“Wild West” argument in 2nd Amendment debate getting dismantled here at home

As I continue to catch up from my weekend I’m pulling out the parts of the Sunday paper I had read and taken notes on. The print version of the Living in LoCo blog directed me to a post over there that I’d missed when it first came up. The post, titled “Packing Heat in Loudoun” details the Kaine veto of a recently passed bill that would have permitted restaurant owners to make up their own minds as to whether or not they would allow concealed weapons in their establishments. Briefly, I’d like to point out some really clueless commentary from our state Senator Mark Herring (D) who voted against the bill:

Herring did not support the bill. “Drinking alcohol and carrying firearms is not a good mix. It’s a public safety issue. There was no compelling case for loosening the restriction on carrying a concealed weapon into bars.”

From this, I gather that Herring never actually read the bill. The language of the proposed law explicitly stated that CCW holders would not be allowed to drink if they chose to enter the place with their concealed weapon. So “[d]rinking alcohol and carrying firearms” was never an issue with this law. Add to that the fact that carrying the weapon openly holstered, strapped to your leg is completely legal whether you choose to drink or not. The entire issue of the bill was in allowing the owner of the place to decide whether he’d permit it or not. Herring’s just dead wrong on this issue in a number of ways.

My point in this post, however, is to highlight some information the blogger at Living in LoCo, Erica Garman, brought to light. Have a look here:

From circuit court records I obtained yesterday, 765 Loudoun residents were issued concealed handgun permits in 2007. That’s a 27 percent increase from 2006 (602 permits). Since January this year, 220 permits have been granted — indicating that there will be a significant increase of citizens “packing heat” in 2008 as well.

Now, those of you living in Loudoun, answer me this. Based on your recollection of the news coverage, have shootings in Loudoun County increased by nearly a third since last year? And note the figure for this year so far: 220 permits granted since January. If that holds at 220 in the 1st quarter of the year and proceeds to average that figure through the other 3 quarters, then 2008 will see almost 900 permits issued. That’ll be another 15% increase, and increase of 46% between 2006 and 2008. With all of those guns in the hands of all of those private citizens – concealed, of course – the Wild West theory says shootings will rise sharply as simple arguments turn deadly, people shoot each other over parking spaces, and suddenly-drunken Loudouners start killing each other in bars and restaurants.

But a funny thing happened on the way there – it hasn’t happened. Increased numbers of concealed weapons holders has not resulting in increased shootings. I don’t have statistics for 2007 yet but it will be interesting to see if, as I suspect, that increase in CCW holders has a corresponding decrease in crime activity connected to it.

SCOTUS to hear case on hearing profanity

Break out your 7 Bad Words You Can’t Say on TV, folks. The Supreme Court’s going to look into the matter. Really!

The Supreme Court will decide whether it is indecent when some foul-mouthed celebrity drops the “F-word” on live television, stepping into its first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years.

The high court said Monday it will hear arguments in a case over whether the government can ban “fleeting expletives,” one-time uses of familiar but profane words.

Well [bleep!]ing-”A”, people, how about you look into the issue of broadcasting a full view of someone getting machine-gunned to death in HD, complete with enough blood to paint your average 4-bedroom home before you start worrying about a passing anglo-saxonism?

Just a thought. Honest, no [bleep!]

How not to pass the drivers’ test.

D’OH!

A 28-year-old student driver crashed into the Department of Motor Vehicles office in Leesburg Friday while taking her road test to try to get a drivers’ license.

Nita Sureka, of Ashburn, accidentally accelerated a 2000 Volkswagen into the side of the building while trying to park, Leesburg Police Department spokesman Lt. Jeff Dube said.

Smooth.

Florida Dems jettison plan to re-do primary by mail

Looks like the plan to re-do the Florida primary through the mail has gotten the heave-ho from the FL Dem party.

Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats on Monday abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party.

While the decision by Florida Democrats left the state’s 210 delegates in limbo, Democrats in Michigan moved closer to holding another contest on June 3. Legislative leaders reviewed a measure Monday that would set up a privately funded, state-administered do-over primary, The Associated Press learned.

The state’s Dem Chairwoman says it doesn’t mean that the Dems are “giving up on Florida voters”, which I assume means they’re still looking to get their delegates seated. The only difference now is that they’re relying on the DNC to back out of its ruling and let the state vote at the convention in Denver. Dems and rules, folks. Only binding when they’re convenient for the Dems.

Woman with Civil-War era promissory note sues Tampa, FL to collect over $22 million.

In June of 1861 the city of Tampa, FL – a city within the Confederate States of America – needed ammo for its war effort against the North – the United States. It issued a promissory note to one Thomas Kennedy to borrow funds from him. The note was never repaid. Now, a descendant of Thomas Kennedy is suing Tampa to collect on the note with interest compounded at 8% per year.

The great-granddaughter of a Civil War-era storekeeper in Tampa, Fla. is suing the city for a 147-year-old unpaid promissory note. With interest, the note is now worth over $22 million.

The financially-strapped city of Tampa, in need of ammunition during the Civil War, issued the note to Thomas Pugh Kennedy on June 21, 1861, the St. Petersburg Times reported Sunday. Kennedy’s great-granddaughter, Joan Kennedy Biddle and her family are suing to collect the payment, plus 8 percent annual interest.

The city’s attorney doesn’t consider the claim valid and has filed legal docs to say why. I’ve got a good reason for him to add, in case he hasn’t thought of it. The government of Tampa, FL that issued the note wasn’t a member of the United States of America at the time. In fact, only the city’s government under the CSA could really be considered liable for the note. Thomas Kennedy lent money to a government that no longer exists. He was gambling that the CSA would win the war and be around to repay him. It isn’t. He lost. I regret to inform his great-granddaughter that she’s also on the losing end of that arrangement.

Such a document is a massively important find in terms of a family’s genealogy and in terms of the nation’s history. If that’s not enough for her, may I recommend that she put it up for auction on eBay?

After action report: LCRC Mass Meeting

This is the promised follow-up posting for the LCRC Mass Meeting held this past Saturday, the 15th. As I previously mentioned, I left feeling pretty positive about the whole deal but the road to that point was not all smooth and sunshine. This is likely to be a long post but some topics require a longer story.

The meeting process started with an hour-long registration interval. Anyone could attend, but only those that had filed by the March 5 deadline were permitted to be delegates and have a vote during the meeting. One of the more concerning issues that arose from that process was the realization that only 143 people had filed to be members of the LCRC. (For those unaware of the purpose of the Mass Meeting, according to Party rules, the LCRC basically dissolves and re-forms every 2 years. A new Chairman is elected and citizens can join up as it re-forms.) That number is significantly lower than in the past and represents just under 50% of what the LCRC is permitted, in terms of membership count, by the Party’s rules. In some ways that’s just fine: it usually means that the more dedicated people are to be voting members of the committee. In others, it’s obviously not fine: a smaller membership means fewer resources in human terms and creates an impression that the committee’s values are not held in high regard by the community. The mitigating factor, here, is that new members may file to join at any time and can be admitted to the committee during the course of normal meetings. The lower initial count may, therefore, be simply a matter of scheduling conflicts.

---

McCain: Journey to Freedom

(We’re gonna try this YouTube thing and see if it flys…)

Get to know the man.