Gun Rights Policy conference

The Gun rights Policy Coference wrapped up yesterday in Washington DC.

There was a lot of good information presented both on the stage and off.

I would personally like to say a special thank you to Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron for hosting such a successful and informative event.

Panelist included Dave Kopel, Jeff Snyder, Massad Ayoob and Alan Korwin, all gun law scholars and great people. I will have more in the coming days on some of the topics that were cussed and discussed.

For now I will leave you with a thought expressed by Jeff Snyder during his presentation on the last morning.

"People act/react the way they train. How does the American Public train for violence? They sit in front of their televisions and watch it. When it happens to them in real life how do they act/react? They stand there and watch it.

Washington DC

My Apologies for not posting the last few days, but I Have been inroute to the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

Will have more to say later today.

There is no such thing as a Gunshow Loophole

For many that read this blog this is old news, but for the rest that have not heard it adequately explained here goes.

Who buys/sells at a Gunshow
Gunshow exibitors are made of different types of people. Some rent a table/s at a gunshow because they own a gunshop and and the weekend shows give them exposure to many thousands of customers that they ordinarily wouldn't have. Others rent table/s because they are collectors and wish to proudly display their collection. A Gunshow gives them the opporunity to socialize with other collectors and a chance to aquire a piece that may be missing from their collection.

Still others are hobbiests and rent a table to sell off some of the things they no longer need, have two of or are just not interest in anymore.

Background checks
The Gunshop owners and the collectors that are federally licensed to purvey firearms, are still required to perform background checks at a Gunshow. They must still do business according to the rules of their license, the Gunshow setting does not negate that requirement.

Persons that are Federally licensed to deal in firearms are still required to do background checks at Gunshows, there is no loophole. (is that plain and loud enough? ...ed)

The Hobbiests (for lack of a better word ..ed)
Any person, that is not a dealer or collector, can rent a table at a Gunshow as well. Most of the time these hobbiests have a multitude of items for sale or trade, such as reloading equipment, magazines, ammunition, firearms parts and yes occassionaly a firearm or two. These people are limited in how many firearms they can sell on a yearly basis, because they are not licensed. They are not in the business, they are not doing it for a profit. They have something they don't want or need anymore and just want to pass it on to someone that does.
In most states these individuals do not need to perform a background check at a Gunshow, because this is a private transaction between private persons.

It would be no different if that Hobbiest did not take that firearm to the Gunshow and ran an advertisement in the paper to sell it. (Plain enough?..ed)

The Gunshow loophole is a figment of Sarah Brady's imagination, it doesn't exist, it never did. And just to make things even more clear there are some states that require even a hobbiest transfer to another private citizen be taken to a dealer at the show, who will charge them a transaction fee to do the required background check.

The rules for Federally Licensed Dealer transactions at Gunshows are the same as they are when they transact at their Licensed Place of business.

There is and never has been a loophole.

The little red and white house on Washington Street is gone. Now I do have something to say.

I am Angry

In a previous post I link to an article in the campus newspaper about the home of Mr Heffelbower. I am not prone to vulgarity, but things like this bring me to the brink of it.

In a follow up story in the daily Nebraskan Jenna Johnson reports the home has been destroyed by the city.

The city of Lincoln ripped his heart out

“He was just sitting there, looking so sad,” said Judy Wilson, Heffelbower’s next-door neighbor. “The look on his face would just break your heart.”

They Murdered his memories
In the last five years the house had been involved in a fire, the mans wife died of cancer, he felt someone was out to get him (I guess he was right ..ed) and his only daughter is trying to have him commited.

Were they out to get him?

But efforts to repair the home were met with opposition every step of the way, Heffelbower said. He said they had trouble getting building permits, appealing in the courts and getting the house properly inspected. Heffelbower said he was restricted from appealing to a board designed to re-evalute houses deemed dangerous, which has ruled in the homeowner’s favor. He also tried speaking at several City Council meetings to no avail. To Heffelbower, it seems someone was trying to stop him – someone wants his house to be gone and his land taken.

Obviously there is some hidden agenda here. The city told him what he needed to do to fix the house and then blocked every attempt he made to do it.

Met with opposition should be the Lincoln city motto
There are some that know what this is all about and they are not talking. Time will tell who is behind this travesty and why.

Judge Paul Merritt, who made the ruling, was out of town this weekend and unavailable for comment. Margaret Blatchford, a city attorney who handled Heffelbower’s case, said she does not comment on in-process cases to the media.

John Boise, an inspector for Lincoln Building and Safety Department who signed several of the letters Heffelbower received, did not return phone messages left by the Daily Nebraskan. Neither did King Little, a structural engineer who Heffelbower said deemed the house dangerous.

How convenient that all of the public officials responsible for the destruction of this mans soul are out of town or hiding behind their government issued secretaries.

While L.W. Hoffman, a structural engineer who has been in the business for 54 years, does not know which of Heffelbower’s stories to believe, he does believe the house is safe and there is no reason for it to be torn down. “This is totally ridiculous,” Hoffman said. “As far as I am concerned, it wasn’t dangerous the first day I walked into it. They just don’t care what happens to this house and this man.”

