Judicial Pay

There’s a movement to increase the pay of federal judges, currently being lead by Justice Roberts.  I agree that we probably should be paying federal justices competitively.  Here’s why:

The cost of not [addressing the pay disparity] will be a decrease in the quality of an increasingly important judiciary — and a change in its perspective. Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector — from the practicing bar — and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice. This tends to produce a judiciary that is not only more important than ever but also is more of an extension of the bureaucracy than a check on it.

Absent competitive pay, the only reason someone has to take a federal judgeship is to power and prestige associated with the position, or a lack of ability in the private sector.  That’s probably the type of person we don’t want sitting on the bench.

More Criticism of Alan Gura

Can be found here. [UPDATE 7/22/2010: Not anymore. The Las Vegas Review-Journal, sewer rats that they are, receive no links from this blog]  Hat tip to War on Guns for pointing it out.  I don’t really agree with Suprynowicz, in the sense that I think Gura did what he thought he had to do to win the case, but I don’t find this article particularly inflamatory.  What set me off on GOA was the implication that the people involved in this case were not on “our side.”  I think there’s a difference between offering criticism and using language that tends to undermine or downplay the contributions of others.

This case won’t be the end of second amendment litigation by far, just the beginning.  Will we rescue machine gun rights from this?  I’m doubtful, there’s a lot of damage to be undone in that area, but we’ll have to wait and see what’s in the opinion, and where we can go from here.  We will need groups that will make machine guns an issue, because it’s not going to be NRA carrying that torch.  But we need these other groups to carry a message of “We’re standing up for machine gun owners.”  Not a message of “We’re standing up for machine gun owners, and all these other people to our ‘shock and horror’, who are on ‘our side’ are undermining us.” This can’t become “If you don’t agree with me on everything we’re enemies.”   That’s a great way to lose.

Philadelphia Politicians Force Political Suicide

Apparently the politicians in Philadelphia want Obama and Hillary to take a stand:

Philadelphia’s Democratic leaders say they’ll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party’s nominee in the general election.

Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don’t care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.

“If you can’t deal with it, then you’ve got a problem,” said Mrs. Campbell, who supports Mr. Obama and heads an alliance of black ward leaders.

So it’s not just the rest of Pennsylvania that has to pay because the Philadelphia politicians can’t control crime, the entire nation has to pay.  I actually hope they do take a stand on this.  That way gun owners across Pennsylvania won’t be fooled, and will be more likely to cross over and vote against these two.

On Non-Functional Firearms

It’s been a busy day over at HuffPo.  Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is apparently an expert on gun use for self-defense.  So much so that he is apparently disturbed the justices take a skeptical view of his ilk dictating on the topic to others:

A quick look at the NRA’s Gun Safety Rules webpage reveals just how far out of the mainstream these justices are. One of the NRA’s “fundamental” rules for safe gun handling is “ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.” The NRA also tells gun owners to always “store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons,” noting that “dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available.” In a “Parents Guide to Gun Safety,” the NRA also points out the potential dangers to children, stating “a parent must, in every case, assess the exposure of the firearm and absolutely ensure that it is inaccessible to a child.”

Except that trigger locks are probably the worst way to ensure this.  Few argue that firearms need to be kept away from young hands, but different solutions are optimal depending on the situation.  This is a matter that ought to be left up to the individual, and not dictated by the state.

Read the Rules First

I went to the club tonight to shoot this month’s e-postal match.  This month I’m shooting scoped rimfire.  I did OK on the bullseye targets, but then I went and counted up the flies, and set aside 20 cartridges.  Oops.  I was only supposed to do 10.  Either way, I got 10 flies with 20 shots.  Maybe when I go back to re-shoot the match following the proper rules, I’ll do better.

Speaking of scoped rimfires, I got a cheapy Chinese made holographic sight for the Mk.III Hunter, and I’m not happy with it.  I think I need to spring for an EOTech.  I’m looking at the Bushnell Holosight, though, which I understand is actually made by EOTech, but marketed by Bushnell for the lower end market.  Anyone know whether they are comparable?  I don’t see any reason to spend the cash for an EOTech when I could get essentially the same thing for less money.

What Cops Know

Ace will tell you.  Once you get below the folks who are political appointees, cops tend to be pretty strong supporters of the right to keep a firearm for self-defense.  Police confront the worst humanity has to offer on a regular basis in the course of their jobs.  They know better than your average upper middle class voter exactly what these kinds of people are capable of, and know they have about as much respect for the law as they do the communities they terrorize.

Network Solutions are Cowards

They have shut down a web site under pressure from Islamists:

h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders’s site promoting the 15-minute film “Fitna” (a Koranic term translated as “strife”).

The site now says:

This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation.

I don’t use Network Solutions, and now I can guarantee that I never will. We have to be willing to stand up to people who refuse to live peaceably among free citizens.