Some of the county gun bans allow exemptions

For guys like this:

In her 12-page petition, Theresa Farmer claims the former county attorney made crude comments, touched her and invited her to look at pornographic images on his computer in the courthouse. Farmer also alleges Marzen displayed violent temper tantrums and had a gun in his office.

Several counties listed in the Iowa Gun Bans label passed resolutions and ordinances banning guns on county property. Some cities have followed suit. Many of those bans have exemptions for law enforcement officers and county attorneys.

Are they saying some people are more important (like a county attorney) than a mere citizen exercising their right to protect themselves? Especially against perverts and sexual predators?

What's wrong with this statement?

From Gun measure prompts response

While state law gives individuals the right to carry firearms, the city can limit where those firearms can be carried, according to [Keokuk] Mayor Tom Marion, the former city attorney. As for himself, he said he is not sure anymore where he stands on the latter issue.

Let them eat cake

If the Chinese get it, how come we don't?

Take David's poll

Would you help the British just as we did almost 70 years ago?

During a time when England was on the verge of invasion from Nazi Germany, thousands of gun owners in the United States gave their firearms to help our limey cousins.

David Codrea asks: Would you 'send a gun to defend a British home'?

"We have absolute immunity" comments

A few more thoughts on my post of We have absolute immunity

Could this be the end of our ability to seek redress for grievances? If we are prevented from punishing (or at least holding responsible) those who abuse their offices, what method is left to the citizens to prevent or punish criminal actions of those people who hold these offices?

The case involves prosecutors in Iowa who knowingly used false testimony against individuals in order to gain a conviction. These people have never been held accountable for their actions. Arguments were heard in the Supreme Court last Wednesday.

If the concept of immunity for public officials is upheld, what is to prevent a county attorney from fabricating a case against any citizen and scream "immunity" when caught?

In a word - nothing.

Union workers are unproductive

So says a union rep, at least in regards to workers on the job longer than more inexperienced ones. Bumping rights debate heats up as state cuts loom

Union agreements that allow state employees with more seniority to "bump" less-experienced colleagues when the state lays off workers could result in a less skilled, less productive work force, business and workplace leaders warned this week.

Okay, so a worker who's been employed longer than someone who just started say, a couple of years ago, is less productive?

That would be yes, according to Danny Homan, president of Council 61 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSME).

"We're not going to have this debate on whether or not somebody who has worked for a year gets to stay over somebody who has devoted 30 years of their life because they work harder," Homan said. "That is baloney."

So Homan admits that someone 30 years within an organization can't do a productive job over a newbie?

In Homan's world a good, hard-working, productive employee gets the boot.

How many czars do we need, anyway?

Tangalor at Nonsensical Multisyllabic Words provides a list of csars (or tzars) that we currently have in the Obama regime. Czars by definition provides a list of 31 little fiefdoms created by this and previous administrations.

Badger Guns 10/6/09 update

I've mentioned the targeting of Badger Guns before. Police put more demands on Badger Guns and my first post here: Badger Guns target of investigation

But now it appears that a gun purchased at Badger Guns in West Milwaukee was used in the shooting of a Milwaukee police officer. Gun in shooting of officer traced to Badger Guns.

As I've said before, if the owners are knowingly selling guns to felons or to straw purchasers, then they should nail them. But the ATF isn't involved and that makes me suspicious that they've committed any crimes.

Police launched an undercover operation two days after a pair of officers were shot in the head on Milwaukee's south side in June. The on-going operation has revealed indications of straw buying at Badger and felons freely going into the store, some to practice shooting.

"Indications" is not evidence. Evidence is needed for a conviction.

Later on in this article, we read:

In May, Jacob Collins was in Badger with Julius Burton, an 18-year-old who was too young to buy a handgun at a store, according to federal court documents.

"That's the one I want," Burton told Collins, pointing to a .40-caliber Taurus handgun, records show.

Collins was allowed to change his answer. Collins got the gun and sold it to Burton for $40.

Something smells here.

A dumb kid buys a gun at a loss to a buddy? Who can buy a functioning handgun for $40 (or less, if he tried to make a profit)? If Badger Guns is selling good, functional handguns for 40 bucks, then I'm making a trip. Collins risks a federal felony charge and loses money on the deal? Something doesn't add up.

For a Wisconsin viewpoint visit BadgerBlogger

Prosecute the bastards who shot the officers, that's where they should concentrate. I wish the officers make a speedy and full recovery.