Given a choice between the city Building and safety Department and a structural engineer with 54 years of experience, I believe Mr Hoffman.

But according to Lin Quenzer, ombudsman for the city who attended the start of the demolition, the decision was fair and the city is standing behind it.

Note;Jenna failed to note if Quenzer was regailed in a black hooded robe and carried a scythe when she attended the demolition. It wouldn't suprise me if she was.

“The facts of the case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States,” she said. “I’m sure if there was anything faulty it would have been pointed out by now.”

No Lin I am sure you had all of the T's crossed and the I's dotted. People in Government are experts at that. We wouldn't want anything like a mispelled word to get in the way of destroying the life of a citizen in the community you have taken an oath to serve would we?

Quenzer said the city did all it could to make the demolition safe – she even made sure Heffelbower’s cat, Mr. Lavender Teddy Bear, was safely out of the way before beginning.

Sure thing Ms. Quenzer, you were just looking out for yourself, you didn't want the animal rights activists after you if that cat had gotten hurt.

I will never understand how a city can be so compassionate when it comes one cat, but let it be a down and out human being and the city orders in a backhoe to rip that mans heart out. Aided and abetted by his only child.

Another trip down memory lane (this ones about guns)

I wonder if I had anything to do with this. Maybe they are reading my blog at Connealy campaign headquarters !!!!!

I was against firearms, before I was for firearms
Back on August 8th I noted that Matt Connealy had nothing to say about the Second amendment on his website and in follow up articles I have detailed his public positions on firearms ownership. Connealy opposed concealed carry in Nebraska and has provided some rather nefarious answers to survey questions posed by Gun Owners of America as far back as 1998.

I wrote, One last thing, Matt have you ever heard of the Second Amendment?? I have to ask since it is an election year issue and there is nothing on your web site about it. In fairness it does say that you hunt, but what is your stand on the issue??

At least John Kerry will handle a gun in public Matt
Miracuously Connealy now has a second amendment statement on his website. He even allowed a picture to be posted of himself, standing"near someone" holding a gun." Maybe he just doesn't want to be seen holding one of those evil scarey "almost was made illegal" assault shotguns. Connealy's website pronouncement that he supports the second amendment because he is a hunter indicates that he still doesn't get it.

Matt how many times do you have to hear it before it starts to sink in
The second amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING. The founding fathers never intended it to be about hunting. That statement has been used by gun control proponents to divide and conquer gun owners for decades. "Oh noooooo we're not after your deer rifle or your shotgun." Well that little charade came to a screeching halt with the proposed legislation that would have made the Semi-Automatic Weapons ban permanent. Connealy ends his position statement on firearms by saying that "he does not support any new gun laws. Oh really Matt, when did this revelation overcome you. Oh wait I see, that is why you opposed CCW as a state Senator, you oppose new gun laws.

It is nice to see Connealy finally say something about firearms, but it is a dog that still won't hunt. Matt Connealy is asking us to accept the fact that since becoming a candidate for Congress he has, become "one of the enlightened" and done a complete 180 on his previous stance on firearms. I'm not sure how his potential congressional Democratic collegues, will feel about this miraculous conversion to opposong any new gun law, but then hey I'm not buying it either.

Note:In a previous post or comment somewhere... oh yea I remember where it was .. it is here, (comments ..ed) I pointed out that Matt Connealy would say or do what ever it was that would most benefit Matt Connealy and his pet projects. I guess I was right on this one too, Connealy has flopped on the issue. Connealy may know his mind when it comes to the soil, but when it comes to the rest of the things he will be called to act upon, he will say what ever he thinks he needs to to get elected.

First I was against firearms before I was for firearms, but I voted against firearms, before I said I would vote for firearms. Did I tell you I am a farmer in Nebraska? I have 3 blue ribbons you know.

Paddock took a powder

Even sooner than I thought
Back on August 9th, I commented on Democratic candidate for the Lancaster County Commission Todd Paddock.

I made the assertion at the time that Paddock was an enviromental activist free spirit that went where ever the winds of academia blew him. I questioned Paddocks motives for seeking office, how serious he was about it and how long he would stay in the area.

We have not even had the general election yet and Paddock has called it quits and left the state.

It's always the last minute with them
Paddock was challenging Larry Hudkins for the County seat and just as they had filed at the last possible minute to run Paddock , they have again gotten a replacement candidate in under the wire.

The replacement is long time local Democrat Wayne Boles. Hopefully in the next few days I'll have more information on candidate Boles.

Thank you Daily Nebraskan

As noted in my last post the Daily Nebraskan is the campus newspaper for the University of Nebraska.

In the latest on-line edition Jenna Johnson reports on the trials and tribulations of a local widower.

Mr. Heffelbower, while still mourning the loss of his wife from cancer, is battling the city to save his home from demolition, and his daughter who has initiated proceedings to have him commited.

I have no comments, other than to thank Ms. Johnson and the staff of the Daily Nebraskan for writing and publishing this story.

