Politics – Page 32 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Calls for Bloomberg-Bought Kathleen Kane to Resign

Not even Bloomberg’s riches could cushion Kathleen Kane’s fall from grace. The Philadelphia Inquirer has a scathing call for her to resign.

They highlight that it has recently come out that she personally intervened to revoke subpoenas for men with apparent ties to the mob, and then got a $25k political donation out of it. She did eventually decide that maybe she should return it, but it’s clear they assumed she should be “rewarded” for her effort derailing the corruption investigation.

As a close Clinton ally, I’m sure that we’ll soon hear the claim that this is all part of War on Women and that it’s clearly only because she’s attractive. There’s just no way that anyone could think she’s incompetent based on the fact that she’s looking at potential criminal charges for her actions in office and is now tied to two cases of stepping in to derail corruption investigations into political allies. Clearly, it’s just because she’s a woman. /sarcasm

Being Realistic About Chris Christie on Gun Rights

I’m going to be play some devil’s advocate here: Chris Christie is the most pro-gun governor New Jersey has had for at least 50 years. I say that as someone who is still, tentatively, backing Scott Walker, so this is not driven by some establishment conspiracy to prop Christie up if Bush III falls over, even though I’d back Chris Christie over Bush III.

As a governor of New Jersey, following a parade of awful, corrupt Democratic governors, and facing an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, I don’t think he’s done a bad job.Â Do gun owners of a certain age in the Garden State remember booting Jim Florio, after he passed the state’s Assault Weapons Ban? What didÂ Christie WhitmanÂ ever do for you? And unlike Chris Christie, Christie Whitman sailed into office with a Republican legislature!

For me Chris Christie’s greatest sin isÂ signing the law that allows people to be denied Second Amendment rights because they were on a secret government list that has included dangerous jihadists like Ted Kennedy. But as a former US Attorney, Christie is quite cozy with the “law and order” branch of the GOP, which hasn’t met many civil liberties it wasn’t willing to infringe on for the War on Terror (really, what’s a little habeas corpus suspension between friends?) or the War on Drugs.

His “law and order” tendencies aside, Christie has been willing to veto more anti-gun billsÂ and use his executive power on our behalf than any New Jersey governor sinceÂ 1962. Those of you who are older might be able to refute me on this, and you’re welcome to, but I haven’t found anything in my research to indicate otherwise.Â Most of New Jersey’s gun control laws were passed in and about 1966, under Governor HughesÂ (no, not that Hughes), and I haven’t found any GOP or Dem successor willing to lift a finger.

I get being tops on gun rights in New Jersey is not a high standard. But New Jersey is an unbelievably hostile political environment for guns. It’s arguably more hostile than even Brady top-ranked California, where there are still many parts of that state which simply ignore the diktats from Sacramento, and where there’s a good chance you can find local constabulary will look the other way. But for New Jersey, it’s become clear that evenÂ counties in more conservative South Jersey jurisdictions will throw the book at otherwise good people in the name of “law and order.”

I see a lot of complaining that Chris Christie didn’t bother to help Brian Aitken, but a pardon requires one to admit guilt, and Aitken wanted to appeal his conviction.Â And good for him, since he did get it overturned, except for the hollow point charge, which he is still appealing. If he seeks a pardon (and in every state there is a bureaucratic process for that), you have to first admit guilt. That wasn’t an issue for Allen, since they had her dead to rights since she admitted guilt to the arresting officer. Christie can’t grant a pardon he wasn’t asked to grant, at least without screwing up the system, and possibly ruining the appeal.

I don’t blame anyone on not liking Chris Christie. We all have our candidates we prefer in the primary season. But I think few people in the gun rights movement have any idea how hostile the Garden State is to our cause. Chris Christie might be behind the national curve on the Second Amendment, but he’s farther ahead on the curve than any solid blue state governor I can think of in the past 50 years, including Mitt Romney.

A Pardon Well Deserved

Chris Christie is clearly trying to boost his pro-gun credibility in whatever way he can given the extremely anti-gun legislature he deals with since he signed a full pardon of Shaneen Allen today.

This is wonderful news for Allen, and it will hopefully send a message to New Jersey’s police officers and prosecutors. New Jersey isn’t exactly going pro-gun, but maybe there will be a little more sanity in the enforcement of the laws.

