Milwaukee County Gun Registration

Senate Bill 148, introduced by State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-6th) would require all persons residing in Milwaukee County to register their firearms with the DOJ, regardless of where the firearm is kept.

This bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Young, Fields, Sinicki, Toles, Turner, Berceau, A., Williams and Kessler.

Here is the summary of the Bill:

2005 SENATE BILL 148
March 29, 2005 − Introduced by Senator COGGS, cosponsored by Representatives YOUNG, FIELDS, SINICKI, TOLES, TURNER, BERCEAU, A. WILLIAMS and KESSLER.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy.
AN ACT to create 175.36 of the statutes; relating to: requiring registration of firearms owned by Milwaukee County residents and providing a penalty.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill requires an individual who resides in Milwaukee County and who owns a firearm to report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) the individual’s name and address, the manufacturer, model, and serial number of the firearm, and any other identifying characteristic of the firearm specified by DOJ. When ownership of a firearm is transferred from or to a Milwaukee County resident, the resident must report the transfer of ownership to DOJ. The bill requires DOJ to maintain a registry of this firearms ownership information. DOJ must keep the information in the registry confidential, except that DOJ may release information to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a crime that involves a firearm. The firearms reporting requirements apply to handguns, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns, regardless of where in the state they are located, but not to firearms designed to fire loose black power, firearms manufactured before 1899, or firearms that cannot be fired and cannot readily be restored to firing condition. An individual who violates the reporting requirements may be fined not more than $1,000 or jailed for not more than nine months or both.

As we know from history, once there is a gun registry, confiscation follows. Look at Hitler’s Germany, look at England, look at California when in the late 1990’s ordered the confiscation of SKS and “assault rifles” (whatever they are) which by California law were previously registered.

Apparently this proposed legislation is in response to the recent shooting by the man from New Berlin. Well, would this legislation have stopped that crime? Will this legislation stop future crimes? Will this legislation serve as anything other than a precursor to confiscating guns in Milwaukee County?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding “No”!

Want to know the really neat thing about firearms registration? In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

Neat, huh?

Terri, Rest In Peace

Say a prayer for Terri, and that God have mercy on those who killed her.

Concerned about Illegal Immigration? Read this...

Here is a must read site for information on Illegal Immigration - "The Immigration Blog". This blog comes to us from Michelle Malkin, who has her other blog here.

Very good reading on immigration issues.

Wisconsin Legislation AB56 to be voted on in House Judiciary Committee soon

This legislation will put an end to reckless lawsuits that attempt to hold legally operating gun manufacturers, dealers, and clubs liable for the acts of criminals.

Go to the “Wisconsin Legislation” link at the top of my sidebar to find out more about AB56, then write your representatives and ask them to support this important legislation.

Gun Ban Crowd Attacks the .50cal

The gun ban crowd has declared its new bandwagon, and it is the .50cal “sniper” rifle. This isn’t to say that they have forgotten about our semi-automatic rifles, our pistols, our revolvers, our shotguns and other firearms, it’s just that they see a better chance of passing legislation nation-wide on the .50cal. Why? Because very few people own .50cal rifles and they realize that most gun owners will not fight to keep from banning a gun they A) don’t own, and B) see no use for.

Well the problem with thinking like that is that this is only a stepping stone to banning more guns. What makes you think that they will stop with the .50cal? You see, just as they arbitrarily invented and lobbied against the “assault weapon” they will now declare war on “sniper rifles”.

What are sniper rifles? Any firearm the gun ban lobby deems a sniper rifle: the .50cal now, then the .45-70, then the .308, the .227, and finally your kid’s (and yours too) .22cal rimfire plinking/squirrel hunting rifle as well as all the calibers in between. Because in all reality any gun is an assault weapon, and any rifle is a sniper rifle when put in the wrong hands.

Although the gun ban crowd would prefer to immediately confiscate all our guns, as Senator Feinstein publicly acknowledged, they realize that they could never pass legislation to accomplish that. So they attack us bit-by-bit, first going after a weapon that would be relatively easy to demonize and that few people own, hoping and actually counting on that the rest of us won’t care enough to get off our duffs and call our representatives to let them know how wrong this is and how much we are against it.

Legislation has not been presented yet, but there is talk some will be introduced soon. I’ll keep you posted here as I find out more.

What can we do? Call/write/e-mail your Representatives and Senators now and let them know you oppose any such legislation that may be presented.

Wisconsin Legislation Link Update

The link "Current Wisconsin Legislation" at the top of my sidebar is now updated - I mistakenly had the link direct you to a site that listed legislation of interest to the agriculture/natural resources sectors. The current link will take you to a site run by the state and has various search and listing options for all legislation in both the Senate and Assembly.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

More on Social Security and Why Bush is Right

Here is some data on Galveston County, Texas that I had heard about, but never took the time to look up. H/T again to Vista on Current Events for posting the information.