Democrats use University to set up and trash Fortenberry

Hey Ian? Hey Kate? Ever heard of the 5 P's?

Proper Planning Perevents poor performance

It seems that a couple of Campus organizations decided at nearly the last minute to plan a debate, and then trashed one of the candidates for not agreeing to show up.

I guess they had to try something since the Micheal Moore luv-in fest fell apart on them.

"ASUN sent its invitation late in the year, most invitations came in June or July," said Fortenberry campaign manager Jessica Moenning, "but ASUN’s came just this month." (bold mine ..ed)

So you waited until the last minute and your upset that someone won't jump through hoops to get you what you want. Gee I bet you'd expect your Dentist to see you in 20 minutes for a non-emergancy too. Sux when you can't have your own way doesn't it?

Taking the temper hissy to the press
Russell and Weichman used the Daily Nebraskan (Campus Newspaper) to throw their own little pity party sans the cheese and crackers.

Government Liaison Committee Chairman Ian Russell said he was shocked Fortenberry would not take part in a campus debate. “It’s crazy,” he said.

The only thing crazy here is your last minute attempt to make Fortenberry look bad. As the Government chair you have know for months which candidates had won their primaries. Can you say procrastination Ian. Or did you have to find your own way of dissing Fortenberry since Micheal Moron ..errr.. oops ...Moore stiffed you for MOORE money.

Association of Students of the University of Nebraska President Katie Weichman also was surprised. “I don’t understand why they would not see this as an important group of students they should cater to,” she said.

Cater to? Cater to? Well excuse me Kati this group of students you want the candidates to CATER TO, wouldn't be the same ones that got so upset when they found out that the Campus Police were not going to be their own personal auto-club anymore?

Oh Waaaaaa we have to jump start our own cars now? Oh Waaaaaaa I locked my keys in my car AGAIN, somebody call the Campus police to open my car doors before I'm late for class AGAIN. What they won't come, isn't that what they are there for?

The Green Party candidate hasn't said yes yet either and all Weichman could say about that was that she was hopeful.

Gee ... Maybe there is a good reason why Fortenberry can't make it.
Could it be ....... oh .... I don't know .... an alredy FULL SCHEDULE??? Jessica Moenning, told the college procrastonators ( I wanted to say cry babies) that Jeff already has a full schedule set that includes at least one debate a week until the election.

Count them, Fortenberry has already appeared at five debates or forums with at least FIVE more scheduled IN LINCOLN.

Moenning, even offered to work with the University to get students to one or more of the remaining events.

A fine example Kati
You and Ian wait till the last possible minute, thinking no one would dare turn you down. Then they do, because they have a FULL SCHEDULE. Even after they offer to help you accomplish your goal of getting students into the candidates audiance you run to the campus paper for a cry and whine fest about how shocked you are, that they weren't at your beck and call.

Important questions
“To abandon our plans now would say to the Fortenberry campaign that it’s OK to not ask important questions,” Russell said.

The only important question here Ian is this really a genuine case of procrastination or was it, knowing Fortenberry couldn't commit, a well orchastrated attempt to make him look bad?

I'd lay odds it was both.

Note: Ian Russell is also the ( can you say operative)Director of OPERATIONS for the Lancaster County DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Gee I bet everyone is suprised to hear that? NOT

Shock .... A local main stream media outlet reports the economy is actually getting better

In a radical departure from the economic doom and gloom that has been assaulting us on a daily basis for months the Lincoln journal Star is running a story that contradicts ... dare I say it .. John Kerry's assertion that the economy is in the toilet and about to be flushed.

It had been reported in the past that there was a $300 million plus projected shortfall. As of Thursday Gerry Oligmueller, Director of the Governors budget office reported that as the economy has improved the state has collected $139 million more than anticipated.

In fairness that does still leave a projected shortfall of $168 million.

For an economy that is as bad as folks like John Kerry and certain other local partisans have been telling us it is this is some pretty amazing news.

The Economy has gotten so bad that in a matter of months the state of Nebraska has collected nearly 50% of the projected shortfall.

If that is what John Kerry defines as a bad economy, maybe we need some more of it.

Omaha, Nebraska's Municipal code violates the Constitution.

I know you have heard this part before
As previously noted in past discussions on firearms laws enacted by the state and it's political subdivision I have repeatedly cited CI-1 and CI- 26 as the controlling sections of the Constitution.

CI-1 commands that the neither the State nor any political shall infringe or deny the right to keep and bear arms.

CI-26 implicitly states that any powers not here in granted remain with the people and case law further tell the government representives that they CANNOT exercise the "Doctrine of Police Power" over a subject they have not been given power to regulate.

Concerning the "Home rule Authority" granted by CXI-5 case law is specific in regards to ordinances the city of Omaha may enact.

A municipal corporation has only such powers as are expressly
conferred upon it in matters of strictly municipal concern, and in cities which adopt a home rule charter state legislation is not excluded on subjects pertaining to state affairs. State ex rel.Hunter v. The Araho, 137 Neb. 389, 289 N.W. 545 (1940).