Hobbyists and Collectors Generally Aren’t Politicians

New Jovian Thunderbolt has a write-up on the guns owned by potential 2016 Presidential candidates. Tam isn’t impressed, and neither is McThag. I’m actually surprised it’s that many. I think collectors, and by collector I don’t just mean gun collectors, tend to have certain personality traits. Hardcore hobbyists share many similar traits. The personality profile of a hard core collector or hobbyist pretty much prevent those types of people from running for office, because people running for office also have certain personality traits, and those are very different from a hard core hobbyist or collector.

So it’s not surprising that most of the candidates may have a gun or two, for hunting, personal protection, etc. But they aren’t that into it. In NJT’s list, you’ll notice there’s one gun guy, really two if you look at it, because I’d be surprised if Todd and Sarah Palin don’t own several, and I’d be surprised if Rand Paul owned more than a couple. The real gun guy on that list is Lindsey Graham, who’s picture is right there along side John McCain if you look up RINO in the dictionary. But Graham has always been solid on guns, because, at the least, he’s good at saying the things that convince us he’s a shooter. But even Graham, I’m betting, isn’t spending more than the odd weekend at the range, and maybe a few hunting trips throughout the year for fundraising and politicking. The life of a Senator, Governor or other high level politician doesn’t leave much time for “not politics.”

Most politicians don’t arrive at their pro-gun positions by being gun people. They arrive at that position because it is in their self-interest to do so. We are the ones who are charged with convincing them, and we do that by voting the issue, and persuading them that voting the way we want them to vote is in their self-interest. That can be the carrot, or the stick. Our side is generally much better at the stick, becauseÂ punishing enemies rallies our grassroots more than supporting friends. But punishing enemies can buy you a lot. The current GOP field all being pretty solid on the gun issue was bought with the heads of Dick Lugar, Mike Castle, and other squishy Republicans who lost their primaries. Obviously it would be better to have a real gun guy behind you in politics, but those are going to be a rare find.

It’s worth remembering that Reagan signed the current Armor Piercing Ammunition Law that Obama was trying to use to screw us. Later in life (whether he did, or his handlers did, is a matter of debate) he endorsed the Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban. Bush sailed into office saying he’d sign an AWB renewal. John McCain was the first GOP nominee who was actually against an AWB, but he was in favor of banning private transfers, and he lost. Romney was for an AWB before he was against it, and he lost. We have slowly, but surely, corralled the GOP much closer to our position. Let us hope we can keep it there, and we might make real progress if things go our way in 2016.

Ultimately, all I care about from a Second Amendment viewpoint is a) who is a GOP president going to put on the Court, and b) will they sign pro-gun bills? Beyond that, I couldn’t care less how many guns he or she does or doesn’t own, short of what that signals about how serious they might be in their convictions.

Dog Bites Man: More Gun Control is in the Works in New Jersey

A bill is in the works in New Jersey that would allow police to end your Second Amendment rights on the spotÂ if it’s a domestic call. You can bet this will becomeÂ standard practice on domestic calls if this passes, even if there’s no real evidence of abuse.

“If they have the courage to go forward, this allows victims a fighting chance to move beyond their abusive situation,” Mosquera said. “This isn’t about gun rights. It’s about keeping guns away from people who have shown a propensity for violence toward women.”

That’s why we have courts and due process. You want to protect women? Just skip the trial and lock the guy up for 5 years. Oh, can’t do that? He has rights, you say? Well, this right should be no different. Due process: you’ve heard of that, haven’t you?

It’s not surprising a bill is moving. The Dems in the legislature want to do two things: one is tempt Christie to sign a gun control law and ruin him as a serious 2016 candidate. The other is to dare him to veto, and help ensure he can’t deliver NJ’s electoral votes if he were the nominee.

Christie isn’t looking all that strong right now, but that could change if Jeb falls apart and the GOP money starts looking for another horse to bet on.

The Whole RFRA Controversy

As many of you have probably heard, Indiana is suffering quite a public relations black eye over passing a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). I tend to side with Professor Reynolds view why this suddenly is:

“Dems need something to agitate the base so it doesnâ€™t pay attention to Iranian nukes, trashed email servers, and an overall culture of corruption. Those who join in are willing enablers.”

There’s also the issue that gay marriage is on the cusp of becoming a settled, and the Dems need red meat for the outrage machine heading into 2016.

Eugene Volokh has an article today on RFRA here. The fact that both sides at various times have hated the Sherbert Test and the RFRA that replaced it, makes me think it probably either offers substantive and good protections that limits both sides in their social experiments, or it’s a weapon too dangerous to let either side play with. I tend to think the former. I have no desire to see people discriminated against because of sexual orientation, but I don’t see much harm or risk of enabling systemic discrimination by carving out some narrow exceptions to accommodate people’s (or closely held corporations) religious viewpoints.