More on ethanol

Go here (H/T Vista on Current Events) to read more on why ethanol is not so great, especially if you own a GM vehicle.

Why the Paraguayan flag?

Those of you who visit this site with some regularity may notice that I put a Paraguayan flag next to the US flag and wonder what that is for.

Well, I lived and worked in Paraguay for about 15 years, first as a Peace Corps Forestry Volunteer, then in other forestry and training positions both with, and outside of Peace Corps. My wife is Paraguayan, and my daughter therefore is 50/50, but a US citizen and honorary Wisconsinite by birth (you know she's got Wisconsin blood in her - she loves ice fishing!)!

Anyway, with nothing to do this morning after the Easter egg hunt (we went to church last night) I found a freeware Paraguayan flag and decided to put it up to kind of give the site a little more flavor, and a bit of recognition to the multi-cultural environment in our house here in Rhinelander.

Also though, after having lived through random police searches, restrictions on activities before elections, restrictions on speech in general, always having to prove who I was with a government issued ID, and so on, I learned to truly appreciate the freedoms we have here in the USA as guaranteed in our Constitution.

That’s why campaign finance reform, a national ID (a.k.a. natl. driver’s license) and gun control are such sore topics with me. These three issues strike at the core of our freedoms: the freedom to move around as we choose without having to prove ourselves worthy to the government, the freedom to speak our mind when and where we want, and the freedom to own firearms as a means of last resort against a tyrannical government.

So, there’s a little more background on me I guess. Anyone interested in learning about Paraguay can contact me by e-mail. The link is in my profile.

Wisconsin Senate Bill SB18 Requires Ethanol in Gasoline Statewide

Except for a few instances such as aviation fuel, recreational vehicles and high octane gas (among others) all gasoline sold in Wisconsin will have to have between 9.2 and 10% ethanol according to SB18, which is currently in the committee of natural resources and transportation.

Ethanol, once reported to be the great environmental fuel, maybe isn’t so great after all. Even the Sierra Club and the Madison Audubon Society have come out against ethanol as an environmentally friendly fuel. There is plenty of debate about whether or not there is a net gain of energy from ethanol production, as well as about the amount of and kinds of air-borne contaminants its production puts into our air. Go here for a number of links to articles on ethanol production.

My question is this: if ethanol really gives yields of up to a 34% positive energy gain, then why does the industry need to be so heavily subsidized by Wisconsin and the Feds?? Maybe because ethanol is not a 1:1 substitute for gasoline; it’s an inferior fuel. It must be or market forces would push ethanol production through the roof, subsidies or not.

But alas, that’s not going to happen, so Gov. Doyle has two million dollars of ethanol subsidies in his proposed budget, the joint finance committee added another 2 million to that, and the Federal Government paid out approximately 7 billion dollars in subsidies between 1979 and 1997 (I couldn’t find current subsidies by the Feds, but there is no reason to believe they have been reduced). This article by the Heritage Foundation spells out many of the arguments against ethanol.

Ethanol production basically takes one form of fuel energy (petroleum) and converts it into another (ethanol). Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, one must assume that 100% of the net gain in ethanol production must come from the sun, which is free energy to all. I find this dubious at best, and wonder if there really is a net gain.

Regardless though, if we are really concerned about the environment with all this wouldn’t it be better to just pay the farmers to not grow ethanol destined corn and save all the petroleum energy that is required to: plant, fertilize, sanitize (weed and pest control), harvest, ship, process into ethanol and then ship again to the gas station?

Think of all the acres we could plant back into trees which require no additional inputs, improve the soil and ground water, can be harvested sustainably, and provide homes for all our furry & feathered friends. A corn field can’t do any of that…

Besides, proponents of ethanol like to call it a “sustainable” energy source. I ask you: How can it be sustainable if it relies on petroleum to produce it?

Stay up-to-date on Wisconsin Legislation

Wondering what the politicians in Madison are cooking up these days? Check out the "WI Legislation" link on this page (under "Find Your Reps") to see what's going on. Interesting reading once a week I would think. Mandatory reading once a month?

NYT Editorial Still doesn't get it about Terri Shiavo

I haven't posted much lately, mostly because after coming home from work, I'd run through a few of my favorite bolgs and find nothing but depressing news about the chances Terri has of not being starved to death.

Today I heard a caller on Rush Limbaugh's show say that before Terri's "accident" she suffered from bulimia. Apparently the caller thought that justification as to why we should kill Terri through starvation and dehydration. I truly feel sorry for these people that seem to be trying as hard as they can to justify what is going on.