This decision is explicit in ruling that Omaha only has only such powers granted it by the state and a home rule charter does not exclude state affairs.

Purpose of home rule charter provisions of Constitution is to render cities as nearly independent as possible of state legislation, subject to the general public policy of the state. State ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97, 288 N.W. 499 (1939).

There is no legal way the city of Omaha, even with Home Rule, can exercise powers they have not been granted. This is not a minor point either. The Constitution, whether State or Federal, is the bedrock of government ANY violation MUST be taken seriously. Without it any given City in Nebraska could be it's own dictitorial fifedom. Laws or ordinances that controvine the Constitution are an affront to every citizen.

Omaha charter is subject to limits of Constitution and laws of state. World Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 113 Neb. 396, 203 N.W. 574 (1925).

Omaha MUST to be in compliance with the Constitution and state statutes in every ordinance they enact. The courts have said it several times over, and it is plainly written in the Constitution and the Statutes themselves. If the representitives of ANY municipality enacts a local law that contravines either one they are violating their oath of Office.

Metropolitan Class City
Omaha does have "Home Rule Authority" and with a population of more than 300,000 it is the only Metropolitan Class City in the state. The statutes that apply to the Metropolitan Class city are statutes 14-101 through 14-2157 and were last addressed in 1992.

Addressing weapons 14-102 reads as follows; Concealed weapons, firearms, fireworks, explosives. (6) To punish and prevent the carrying of concealed weapons and the discharge of firearms, fireworks, or explosives of any description within the city;

That is the only firearms specific power that has been granted to the city of Omaha. It is surely based on 28-1202 and assuming that 28-1202 is constitutional, the ONLY ordinance Omaha can create is a punishment comensurate with carrying a concealed weapon. In reality the city can not even do that as the State had no constitutional basis for the legality of 28-1202 in the first place.

14-102 also states; Police regulation in general. (25) To make and enforce all police regulations for the good government, general welfare, health, safety, and security of the city and the citizens thereof in addition to the police powers expressly granted herein; and in the exercise of the police power, to pass all needful and proper ordinances and impose fines, forfeitures, penalties, and imprisonment at hard labor for the violation of any ordinance, and to provide for the recovery, collection, and enforcement thereof; and in default of payment to provide for confinement in the city or county prison, workhouse, or other place of confinement with or without hard labor as may be provided by ordinance;

That the city has available at it's disposal the "Doctrine of Police Power" is without question. It should be noted that the only police power expressly granted herein is the afore mentioned "punish and prevent the carrying of concealed weapons". A political subdivision is under the same disability as the state when it comes to CI-26 and the case law represented by it.

In 1967 the state enacted 14-102.01 that further defined what the city of Omaha may do as a "Home Rule" Metropolitan Class City. Essentially this statute expands on defines the powers given to a Metroplitan City with the caveat that all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations, and resolutions not inconsistent with the general laws of the state

it has to be obvious by now that the Constitution and Statues of Nebraska plainly dictate that neither the state nor any political subdivision has the power to regulate firearms. Further that any and all ordinances enacted by the subdivisions must not contravine or be inconsistant with the constitution and/or statutes.

Omaha's Municipal Code
Omaha's ordinances concerning weapons are found in chapter 20 Article VII of the code. It is important to note that this Article opens with references to the applicable Statutes that justify the enactment of these ordinances. The first one has already been addresses earlier R.R.S 1943 14-102(6). The second is R.R.S. 1943 69-2401. This statute is the one that created the "permission to buy a concealable firearm law in 1991.

The city cites the law that says they only have the power to prevent and punish the carrying of concealed weapons to justify the entirety of their weapons laws.

As I have already addressed what powers city has or does not have in regards to the regulation of firearms, I will refrain from commenting specifically and just note some of the more critical Constitutional inconsistancies of the Omaha Municipal code.

All of the referenced "codes" are found in Chapter 20 Article VII of the code.

Sec. 20-191 defines a concealable firearm as having a barrel less than 18 inches in length.

Sec 20-195 makes it illegal to transport a long gun unloaded with only the bolt removed. The removal of the bolt from any such firearm or carrying the same in a holster type gun case without further breaking down such firearm shall not be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.

Sec 20-202 Commands dealers to notify the chief of police daily ont transactions. indicating the date of the transaction, a description of the firearm, .....and apparent deformities or peculiarities of the person with whom such transaction was had.

Sec 20-204, (federal law allows someone to posess a handgun at age 18) Makes posession by anyone under 21 a crime.

Sec 20-207 Creates a series of ordinances that require training and a police permission slip to be in posession of a concealable firearm anywhere in the city except a persons private property or business.

Sec 20-251 Creates the requirement for registration of concealable firearms in the city of Omaha. The Chief has seven days to decide and it is writen that he may take custody of the firearm for the duration of the background check. If you don't get the permit you don't get your firearm back.

Sec 20-256 provides that any person who's application for registration is denied has 10 days to provide proper registration or other lawful disposition. During this time the Chief SHALL maintain custody of the firearm. After 10 days it is considered an unregistered firearm and the chief may apply for a court order of confiscation.