So what’s this have to do with gun rights? Not much. It’s an off topic post. But City of Boerne v. Flores, which is a case that involves the RFRA, and is actually responsible for the many state analogue RFRA’s, is going to be a key case for us when Congress starts using it’s Section 5 powers under the 14th Amendment to preserve Second Amendment rights of American citizens. City of Boerne is going to be Bloomberg’s best friend.

Harry Reid is Retiring

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) announced Friday morning he would not seek re-election in 2016.

IIRC either of the likely successors for leadership of the Senate Democrats are avowedly anti-rights; so this should clear the air some.

On Ted Cruz Running

As someone who watched most (really, it was too long) of Cruz’s speed at Liberty U, I have to agree with Charles W. Cooke about Cruz:

And yet, I hated every single moment of the address. Why? Well, because for all his obvious talent Cruzâ€™s rhetorical style frankly makes my hair curl a little. Striking a pose that lands somewhere between the oleaginousness of a Joel Osteen and the self-assuredness of a midwestern vacuum-cleaner salesman, Cruz delivers his speeches as might a mass-market motivational speaker in an Atlantic City Convention Center.

Opening your campaign at Liberty U doesn’t signal to me. Well, it does, but not the benefit of Ted Cruz. I’m still leaning Walker. Tactically, I think Cruz was smart coming out early. He’ll consolidate a lot of support around him that might otherwise go to Huckabee, Santorum, or some of the other culture warriors who may enter the race.

It’s probably important for Walker to win the Iowa Caucuses. That’s probably why he’ll pander. Iowa is a neighboring mid-western state, and a loss there will signal Walker can’t find traction even among his own people. Rand might give Walker a run for his money in New Hampshire and Colorado, and non-southern politicians typically don’t do well in southern primaries, so South Carolina isn’t a sure thing either.

Still, we’re a year away from the start of the silly season, and Putin could get a lot more frisky, the middle east could be an even bigger mess, the economy could tank again, and all that could change the dynamic of the race.

Election Problems Headed into 2016

This bit from Jim Geraghty might shed some light on why so many Republicans are reluctant to alienate hispanic voters:

There are, in some circles, this insistence that â€œif we Republicans want to win again, we just need to do what Ronald Reagan didâ€ as if 30 years hadnâ€™t passed since Reaganâ€™s last electoral victory. (If you plug Reaganâ€™s winning percentages among various demographics into the 2012 electorate, Reagan loses.)

It might also explain why they want to run Jeb, as his brother managed to peel off a good big of the Hispanic vote from the Dems. Personally, rather than the mindless pandering the establishment GOP seems to like, I think the solution is “libertarian populism,” as it’s being called; basically railing against crony capitalism going after big corporations that buy favors and protection from government reduce competition in the marketplace. You can read more about that in Glenn Reynolds latest USA Today column.

Gov. Wolf’s State Police Appointee’s Theft on Video

If you just claim that it’s “for the children,” our new Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner (an import from Maryland) seems to argue that theft is okay – especially if you’re stealing from those who criticize you in your official role as a public servant.

Marcus Brown is facing opposition for appearing in uniform that creates the perception he graduated from the state police academy, which he did not. When a critic had signs printed pointing out that he shouldn’t wear such things that he did not earn and legally placed them on a public area, Brown apparently decided to steal them in the name of “[his] children” since their bus stop is nearby.

Now, stealing someone else’s signs from a public area is a crime. You’d think that means Brown would be apologetic for getting caught on video committing this crime, but he’s standing by his theft proudly – behind the back of the spokesperson for the Pennsylvania State Police.

I’ll be honest, if I lived out there, I’d be very tempted to have signs made up that say “Marcus Brown Stop Stealing Signs,” “Marcus Brown Stop Trying to Silence Critics,” and “Marcus Brown The First Amendment Applies in Pennsylvania, Too” and plaster them all over public areas to the degree allowed by law. There wouldn’t be a corner he could turn where he wouldn’t be reminded that Pennsylvanians value their freedom of speech and ability to speak their mind on what public officials are doing with their office.

Funny enough, the video that captures him stealing the signs in the name of “safety” for his children shows him leaving up non-critical signs in the same spot. It’s pretty clear he’s abusing the right of those who disagree with him and there is no safety issue involved. The video makes it appear that he singled out their message to be silenced based on the content critical of him and he now admits to taking the sign. Perhaps his stationary order got mixed up and he thought that being in charge of the Pennsylvania State Police was being charged with overseeing the Police State of Pennsylvania.