Then, here is an excerpt from a New York Times editorial by Charles Fried, a professor at the Harvard Law School. He quotes Justice Scalia's opinion in a 1990 case in Missouri that portrayed "precisely the same issues".

I quote from the article:

"The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it," Justice Scalia wrote. (Emphasis added)

I could not find the actual opinion or case that Fried refers to, but here it seems to me that the Missouri case involved someone who required a whole lot more science than just feeding him (her?) to stay alive. Again, here is the MSM purposefully misrepresenting Terri’s condition to promote its own agenda.

Again, I quote from the editorial:

Justice Scalia went on to say that he would have preferred that the court had announced, "clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." The problem, he insisted, was that "the point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory."

For starters, life is never “worthless” Justice Scalia. Second, Mr. Fried, do you really feel eating and drinking are extraordinary means of keeping yourself alive?

More (if you can stand to read more without blowing a gasket…):

For years now, Congress has more and more stringently demanded that federal court intervention be limited to cases where the state courts have acted not just technically incorrectly, but with egregious lack of reason. Whatever might be said of the Florida state court proceedings in this case, they certainly have not crossed that line, and indeed probably accord with what state courts all over the country have ordered or permitted for years in these difficult and agonizing cases.

Judge Greer has broken more Florida laws and has acted with a complete lack of reason in this case. He not only passed the line Fried talks about, but erased it and drew another of his own liking. Congress didn’t intervene in this case because they wanted an activist judge, it is precisely because there was an activist Judge that was not basing his rulings on fact, but on his own notion that Terri should die. That is more than justification for Congress and the President to act. No branch of government acts in a vacuum; all can be held accountable by the others.

I hope this made sense today. Sorry if it doesn’t. Here’s the link to the editorial again (you need to register to view it). MSM...don't know how much more I can take.

Paul

More on New Gun Control for Milwaukee

H/T to Boots and Sabers for this on State Sen. Spencer Coggs’ (D-MKE) attempts to impose further restrictions on the people of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County's Second Amendment Rights. Also thanks for this link to an article of how this proposed legislation came about. There is no good reason for the government to know who owns and who does not own guns. There is also no sane reason why dealers and manufacturers should be held responsible for the illegal acts of others.

If a dealer knowingly sells a gun to a felon, then he broke the law and can be prosecuted under that law. No need for another law to cover that. If a manufacturer makes a defective gun and someone gets hurt, then you can sue for damages: don't hold them liable because someone used a perfectly functional gun in a crime.

Here's another interesting article in the L.A. Times that was apparently inspired by the recent shootings around the country, including the one in New Berlin, Wisconsin. The article basically tried to show how both sides of the gun debate are using these shootings to push their agenda.

The interesting thing to note is how prosecutors and judges now want to carry a firearm for personal protection. I’d like to know how many of them were all for the current laws that ban guns from courtrooms…?

Nonetheless, this probably doesn’t mean much for us common folk because in all likelihood it will end up as “…well we need guns to protect ourselves because we are so important. You don’t however…the police are there to protect you…” Kind of like Michael Moore – he is as anti-gun as you can get when it pertains to your or my rights to own them.

But he needs his armed bodyguard of course.

Kill a Baby, Save a Bear

OK, so I grabbed the title out of one of the comments on a post found on Ankle Biting Pundits.com, but check this out - are the Democrats confused about priorities or what?!?!

Hat Tip to Brain Post for this one. I had to pass it on. Read through the comments on Ankle Biting Pundits, some are good, and the few liberals that did post only make you shake your head.

I like Polar Bears, but how Barbara Boxer can stand up there and preach about saving God given gifts, then vote "No" twice in 2003 to ban partial birth abortion, and "Yes" in 2002 to make sure military personnel had access to abortion services in military hospitals is lost on me.

I can only shake my head...

Track Wisconsin Gun Legislation at Wisconsin Gun Owners

Concerned about your Second Amendment rights slipping away because you didn't know what legislation was currently under consideration in Madison?

Go here, to see Wisconsin Gun Owner's (WGO) new web site feature "Bill Watch". (Click on "bill watch" in WGO's left margin). You can find out details of current legislation, who has sponsored the bill, and where it is in the process of becoming law.

Visit frequently. WGO's home page link is on this site under "Pro Second Amendment Organizations".

Stop Hillary in 2008!!

Moonbattery posted here a very nice graphic of Hillary popping in and out of a cuckoo clock. Very appropriate. Also he gave the link to Blogs Against Hillary, where you can sign up to show your support.

Hillary is probably the sneakiest of all Democrats. Immediately after Bush won the election, she started to (try to) morph into a conservative so that when the 2008 election campaign rolls around she will have a whole list of "conservative" bills that she has voted for.