There is more
There are more weapons ordinances in Section 20, but the ones noted here are the most glaringly and seriously agregious violations of the Constitution and Statutes as promulgated by the people of the state of Nebraska.

Based on my research and the legal information that, I have documented, I am convinced that most if not all of the state laws and political subdivision ordinances concerning firearms are unconstitutional are are there thereby invalid.

As an Individual you have to do your own research and formulate your own opinions, I can only offer these dissertations as a starting point.

Not just for women, what Connie Du Toit says applies to everyone

My criticisism of Senator Schimek

Some time back I published a piece about State Senator Dianne Schemek and her stance on Concealed carry in Nebraska. My main point was that the Honorable Senator Schimek was doing a disservice to the women in her district. My detractor chastised me for trying to speak for all women in general and her in particular.

That was not my intent, my intent was to illustrate that for all her pomp and circustance Schemik was denying all of her constituency a personal freedom to make a choice about their own safety and security.

The only other comment was from a Homocide Detective that stated he would rather console a woman that had successfully defended herself with a firearm, than console a woman that had been raped and beaten, or the family of a woman that had been raped, beaten or killed.

Fear Itself
Recently Connie Du Toit wrote an article, from her own perspective, called Fear Itself.

I took the liberty of lifting just one paragraph from her inciteful dissertation as a teaser for you to read the whole thing.

It happened, literally, the day I left the range for the first time. I knew how to fire my own gun. I knew how to defend myself—and was “equal” to the strength of any man with that gun. It didn’t matter that it was a small caliber. It didn’t matter that I wasn’t an expert marksman. I knew I had a better than fighting chance and it was a feeling I’d never had before.

Mrs Du Toit makes some compelling points that bear consideration by everyone concerned about their safety and security, not just women.

Much thanks to The Smallest Minority for pointing it out.

So what's the point? Nothing changed in California

I don't see what this has to do with the sunset of the Semi-automatic weapons ban, but apparently one media source in California does, or is alluding to it.

I stole ...err ... got this from SayUncle, who got it from somewhere else. Thanks Uncle.

So what it happened in California
The article opens with A day after a federal ban on assault weapons expired, an unknown gunman sprayed 10 rounds from a rifle into the second-floor windows of the Sheriff's Department Headquarters.

Don't get me wrong I am not dispassionate or happy this happened at all. True the Federal Homeland defense firearms ban did expire on Monday and this apparently happened Tuesday morning, but this is California, a state with their own Homeland Defense Firearms ban, and a much stricter one than just sunset too.

When the law ceased to exist it had absolutely no effect, none, nadda, zip, zilch on the left most coast state. When Californians woke up Monday morning, they were not free to excercise the same re-established rights that most of the country could. (yes there are a few other states with their own AWB laws too) To pen an article that starts out blaming the non-renewal of the ban for an incident, in a state were it had no effect what so ever is to say the least dis-engenuous and down right misleading, especially when the offending firearm has not even been identified. It could very well have been something that is still perfectly legal in California.

This guy must have gotten his credentials from the drive-up window at the "McRather School of Journalism", where the arches are not golden, they are YELLOW.

Even the Sheriff's Official had to get a dig in at the the non-renwal; Officials said they believe the shooting happening a day after the ban ended is likely coincidental.

Coincidental? Maybe, but if it was related in anyway, it was probably someone who was upset about the California law still being on the books, not the sunset of a Federal one. If that is the case why the Sheriff's Office? More than likely it was a former guest that was complaining about his/her last vacation at the Graybar Resort Hotel. Maybe they didn't leave the light on or something. The shooter was probably to illiterate to fill out the critique card and mail it in like normal people. There is a very high probability that who ever did this has been previously convicted of crimes and inelligable from owning a firearm anyway.

Fortenberry & Connealy in for a Healthcare checkup

Jeff Fortenberry and Matt Conealy's office call to about 50 area Doctors last night highlights their differences on healthcare.

Lawyers are the only ones getting Rich on Healthcare
Maintaining the same message as he did in the last debate Fortenberry laid it out in understandably direct and easy to understand terms; "In some areas it's easier to sue a doctor than to see a doctor," he said. "When doctors practice defensive medicine" - providing unnecessary care to avoid a lawsuit - "the entire health-care system suffers."

Calling it essential that patients be able to sue in cases of malpractice, Fortenberry chastised trial lawyers for using it as a venue to get rich.

Connealy stressed the need to deal with what he called the root causes of rising medical costs, such as high end-of-life care, rising drug costs and the overuse of expensive emergency rooms for routine medical issues.

What are those root causes Matt? Since it is nearly impossible for Doctors to operate out of the front room of their apartment over Miss Kitty's saloon and make house calls anymore, the cost can sometimes be staggering for those that have student loans to pay off as well.

Business 101

Not all Doctors start off with a few million in the bank and prestigious country club memberships and a debt free office to practice from. Property rental along with the associated insurance, telephone service, a staff nurse, receptionist, medical equipment rental costs, office and waiting room furniture, are just some of the costs that Doctors incur before they even see their first patient. I haven't even mentioned malpractice insurance yet.