Police put more demands on Badger Guns

Local police put the strong-arm to Badger Guns in West Milwaukee. I posted earlier about their initial investigation of the gun store Badger Guns investigation But what we have now is borderline harassment. Mayor, chief demand more ID checks at Badger Guns

Milwaukee leaders raised the heat Tuesday on Badger Guns, demanding the owner immediately make changes to stem the flow of crime guns coming from the store.

Mayor Tom Barrett called on Badger immediately to begin scanning the identification of everyone coming into the store, like some bars do, and to look up anyone who wants to shoot on the range to make sure he isn't a felon.

Police Chief Edward Flynn suggested that anyone who comes into the store to buy a gun or shoot on the range sign a sworn affidavit saying he is not a criminal or committing a crime. Then store managers should allow police to inspect it, he said.

Hey, Chief Flynn, here's a news flash: Anyone buying from an FFL already has to fill out some kind of "affidavit" and sign it, swearing under penalty of jail, that they are not excluded from gun ownership. Genius, he's not.

So the owner is supposed to identify, track, and then turn over that info to any cop who demands it? It might be a good business practice to make sure honest and trustworthy people are using your range. In other words, know who you are doing business with. But demanding businesses to track customers and turn the owners into quasi-cops? Needing a warrant, maybe?

But the root of this gun shop is this: if Badger Guns is actually doing something illegal as an FFL holder, don't you think the ATF would be all over this place. I seem to recall Red's Trading Post getting more scrutiny for being accused of much less.

Badger Guns target of investigation

Badger Guns in West Milwaukee is the target of an investigation by police for having a very high number of guns that fall into the hands of criminals. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's article: Police stake out gun store on lookout for felons, straw buyers

According to this quote the paper had access to trace data.

A total of 1,880 crime guns recovered in Milwaukee were linked to Badger between January 2006 and Sept. 1 - or more than one a day, according to a Journal Sentinel analysis.

I thought trace data was only to be shared with local law enforcement. Something smells here.

But the data pointed to Badger Guns and police (not the ATF???) are catching the felons. If the dealer is doing something illegal, then why isn't he in jail?

I'm not going to judge just yet and I think we need more information to decide if this dealer is on the up-and-up.

She's got guts

A woman asks a bold question of her congressman over at Sharp as a Marble.

Come and take it, indeed.

What politicians won't do themselves, they are more than happy to send others. This woman stands up to her congressman and puts him in his place.

H/T to sayuncle (here)

A right vs. a Right?

I’ve been pondering this question about a healthcare “right” and how to better understand it. GOA and JPFO have done a good job of explaining the threat to gun rights if the government should run the healthcare industry. I’m sure I’m not the first guy to think of it this way: If healthcare is a “right” and the government is obligated to provide or enforce this “right”, then why is the government not providing for, or enforcing upon each of us the right to keep and bear arms? (An answer later)

If we have Miranda rights (right to an attorney and if you can’t afford one, one will be provided for you…), why can’t the same be said for the 2nd Amendment? That question is for another essay, but the point I’m trying to make is if a right is so important, then why isn’t the government busting the budget to make sure we have all of our rights? I turned of age 20 years ago and I’m still waiting for my battle rifle from Uncle Sam.

Going back to the Declaration of Independence: “…That to secure these Rights [Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men…” is the key. “Secure” has been perverted to “provide”. But not for all rights, only the chosen rights. Should the government provide people with bullhorns and printing presses for free speech and the press? No. What about building houses of worship? Of course not. The enumerated Bill of Rights and those listed in the Declaration aren’t about the government making sure you practice your rights. It was for keeping government from interfering with our preexisting rights. We all know that, right? Unless you are a member of Congress. For a list of other rights, please see former Sen. Edwards.

So regarding the upcoming Obama-Care: If healthcare is such an important “right” that the federal government should provide access to healthcare, then why isn’t the government providing access to quality firearms matching those carried by our armed forces? If your representative is honest, then you should be receiving your M-16 soon. But if they are like mine, you will probably be labeled a terrorist and no further townhall meetings are allowed.

Truthfully, I haven’t posed that question to my representative. He doesn’t hold town-hall meetings, only conference calls that you must register for and they are limited. (Too bad they don’t enforce the “redress of grievances” right.) I did, however, ask that question to my sons. My 15 year-old answered - “Because healthcare is about control and firearms are about independence.”

This gives me hope that my sons will become better men than I.