Her plan no doubt is to set up a few years of a new voting record that she will spew at us ad nausium during the campaign assuming we will all forget her past voting record, and knowing the MSM will conveniently forget it also. She'll be the conservative ex-liberal for 2008.

Use the link on this page to check Hillary's voting record over the next few years, and to compare it to her past few years (all on that site).

Patriotic Icons

Like the American flag on this site? Go here to get yours. Lots of cool stuff you can download for free.

Good Morning America on Terri Shiavo

This morning, Good Morning America (GMA) interviewed Terri’s brother, Michael Shiavo, and Tom DeLay (separately).

I felt Terri’s brother wasn’t asked the questions that would have allowed him to really tell us what is going on, Michael and his lawyer lied about starvation/dehydration being a peaceful death (It's not. See my earlier post on this.), and Tom DeLay did an excellent job.

Senator DeLay forcefully corrected GMA that Terri is not on life support. He said that death row inmates have more rights and appeals to keep from being killed than Terri does. He pointed out that in Florida to do what they are doing to Terri would get you a prison term and a $5,000 fine if you did it to a dog.

Kate Snow (who did the interviews) said “understood” and moved on when Tom DeLay corrected her that Terri is not on life support. Obviously she didn’t want the truth to get in the way of her agenda, which is why a follow-up question such as “Really?, then why is MSM reporting otherwise?” Kate also tried to paint the Republican's efforts as purely political, and named her source for that allegation as “House Republicans”.

She also showed results from a poll of their viewers that showed 87% of the respondents said they would not want to live this way. Which way? The way the main stream media has portrayed her as on life support, comatose, and as a vegetable? Or as she really is – alert, aware, not on life support, and responsive.

Hopefully GMA had record viewers for Tom DeLay’s segment.

Anti-gun Crowd once again Exploits Tragedy

Hat tip to my sister at Stand in the Trenches for sending me this release (from the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort – [WAVE]) that she found on Charlie Sykes blog.

I’m not surprised, and as Charlie Sykes says, “This didn’t take long.”

If WAVE is truly concerned with violence, why aren’t they pushing to get the perpetrators of these crimes behind bars with longer sentences, less leniency, no leniency for repeat offenders and the like instead of blaming the weapon used? It’s because their goal is not really to stop violence, it is to remove guns from our society.

Here’s the proof: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told the country on CBS’ 60 Minutes

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

How much clearer do you want it? Blatant disregard for our Constitutional rights.

The Brady Campaign, The Million Mom March (I don’t think they ever really even had a ‘million’ moms!), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and all the rest have the same goal as Sen. Feinstein. It has nothing to do with stopping violence.

I wrote here about how the Left needs activist Judges that are willing to legislate from the bench based on their personal political beliefs. The anti-gun crowd also uses legislation created by Congress and the States to change the United States Constitution by making the personal possession of firearms illegal, effectively 'making the Second Amendment null and void.

They use legislation, and lawsuits filed with activist judges to uphold their legislation, because they don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell to change the Constitution as regards the Second Amendment they way it should be changed: through the proper process that requires ratification by the States.

Dying of Starvation and Dehydration is not Peaceful.

Go here at Fr. Johansen’s site to read about how awful the “peaceful” death that Michael Shiavo wants for Terri really is.

(It's not.)

Call Your Reps to Help Terri

Today Terri's feeding tube was ordered removed. This is the first step towards a court-ordered murder of an innocent woman.

Please use the link at the left or click here (same link) to find your reps in Washington and tell them that you do not support court-ordered murder of an innocent woman, that she is not "comatose" as the major media networks insist on calling her, and that they should stand up and stop this atrocity.

Also let them know that Judge Greer should be removed from office. Go here for a petition to remove Judge Greer from office and to see all the laws Judge Greer has broken throughout his rulings. Then when you are done, sign the petition.

Representative's Voting Records

H/T to my Brother JAM for this link to "Project Vote Smart". There are many links on the site to check out voting records, a "find your rep" search and more.

An invaluable tool when writing your representatives so you can write with authority on what they voted for and against. I'll add this link to the top of my "links" section to the left.

Democrats to Lose Right to Free Speech...Oh My!

Here's a good one. In this letter sent out to Democrats, Governor Howard Dean, M.D. claims that Democrats in the Senate are about to lose their right to free speech if the Republicans change the number of votes required to kill a filibuster from 60 to 51!

I quote

"Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate."

Sorry guys, but the First Amendment does not address the rules of the Senate.

The interesting thing to note here however is that none of these great defenders of our First Amendment rights cried out when they passed Campaign-Finance Reform which turned the First Amendment on its head for us!!