All of these costs are fixed and re-accurring. Addittionally a doctor can only competantly see so many patients per day and that maximum number must be divided into the fixed costs this is the realistic number that a doctor must charge each patient in order to just break even each month.

If the doctors fledgling practice is in the big city, it may not take long for the physician to build and maintain a steady clientel of patients. Conversely a country doctor may not have the luxcery of a full schedule of patients. Yes property is like eggs, "cheaper in the country" but not that much cheaper, and all of the other costs are relatively the same as what the city doctor has to pay. So with out a steady stream of patients rural doctors have to charge more for their services just to keep the bills paid. The cost of malpractice insurance (driven up by trial lawyers scorched earth lawsuit philosophies) is a huge part of how much a doctor must charge to stay in business.

Taken over by the machines
Healthcare, like the Arnold movies has been taken over by the machines. If a doctor doesn't do this test, of that test, or use a certain machine to keep a patient alive, they could very well end up being sued for malpractice. These machines are not cheap and people want the doctors to do something, anything, to keep a loved one alive. This kind of medical service comes at a cost.

Over use of expensive emergency rooms for routine medical issues is definately a problem, but it is caused by the patients themselves. Why should hospitals be forced to adjust the costs of their emergency services just because Timmie needs a Winnie-the-Pooh band-aid from Doctor Dan? Unable to see their doctor at off hours, people seek out the only medical service available at two in the morning. Rather than putting ice on a sprained ankle and waiting until they can get in too see their regular doctor, they rush to the nearest emergency room.

And what kind of treatment do they get? Other than x-rays, they get an ice pack and an ACE wrap. Total cost? I have no idea. A couple hundred easy I'm sure. If they had done that (minus the X-rays) themselves and waited to see their doctor for the bone films, probably less than 5 bucks including the ice and ACE bandage.

Rising drug Prices
Before a drug can come on the market companies spend millions researching for something that will work. When they find it the government makes them spend a few million more to have it approved, before they have permission to sell it. There must be some government controls I guess or there would be nothing but Dr. Feelgood patented Cure All Snake Oil available.

When a company spends eight million for a pill that works and only 10% of the population contracts the particular milady it was designed for, how much should they charge?

This is what Connealy had to say about that; Connealy said the reforms throw money at drug companies. The nation needs to use its collective bargaining ability to reduce its costs, he said.

Oh yea Matt there are root causes alright but most of them are ones that are not even considered when accusing doctors and hospitals of over charging and price gouging. Do some doctors and hospitals overcharge? Oh yea I'm sure of it.

Medical Savings Accounts
Fortenberry believes in individual responsibility; On medical savings accounts -in which people contribute to separate accounts for their own care instead of to a general fund - Fortenberry said they showed promise. He noted that a third of those who have signed up for the accounts were previously uninsured. The program creates incentives for people to use health care prudently and still protects them from catastrophes, he said.

33% of the participants were previously uninsured, sounds like it makes sense to a lot of people. When it is their own money consumers are, generally, more cost concious about where and how it is spent. How is this a bad thing?

Connealy has a different take though: Connealy said the accounts would improve the lot for some at the expense of others. People who don't need care would favor accounts, leaving those who do to pay higher costs.
At first I wasn't sure what Connealy ment by this, then it hit me. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

The more you make the more you contribute to the general fund. If you make a lot of money and are healthy then you aren't using the share you put in. This allows much more to be spent on those that contribute little or none at all. In other words if your not going to be sick then you are a greedy so-and-so for daring to invest in a rainy day account in case you ever are.

Based on the way Medicaid and Medicare work now here is what Matt is saying, "You need pay into a government program so that your health care costs will be paid if you are ever sick, but the catch is, if you ever are sick you will have to pay for them yourself because you make to damn much money to qualify for these programs anyway."

On the subject of smoking, Matt "Robin Hood" Connealy had one more thing to say that seems to contradict everything he said about healthcare. Neither candidate supports a government ban on smoking with Connealy summing it up as; "You can't legislate the way we live. Americans don't want that."

See Robin ... er ...awww Matt really does get it, he just can't seem to resist the urge to legislate even more money from where ever he can get it. Your wallet, your savings account, your private medical fund, your mattress, makes no difference to Matt. He wants your money because he is convinced, just like Hillary and a host of others, that he knows how to spend it better than you do.

Speaking only for myself I find those assertions, by the politicians that make them, condescending and insulting.

More movies that will never be in a theater near you

As news is a tad bit slow I have had time to review a few more never to be seen in a theater anywhere movies.

The Mugsters - the Movie -R
Finally brought to the White House this is the movie adaptation of the long running Senate seats. John Kerry is apropriately cast as the lead actor, playing the ever loving and all caring Herman Mugster. His son Eddie is played by relative rich kid newcomer John Edwards. DNC Cinematic Productions went all out in casting Thereeeeza Heinz-Kerry as the loving, Pumpkin cookie baking, but determined Lilly Mugster. Rounding out the all-star cast is the venerable Ted Kennedy as Grampa Mugster. While passed attempts to go from a Senate seat to the White House have had relative success, the flip flopping performance of all of the leading actors, leads this critic to suggest saving your money. If this extravaganza finds success in the White House your going to need it.

