U.S. v. Emerson
Good
Poetry
Makes the universe admit a
Secret:
"I am
Really just a tambourine,
Grab hold,
Play me
Against your warm
Thigh."
(The Gift: Poems by Hafiz, translations by Daniel Ladinsky)
From Quotes of the Day:
If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score? -- Vince Lombardiand:
Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use. -- Wendell Johnsonand:
I stopped believing in Santa Claus when my mother took me to see him in a department store, and he asked for my autograph. -- Shirley Temple
Wolf DeVoon at Laissez Faire City Times - Law Framer of Last Resort - Mr. DeVoon is authoring The Freeman's Constitution at organic-law.com : "Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty."
I respect very sincerely the prejudice of my fellow freemen, who are angrily contemptuous of all lawyers and law. No doubt they believe themselves able to compose their own contracts and corporate charters, unaided by advice of legal counsel. Not everyone is equally competent. Many need representation, especially in the event of a dispute. All of us need recourse to an impartial tribunal when shit comes to holler and tests our community's institutions. It is good that no one wants government. But the law is not government. Law is a profession, like medicine or engineering, and freemen need objective public justice, if they wish to enjoy their liberty and privacy. To some, it is a painful truth, that science is not arbitrary supposition. To others, it is intolerable to be legally answerable to a summons (i.e., to be called into court, either as a witness or defendant). The rule of law is not fun. It is a difficult duty that no one much enjoys, not even when you prevail over an adversary in court.
Vin Suprynowicz - From killings to cover-ups, rogue agency has no place in free nation - part of The Libertarian series. "Its few legitimate functions should be divested to other agencies, and the FBI should be closed -- its headquarters razed and converted into a park." Yes!
What are the FBI's legitimate functions? Maintaining a central index of the fingerprints of known felons (though I suspect the number of suspects thus apprehended is grossly exaggerated), chasing foreign spies, and doing background checks on prospective employees of secure federal facilities (though "We do FBI background checks on far too many people ... jobs that aren't really security-related" U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told me last week.)
Which of these legitimate functions could possibly lead a federal bureau to dispatch a military sniper to shoot an Idaho housewife through the throat as she stood holding her baby in her own kitchen? Which could lead it to dispatch agents to inject toxic gases in flammable suspension from armored vehicles into a Texas church full of women and children, leading to a fire which killed dozens of innocent citizens ... all over the invented suspicion that the church's leader might have failed to pay a $200 tax?
Vin Suprynowicz - The natives are restless - part of The Libertarian series. Tax riots have accomplished their goals in Tennessee and North Carolina. Good.
Don B. Kates at NRA-ILA - Gun Control=Gun Prohibition - explores the Brady Bunch'es oft-expressed opinion that people have no right to defend themselves, hence guns have no moral purpose. Bull. If you initiate force against my person, property, or family, your life is forfeit, no matter which fancy uniform or funny hat you're wearing. Sparing your life in that instance is an act of charity on my part.
In a free society, the only legitimate basis for law is controlling dangerous behavior, not imposing a minority moral vision on the majority. The great majority of Americans, whether gun owners or not, reject the anti-gun "moral vision" and accept self-defense as full justification for gun ownership by law-abiding, responsible adults. That is why gun control advocates generally soft-pedal their elitist "moral" agenda, blending it into false and misleading arguments about crime control.
NRA Institute for Legislative Action - Fact Sheet: Emerson v. U.S. - Back in February of 1999, Judge Sam R. Cummings ruled that the second amendment does indeed protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. More specifically, he found 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional. Hence, unless the Supreme Court overrules, a restraining order no longer deprives one of the right to keep and bear arms.
The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one. The collective rights' idea that the Second Amendment can only be viewed in terms of state or federal power "ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance as far as it stands ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter." Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637, 651 (1989).You can find 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) by going to law2.house.gov/usc.htm, typing "18" in the "Title" box, "922" in the "Section" box, clicking "Search", then clicking on the one-line result. That takes you to the page for 18 USC Sec. 922 (a URL that I'm not sure is permanent). You can then use your browser's "Find" command to find (g) as a paragraph label, and then read through (8) and below. The relevant text is:
...
It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights, particularly when neither the judge issuing the order, nor the parties nor their attorneys are aware of the federal criminal penalties arising from firearm possession after entry of the restraining order. That such a routine civil order has such extensive consequences totally attenuated from divorce proceedings makes the statute unconstitutional. There must be a limit to government regulation on lawful firearm possession. This statute exceeds that limit, and therefore it is unconstitutional.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person - ... (8) who is subject to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.Note that (9) was NOT found unconstitutional.
JSwat "is an extensible, standalone, graphical Java debugger front-end, written to use the Java Platform Debugger Architecture (JPDA) package provided by JavaSoft. The program is licensed under the GNU General Public License and thus is freely available in binary as well as source code form." I haven't tried it. [cafe]
Dave Winer's DaveNet - Connecting with Blogger - Dave waxes eloquent about Blogger's new XML-RPC interface, as well he should. Web services are alive and well and being produced today by small companies.