(I was going to post a comment on their site, but in order to register you have to be a Democrat, and I just didn't have it in me to break their rules. I can understand them however. They surely don't want any truth to get in the way of their ranting.)

Oh heck - I was going to continue to pick this letter apart, but due to lack of time I'll just copy the whole letter below and welcome your comments. All I can do is shake my head at the lies and other misleading statements in it.

Here's the letter:

Submitted by golfmonkey on March 15, 2005 - 11:54pm.
I received this today from the Democratic Party. Please read and sign the petition.
Thanks!

Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone. But when one
party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.

The Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the
courts.

Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced -- it will be ours: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream.
But that's not enough. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone that the Republican leadership is out of touch with reality.

More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. And that same
day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more votes than Republicans.

Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.

Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in
order to protect our democracy.

Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Democrats Clamor Against Filibuster Change...Why?

Yesterday the Democrats deserted the Senate chamber and protested on the steps outside threatening to shut down all non-essential business in the Senate if the Republican majority changes the filibuster rules. Why is it the Democrats are so up in arms about this?

Well, Rush Limbaugh recently had an excellent show covering this topic - one of the best of his I have heard yet. Basically, the Democrats, and in particular the liberal-left, are fighting hard to make sure that judges prone to making legislation get behind the bench as opposed to those who will solely interpret the Constitution.

Without activist, legislation-making judges behind the bench, the left will never accomplish what they want.

Take abortion: if put to a vote, it is highly likely that it would be outlawed across the country. The same thing is true with same-sex marriage; 11 States passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in the last election. The closest vote was in Oregon at 57-43% - an easy majority. The juvenile death penalty is another ruling that truly shows the nature of activist judges. This however is in the US Constitution, but as an accepted and constitutional form of punishment. In one fell swoop, the Court changed our Constitution. Isn't that supposed to be up to us to do?

As Justice Scalia, criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the juvenile death penalty said

"Unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling on the first of March to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on 'evolving notions of decency' was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority."

That pretty much says it all in a nutshell. The Democrats, with the liberal left leading the charge, have to get their own people on the bench. Heaven forbid we get people who actually interpret the Constitution.

Senate Filibuster Rule Change: Good idea or Bad?

The Senate Republicans, frustrated (and rightly so) about the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, are planning to change the filibuster rules so that Bush’s nominees will be guaranteed a vote on the Senate floor.

Sounds good, right? Well here is an article written by Michael E. Hammond, General Counsel, United States Senate Steering Committee, 1978-1989. The article came in an e-mail from Gun Owners of America (GOA).

GOA says that this is a bad idea, since eliminating the judicial filibuster would also eliminate the legislative filibuster. The problem GOA has with this is really two-fold.

First, many pieces of legislation that would have severely (in my opinion) restricted our Second Amendment rights failed to pass because of legislative filibuster, or the threat of a filibuster. By eliminating this Senate “tool”, they say, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and the rest of their anti-gun clan will be far better positioned to get legislation like the Clinton Gun Ban passed, either on its own, or by tacking it onto other “must pass” legislation.

Second, GOA says, looking at the Republican track record of judicial appointees doesn’t really guarantee anything. They point out the some of the more liberal justices on the bench were appointed by Republican presidents: John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), and David Souter (George H. W. Bush).

The article above is a good one, but long and heavy on Senate procedures – definitely not my forte. Nonetheless, it seems to me that eliminating filibusters for short term gain may in fact hurt us in the long run.

It seems that the important thing here is to forget changing the Senate rules and concentrate on winning a filibuster-proof majority in 2006.

Senator Feingold speaks out on the FEC, Campaign-Finance Reform and Blogs...

H/T to Jiblog for this, which apparently appeared first on myDD.com. Boots & Sabers has an excellent comment from Sunday, March 13 on Senator Feingold's letter. You can read the Senator's complete letter here at the DailyKos I agree fully with Boots & Sabers, and Jiblog, and have a few comments of my own to add below. But before we get started, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In his letter, Senator Feingold states that

"As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights. It is not. The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations."

First, it is an attack on our First Amendment. Specifically it restricts what membership organizations can say about a candidate or incumbent before an election. Is a membership organization not a part of the First Amendment when it refers to the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”? Membership organizations like the NRA and Right to Life, as well the ACLU are just people getting together to express their opinion and petition the government.

Second, so the Supreme Courts declared that his cherished law is “constitutional”. Big deal. The Supreme Court also once ruled that slavery was constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion in the 5-4 split of the Supreme Court on the Campaign-Finance issue stated that

“With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) directly targets and constricts core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection…’”

That aside, what Senator Feingold really seems interested in however is

“...stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations.”