Dan Headroom -PG
This lackluster cinematic biography about the decades that CBS Talking Head News Anchor Dan Rather has spent in broadcast journalism. This Bio-pic pulls no punches and accurately depicts Dans evolution from humble beginings to his eventual fall from grace. This is a must see movie that draws the audience into a controvercy over faked and forged documents. Watch as the producers (CBS Productions) continue to insult the intellegence of the movie going public by continually justifying the conduct of the lead character. After all they proclaim, it doesn't matter that the documents were faked, if the information in them is true. While this film has been hyped endlessly by conservitive movie critic bloggers, save your money, this low budget production is not worth the cost of a ticket on dollar movie day.

Homeland Ridge -G
This slow moving movie chronicles the dismal career of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge from his lowly Pennsylvania digs in the Governors Mansion to helm of the most subversive and over funded Government agency ever created. This high budget production drags on and on as Secretary Ridge attempts to employ Patriot Act after Patriot Act with predictable results. Don't waste your money on this one, Congress has already done it for you.

Lincoln Mayor Colleen Seng disses her constituency

A special election costing nearly 130,000 dollars and paid for with privately collected funds was held in Lincoln, Nebraska Tuesday.

Many people question why this single 75 million dollar bond issue deserved it's own day at the polls instead of being placed on the November 2nd General election ballot.

The truth is that voter turn out is typically low for special elections. This low turn out usually insures passage of the pet project in question.

Local Politicians favoring the 75 million issue, admitted they knew it would fail if it was placed November ballot and deliberately pursued the special election.

The Results
The Polls closed at Eight PM and election coverage was provided by Local AM radio station 1400 KLIN.

Jane Monnich's (Afternoon News Anchor) first reported, immediately after the top of the hour newsbreak, that with twelve percent of the precincts reporting there were slightly more than 5,000 votes for and in excess of 9,000 against.

During the course of the next hour and a half the numbers never really changed. The 62% AGAINST and only 38% FOR final results were called at 9:30PM.

Ultimately 25% of the eligable voters turned out to vote, a genuinely higher number than was expected.

What the mayor had to say about the people she was elected to represent
Immediately after the results were called, Jane Monnich telephone interviewed Lincoln Mayor Colleen Seng. During that interview I typed notes on a notepad file. Using those notes I called Jane at KLIN to verify that I had heard what I am about to report correctly.

Mayor Colleen Seng chastised the voters stating that her constituency made the wrong decision. She went on to say that the public did not take this seriously, and that anybody that owns property ought to be able to afford 5-6 dollars more a month in taxes.

Democrat Mayor Seng went on to say again that the citizens are not taking this seriously, didn't break it down and are being inconsiderate to future property owners in the city.

The Mayor doesn't get it
Mayor Seng, your the one that just doesn't get it. The 75 million dollars in question belongs to the people Mayor, and a two thirds majority of todays voters think they made the right choice, who are you to tell your boss that we are wrong? You work with what we give you, not what you can take from us.

We broke it down Mayor and it doesn't matter whether anyone can afford an extra five to six dollars a month or not. It is also not that the people think these projects this money was earmarked for are not necessary, the point is the people who hired you don't want it done the way you proposed.

This went down because either you, Mayor, or your supporters, did not even try to hide the fact that a special election was necessary because you knew it was the only chance you had to highjack more of our money.

The citizens of Lincoln took this bond issue very seriously, so seriously that a record number of voters turned out to tell you to keep your hands out of our pockets.

The people of Lincoln are not inconsiderate of future property owners as you say, Mayor Seng, the people of Lincoln are concerned about our tax dollars and how you intend to distribute and account for them.

UPDATE(10:00am)This Mornings Journal Star quotes Mayor Seng as saying that the people that elected her are delusional.
"I don't think we have any problem understanding the need," she added. "People have not wanted, obviously, to believe what has been told to them, and there's a distrust of some sort." (bold type face mine ... ed)

Three things Colleen, 1) no we don't believe you, 2)yes we distrust you and 3) we must be delusional, we elected you didn't we?

Note - The callers to Local Morning Show on KLIN have been more than 2 to 1 echoing these sentiments all morning.

You read some of it here first

GeekWithA.45 links to an aricle written by prolific firearms issue commentator Dave Kopel.

In his article appropriately entitled Bait-'n'-Switch, Dave takes an in depth look at the history of the AWB. He provides much more detail than I have, but he has written many of the same points that I have addressed in the last week or two.

If you haven't believed me, possibly it will mean more coming from him, especially for those that are familiar with the name Kopel.

To quote Geek; As always, an important and cogent read

Now that Homeland Defense Firearms Restrictions are gone

The "AWB" is history.
I have been giving thought to what a lot of people will be blogging about, concerning firearms, until it raises it's ugly head again. And it will.

