, Some Say

By Caitlin Harrington
CQ Homeland Security Daily
April 27. 2005

Two years after the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) launched a program to train pilots to carry guns in the cockpit, critics say lingering problems with the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program still discourage pilots from participating.

Since the program's inception in 2003, pilots groups have expressed frustration with TSA policies on gun storage and identification. The policies, they say, put the safety of deputized pilots at risk and run contrary to the intent of Congress, which wanted as many pilots as possible to participate.

"They've created a program that is so unfriendly that tens of thousands of pilots have changed their mind about volunteering," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), a group formed after the Sept. 11 attacks to lobby for the arming of pilots. . . .

APSA estimates that only about 4,000 pilots have been trained and deputized - a fraction of the approximately 95,000 commercial pilots in the country. APSA estimates about 50,000 pilots who were initially interested in the program changed their minds after learning about certain TSA policies. . . .

What a difference a year of experience makes

Minnesota's Right-to-carry law is going to have to be re-passed because of recent court decisions. Yet, even the opponents say that it is going to be passed.

The gun bill is one stop away from a House floor vote, where even opponents concede it will easily pass. In a major development, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson said he intends to hold an up-or-down Senate vote on the bill if it clears the House and not bury it in committee.

"The issue perhaps is not as volatile as we thought last year," said Johnson, DFL-Willmar, who opposed the bill in 2003. "I don't think the problems have played out as predicted." . . .

Borchardt [head of the state sheriff's association] said the overturned law proved manageable. "The fact is the sky didn't fall," he said. "The fact is it worked pretty seamlessly."

However, some people never give up.

"All of us are at risk when it is so easy for so many people to have guns in so many public places," said Kate Havelin, president of the Twin Cities Million Moms March chapter.

You would think that they would have learned by now that these claims hurt their credibility.


The Cincinnati Post on the One Year Anniversary of Ohio's Right-to-carry law

5-3 Supreme Court Ruling that Foreign conviction does not deny the right to own a gun

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the government may not deny a U.S. citizen gun ownership because of a criminal conviction abroad . . . ."

There is an interesting breakdown of opinions on the court. Breyer wrote the majority opinion (with the normal liberals supporting him) and Thomas dissented joined by Scalia and Kennedy. In other words, the liberals allowed the American citizen to get his gun back because they said that we shouldn't depend upon decisions in foreign courts since they are not based on the same standards as ours. Thomas based his decision solely on the law, and references the fact that the original law was quite broad. I have to say after looking at it, that may be despite my policy preferences in favor of Breyer (and on policy grounds I think that his arguments are sound), Thomas seems to have gotten it right on the law. Here is one case where judicial activism came to a conservative decision, but it was accomplished by liberal judges whom I assume have decisions further down the road in mind with the precedents that they wanted to create.

Thanks to Sonya for mentioning this and making similar points.

"Va. Teacher Accused of Taking Gun To School"

Transcript of Fox News Interview:"Today's big question, Professor Lott, does the Senate really discriminate against smart judges?


ON Fox News at 5:40 PM EDT today

I will be on Fox News at 5:40 with Judge Napalitano to talk about my work on the judicial confirmation process.

New op-ed on "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"

How Hillary Clinton seems to have broken the Campaign Finance Laws

Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events — provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give up to $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money).

Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.

But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.

Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.


Violent home invasion stopped

This tells us something about people's values

Amazing, the NY Times concedes that the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban had no effect

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments. . . .

The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal ban a legislative priority, either. Mr. Pasco, the organization's director, said he could not recall a single "inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the ban - and we have 330,000 members who are very vocal."

"In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on this ban," said Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "But here we are 10 years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any more significant threat to law enforcement officers than other weapons of similar caliber and capability."

This is pretty amazing, but I predicted this multiple times. The discussion on state laws is simply silly, but one figures that gun control groups have to try holding on to something. I feel pretty vindicated.