So in reality this has nothing to do with us, does it? We can infer from Senator Feingold’s statement that those Members of Congress who solicit (and receive) big money donations are being corrupted by its influence.

If Senator Feingold knows about all this corruption going on in the House and Senate (and we can only assume that he must know about it because he put so much effort into getting this law passed, and in defending it now), then maybe he should stand up and name the people taking bribes, and the companies offering bribes (bluntly speaking, that’s what we are really talking about here is bribes, right?). New flash: we already have laws against both those things: offering and taking bribes.

Finally, in talking about blogs and bloggers he states that

“The definitions and rules relating to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity.”

And as Jiblog pointed out, exactly who is going to define what or who a “legitimate” blogger is? Every time the Senator mentioned blogs, bloggers or other media, he prefaced it with ‘legitimate’. Why Senator did you feel the need for the word 'legitimate'? What exercise of our First Amendment right isn’t legitimate to you?

In my most humble, Wisconsin opinion, anyone who wants to express his or her thoughts is “legitimate”, regardless of whether or not we agree with what they say. Period. The whole idea behind the First Amendment is that no one decides what is or is not appropriate speech!

Annual Credit Report

This is more of a "Public Service Announcement"than anything else, but a worthwhile one if I say so myself. Apparently the three major credit reporting companies are required to give individuals a free credit report each year (one from each company). Go to AnnualCreditReport.com to get yours.

I got mine, and the information they get on you is complete to say the least.

An interesting little bit of information (also free) from Equifax is your personal debt compared to others in your area. In Rhinelander the average debt is around $47,000 if my memory serves me right. This does not include home loans!

About the best thing parents can do is teach their children how to save. That would make their future more secure (and less relying on Social Security), and would give them more "disposable" income to be able to give to worthy charities. Everybody's a winner!

Wisconsin Concealed Carry

Not a lot of time today to blog, bere here is a good post on jiblog about Wisconsin Concealed Carry and why we should have it. Here is another on Blogger Beer. Please see the comment I placed on BloggerBeer's post.

Wisconsin should have concealed carry that works like this; if you can legally purchase a firearm, then you can carry it. Period.

New York Times Misleads again on Guns...

An editorial (you will need a log-in) in the New York Times today gave it a good shot to once again mislead the public concerning assault weapons and gun control.

First, there is this statement that implies gun control isn't nearly as good as it should be: "Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control..." Well, there are more restrictions and controls on buying and selling firearms than any other industry in the Nation. If the problem as they state is that people on the Fed's watch list of terrorism suspects are getting firearms, legally, then put them in the same class of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. End of story, since then when the dealer did a background check, a screen would come up telling him/her not to sell the individual a firearm.

That way, the terrorism suspect would know that he should go get a gun illegally instead.

Next, the article states: "Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms." In my opinion, given that the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment to our Constitution, it is an "almighty right". Just like the First Amendment, and all the rest.

Then we have this statement: "...terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles..." [emphasis added]. To me, combat rifle conjures up images of fully automatic machine guns, as it probably does in most people's minds that aren't well versed in firearms. Well, machine guns have been illegal since the 1950's (or thereabouts). What they are getting are basically hunting rifles. This seems like a deliberate ploy to mislead the public. They also mention that the suspects were cleared to buy "assault rifles". Well, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". The Clinton Gun Ban defined these rifles solely on what the rifle looked like - cosmetic features with no regard to what the rifle could do. Why? Because if they defined assault rifles based on performance, they would have to ban all rifles, including the rifles in my basement. The public isn't "ready" for that yet.

Finally, there is this statement slandering then Attorney General John Ashcroft: "...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time..." [emphasis added]. "Gun rights zealot" conjures up a nut in my mind - why didn't they just say...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a defender of our Second Amendment against anti-gun zealots, who was attorney general at the time...

No, that would be counterproductive to their real agenda.

Open Season on Feral Cats?

I first saw this on Jiblog, and have heard about it every time I turn on the news or radio for the last two days. I figured a post would be in order given that I have re-thought my comment on Jiblog's post. But first, in an effort of full disclosure....I really like cats, and I'm a hunter.

To start with, let's get a few things straight. First, feral cats are not a part of the ecosystem as one woman on the news claimed last night. They belong in the woods just as much as a milk cow does. (Neither does if you're confused on that point.) Cats belong in the home, or on a leash in your yard.

Second, in the city of Rhinelander, there is an ordinance (#13.07, sub 5, sub B) that states cats must be on a leash if outside. If they aren't, then they have to be on the owner's property. I am sure other cities, townships and maybe counties have similar ordinances, but believe me; I don't have the time to check all that. Suffice it to say that cat owners should be responsible for their pets, ordinance or not.