First I want to thank everybody that constantly wrote about this, took the time to contact Representitives and educate the uninitiated. I think a genuine difference has been made. How much remains to be seen. Even some in the major media outlets started getting it right, or almost so, at the end. There are a lot of people that now understand what it was all about, that either didn't know or were apathetic to it.

We have made a difference.
Knowing that all of you were out there blogging and seeing the difference it made has given me a renewed hope for the future.

I am just wondering how much of a difference it will make if all of the efforts that went into the defeat of the "AWB" were now directed at any of the state and local situations.

I have specifically addressed the detriment the "AWB" the renewal would have Nebraska firearms owners in particular.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting
I know that the Second amendment is not about hunting and sporting firearms, however, yesterday I was fortunate enough to have airtime on a local morning talk show. I had time to formulate what I wanted to say and felt I needed to address points that would have the maximum impact Nebraska gun owners.

The first was the futility of "the ban" itsself and what it accomplished. The analogy I used was that making hood scoops and rear deck spoilers illegal in an attempt to ban fast cars had the same effect as the AWB.

The other point I felt needed to be made addressed the additional restrictions of the renewal bill. Twice, I was able to explain that new defintions now classified all semi-automatic 12 gauge shotguns as assault shotguns including those used to hunt Upland game, Deer and Waterfowl.

No, the second amendmant is not about hunting and sporting purposes, but for those that have been lead to believe it is, they need to know that there are people in government that really are after our "Elmer Fudd guns".

Those are the people I was talking to yesterday.

Happy Birthday Jed

Hey all the 14th is Jeds Birthday make sure you all stop by his blog Freedomsight and wish him well.

Happy Birthday Jed, and best wishes for many more.

Being a lousy tipper could land you in jail.

Obviously there may be a bit more than is being reported in this story.

Tipping and how much is enough?
In Lake George, New york a 41 year old man has been charged with theft of services when he and his party failed to ante up the pizza parlors 18 percent mandatory tip policy for parties of six or more.

It seems the party of eight, dissatisfied with the quality of food and the service, left less than ten percent of the total bill.

Owner Joe Soprano (I'm not going there) reportedly chased his customers down "like a bunch of criminals" after being stiffed.

Soprano complained that the guy was rude and "practically threw" food at us.

Can restaurants, make a minimum tip mandatory and automatically tack that price on the bill for large parties? I guess this case will determine that.

Tipping is always a touchy subject, depending on whether you are a customer or a waitperson. The problem in many cases is the distinction between the quality of service and the quality of food.

It is hard to justify small tipping an outstanding waitperson for lousy food. Waitstaff usually don't have control over what comes out of the kitchen. Nor do they have any influence over the menu price of the meal.

Minimum wage for waitstaff is usually several dollars an hour below the minimum wage dictated for all other professions. In many cases that wage in less than three dollars an hour. It seems to be accepted the wage that restaurants pay waitstaff is for the required side work such as making coffee, wrapping the silver in napkins and other duties. Waitstaff rely on customers for their "real income".

The Government standard is fifteen percent
To ensure that the government gets its due, employers are required to withhold from a tax rate based on a fifteen percent tip for all receipts served by that person. The government assumption is that everyone tips at least fifteen percent everytime.

Tipping is suppose to be voluntary
Over the years the concept of tipping has changed. In the past people tipped based on the level of service they felt they had received. Since the government made it mandatory that waitstaff be taxed for fifteen percent, whether they make that much or not, many waitpersons end up paying taxes on income they have not received.

This has caused a level of silent friction between waitstaff and customers.

Should there be a requirement for a minimum tip in all instances?
This is where it can get really controversial. Waitstaff know that on a thirty dollar ticket they are going to be taxed for an expected tip of four dollars and fifty cents (15%). If a customer is not pleased with the level of service and only leaves a tip of three dollars (10%), the waitperson will be taxed on a dollor and fifty cents that was not received.

The other side of the coin is the customer and how they felt about the service received. Was that service worth 15%, 20%, 10% or is the customer just a tightwad.

I personally know of a waitress that insists that everyone should pay fifteen percent everytime. Her Justification? "Well you had a waitress didn't you?"

My personal philosiphy is summed up in the reply to my daughter-in-law when she was a waitress.

If the restaurant is extremely busy, I don't expect that my waitperson will have a lot of time for my table, I accept that. If that waitperson treats us like we are the only customers he/she has for the ten or fifteen seconds here and there that they can give us, that person will have earned a tip of at least fifteen percent or more. Usually more, much more.

Conversely, if the place is near empty and the waitstaff is too busy, yacking with each other or putting side work ahead of service, to refill a cup of coffee, that will be reflected in the amount of tip.

Letters to the Editor

Sundays on-line edition of the Lincoln Journal Star features five letters that should be of interest, to any of the as yet undecided, voters in the 1st Congressional District.

The first one takes exception to Green Party candidate Steve Larrick not being included in the congressional debate, that was held at the State Fairgrounds last Sunday.

Of the remaining four letters two support Fortenberry and two support Connealy.