Third, domestic cats in the wild kill for the sake of killing, not just when they need to eat. According to J.S. Coleman, et. al. in this article, a reasonable estimate of the number of birds killed each year in Wisconsin by cats, is 39 million. This doesn't include other small mammals such as voles, field mice, etc.

So, given the above, I would say feral cats should be considered a non-native invasive species when roaming free in the woods, or around the city for that matter (I have cats roaming the DNR protected wetland in my backyard, and I can guarantee they aren't checking to be sure the frogs have enough water).

If we accept the above paragraph, then hunters should be in favor of eliminating feral cats (they prey on game birds), environmentalists should be also (environmentalists are really big now on getting rid of non-native invasive species), as well as bird watchers and nature lovers in general.

That leaves us with the animal rights nuts. The best "solution" I've heard from them so far is to capture the wild cats, neuter them, and let them go again. Oh ya, there's a money-sucking non-solution if I have ever heard one.

Therefore, either trap'em and euthanize them, or shoot them where they sit. Sounds cruel, but hey, life in the wild is a whole lot more cruel than that (see my post on "Life and Death in the Winter Woods". I'd be willing to bet the bird the hawk got wished it had just been shot instead.

Southwest Part of US Reported Stolen

I recently received a comment from anonymous on my first post where I laid out in brief some of my thoughts on current issues. One of these was that I am anti-illegal alien.

Anonymous, who appears to be Native American Indian, said that "This country was stolen from its original inhabitants."

Well, back then, the world was under a different set of rules. One of them was "go forth and conquer". Just as one Indian tribe would wage war on another to reclaim or increase their territory, the White Man came and conquered what is now the United States.

Anon. went on to say that "Now come the Mexicans, 8 or 9 million of them. They are not the blancos, but rather Indiana and mixed bloods, the poor campesinos. They are "taking over" in their numbers, and threaten the whiteness of the USA. Good for them. Perhaps one day TX, NM, CA, AZ etc will go back to Mexico, making up for their theft 150 yrs ago."

Unfortunately for Anon., National borders are now clearly defined, and the rules for coming and going are explicit and generally well known. Because the people coming into the United States are breaking those rules, the United States has the right to throw them out and well should.

I am neither condoning nor condemning what went on 150 years ago. That's just the way it was.

In closing, I hope that we will always welcome those who wish to come here legally. That's one of the things that make us such a great Nation.

Social Security Personal Accounts

Ann Althouse complained here, and here, about the non-answers she found as to how personal accounts help deal with the Social Security solvency problem (After analyzing Senator McConnell's response, she determined they don't). Well, in my opinion, I also believe they don't - at least not in an immediate way.

Social Security is all about making people's retirement more secure. Simply put, it is trying to make sure old people have money to spend in retirement; if not for ocean cruises, then at least for covering the bills and having something left over for a movie or two. It is currently doing this through redistribution of wealth: take from the rich and give to the poor. Personal accounts are better than the current Social Security program to insure that (a good retirement) happens. By gradually starting a program such as personal accounts, over time it could work out that the Social Security program isn't even needed for the vast majority of the population.

Just think. If a worker is investing in privately owned retirement accounts his whole life (instead of SS), then suddenly dies at the "young" age of 60, all that accrued capital will be handed down to his spouse and or children, making them immediately more secure in their future retirement (assuming the funds stay in a retirement account). If the same individual dies at 80, his own retirement will be better taken care of (than with SS). Financially, he will also have to rely less on his children, helping them get ahead for their retirement. Anything left over in his account again goes to survivors.

I don't know. Maybe someone can poke a hole in this quickly thought out logic, but it seems to me that the poorest of the poor can benefit from something like this.

Maybe Ann Althouse should think more about how we can wean ourselves off of Social Security instead of a way to "...save or put more money into the program". Innovative ideas are needed: postponing retirement age, cutting benefits or increasing the SS tax are not solutions.

All we need are a few more good ideas to get us from where we are to where we really want to be: a secure retirement, for all Americans, for the long haul.

Update: Right after posting this I checked out Jib at Jiblog, and he has an excellent post on the subject, with an excellent comment by J. Rice, pretty much backing my comments above about money to pass on to heirs.

Campaign-Finance may extend to bloggers

Thanks to Badger Blog Alliance and Instapundit for this heads-up on recent developments of the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform". Here is the article the BBA linked to on the subject.

Just as Feingold attacked the core of the First Amendment - political free speech - with his first round of campaign-Finance reform by making it illegal for membership organizations such as Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and Right to Life to put out paid political adds before an election, it is now looking to regulate what you and I can put in our blogs.

As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding Campaign-Finance Reform, "It is an effort by Congress to ensure that civic discourse takes place only through the modes of its choosing." (emphasis added) (America's First Freedom. February 2004. pg 38). It appears that since blogs are now a force to be reckoned with, polititians must now regulate what we can say lest their stay in power be threatened.

Scary thought.

H.R. 47 - Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 2005

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the 6th District of Maryland has introduced the above legislation to the House of Representatives.

This Bill would reaffirm an individuals right to obtain and use firearms to defend one's self, family and home against a person in the act of committing a felony. It also allows an individual to bring action against the United States if these rights are violated.

I received a copy of the Bill through Gun Owners of America, and after talking to Congressman Bartlett's office today, found out that it will be posted on his website by Monday.

As of today, there isn't a single Wisconsin Congressman that has co-sponsored this bill. In the Entire House, there are 32 Republican and 1 Democrat Co-sponsors.

Please call your representative and urge them to co-sponsor this bill. Let's put honest citizens on a level playing field with the common criminal!

Milwaukee Common Council wants more gun control

If you live in Milwaukee, give this post a read over at Boots and Sabers - it seems that the Milwaukee Common Council thinks that if they have more control over the guns law abiding citizens can/can't have they'll reduce crime committed by the criminal class.

This type of reasoning never fails to amaze me. Anyway, my guess is they'll first disarm potential victims by banning handguns within the city limits. Once that is done, criminals will be able to work in a safe environment without the risk of getting shot on-the-job. That's the goal, right? A safer Milwaukee?

.50 cal Barrett - it's on my wish list!

Hat tip to my Brother for this link to ABC's 60 minutes site on the .50 cal Barrett rifle. You can read it for yourself, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on here. ABC interviews the inventor of the .50 cal, Ronnie Barrett, and also Tom Diaz from the very anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC).

If you're not familiar with the .50 cal, it is a HUGE rifle - around 5 feet long and weighing in at about 33 lbs! Not something you can hide real easy. It is a powerful rifle however, and it is used in long range target shooting competitions of a mile or more. Go here to check them out and maybe get one for your wife next Christmas. It has never been used in a crime in the history of the United States however.

Mr. Diaz at one point in the interview states ""I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it." Well, the problem with this statement is that if you ask the VPC, every firearm manufactured is a "threat to our health and safety". They are going after the .50 cal because so few people own them there will be relatively little resistence to legislation that either creates a database (to be used in subsequent confiscation) of .50 cal rifles, or an outright ban on civilian ownership.

But wait - once these rifles are illegal, then what will be the next "most powerful rifle in civilian hands"? Maybe the .308 or the .44 magnum?

At another point in the article, ABC tries to make it sound like you can purchase the incendiary explosive rounds that are illegal, by putting in this creatively deceptive paragraph (I aded the emphasis): "In fact, 60 Minutes found a number of sites on the Internet that claimed to be selling the explosive Raufoss ammunition. On one site, it witnessed someone making an apparent transaction of the illegal round." Did they bother to really check this out? Apparently not. Leaving the reader with the impression that you can purchase these rounds is far better than actually finding out the truth, which may not be what they were after.

Diaz finds it incredible that the US Government doesn't know who has these rifles. And exactly why should they if no crimes have been committed with them? He says that at a minimum records need to be kept on who purchases them. But Mr. Barrett hits the nail on the head: "And a terrorist is not concerned if you pass, or Tom Diaz passes, another law."

As I said in an earlier post, any gun is a potential problem if you have the wrong person behind the trigger. Banning the .50 cal is a slippery slope to more and more gun bans. Write your reps in Washington and ask them to not support any legislation that would create a database of .50 cal owners or other limitations on its sale or purchase in the USA.

Remember - you may not own a .50 cal, but if they ban these, your rifle may be the next on the list.

Now, if I can only find the $8,000 to get one!

Time to kill? Check this out...

Here's a fun, goofy site that my brother found. Just move your cursor over the bears...

US Supreme Court cites "International Opinion" in ruling....what???

The United States Supreme Court today ruled it unconstitutional to execute juveniles. In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion...". And exactly why does he need to acknowledge what other countries think?

Regardless of how you feel about the decision, it should be alarming to you that the Supreme Court is using international opinion as a basis, in part or in whole, to decide a case. How long will it be before we see the courts cite the United Nations? Will they cite a "strong, international will to eliminate small arms as exemplified by the UN small arms treaty" when they finally take a Second Amendment case, and thereby determine that the Second Amendment is null and void?

Add to this Judge Greer in Florida (Terri Shiavo's case), and it is a wonder that I have any faith left at all in our judicial system. I found this comment over at Stand in the Trenches today that really spells out where we are with these judges, and this link to sign a petition to impeach Judge Greer. Please sign the petition! It is a first step in "fixing" an apparently broken judicial system.