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.

Door knobs and Dollar bills

Within the last few days Jed over at Freedomsight and the Heartelss Libertarian have both posted references to the same news stories.

4th Amendmenet no Barrier for Doorknob Tests

The War on Drugs Civil Rights

Your door knob "rats" you out
It seems some enthusiastic Police Officers in Utah have taken to swabbing peoples door knobs and analyzing the results for illegal chemical composition. (DRUGS)

The cops are then using that "evidence" as probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The theory the Police are using to justify this is that YOUR doorknob is on the OUTSIDE of your home and therefore you have NO REASONABLE expectation of privacy.

Property rights
Both Jed and Heartless make some very good comments concerning property rights and the expectation of privacy within the boundries of your own property.

I agree with their assesments and would further point out that in many states if the owner has rented the property, even he/she must provide (in some cases in writing) 24 hours notice that they intend to enter the property or domicile, unless it is a case of emergency.

In these cases the owner has has given "Castle Domain" over to the renters, they are paying for their use of the property and their rights MUST be respected, EVEN by the person or entity that actually owns it.

How then do Police officers have the power to enter on that property and collect evidence without a warrant. Rules of "Plain Sight Discovery" cannot apply in this case. Yes the doorknob is usually in "plain sight" but how many Police Officers have the "microscope sight" and built in "mass spectrometer" capability to SEE the chemical residue on a doorknob?

Log book lies
A few years ago the Department of Transportation for the state of State of Iowa began scanning the log books and drivers licenses of truck drivers that pulled into weigh stations. The documents were scanned by a mass spectrometer and those drivers whose records showed traces of illegal substances were held for further investigation.

What the scientists say
In 1999, Thomas Jourdan, a top scientist for the FBI concluded that most American paper money has trace elements of illegal drugs.

While this article emphesises the use of dogs that hit on residue laden cash, Jourdan reports that; says 85 percent to 90 percent of the currency in the United States has measurable amounts of cocaine. "A new bill is kind of a wall-to-wall sticky surface in a microscopic sense," Jourdan said. "And over the course of that bill's life, it gets things to adhere to it as well as drugs of abuse."

Janet Reno & Jeb Bush???
Terry Hall, an expert witness from Miami, Florida, is the Labratory director for Toxicology Testing Services Inc, and has testified in over 500 drug cases. Among the chemical tests he has conducted one is most noteworthy; He conducted a test for a Florida newspaper in the 1980s that retrieved bills from 10 prominent citizens. Nine of the bills had cocaine on them, he says. Among those who gave money that tested positive for cocaine were Jeb Bush, who went on to become Florida's governor, and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, at the time the chief prosecutor for Dade County.

Milk Money
Jourdan explains the reason for the residual contamination of 85 to 90 percent of the money circulated in America; Cash seized from drug dealers isn't destroyed but goes back into circulation. The cocaine from those bills falls into the mechanical currency counters banks use, Jourdan said, and those counters then spread the cocaine to the other bills they sort, essentially "homogenizing'' the monetary supply.

Courts are evening reversing themselves
Even courts, that have in the past ruled probable cause existed on trace amounts of drug residue, have been reevaluating their own judgement in the matter. The 9th Circuit Court of appeals had this to say in 1994: "We have previously found such an alert to be 'strong evidence' when making a probable cause determination,'' the panel said in the ruling. "In recent years, however, subsequent courts, including our own, have questioned the probative value of positive dog alerts due to the contamination of America's paper money supply with narcotics residue."

With all of the documented evidence of contamination in existance and the fact that many courts are reversing themselves on the subject, it would seem that the overzelous officers of the law in the beehive state are skating on some pretty thin ice.

Nebraska Sportsmen, They really are after your hunting firearms

Yes I have mentioned this in the last few days, but the seriousness of it demands another look. Say Uncle has a link to an AP story concerning Sportsman John Kerry's comments on the Homeland Defense Firearm ban.

Kerry's Comments
"I mean, heavens to Betsy, folks, we've had that law on the books for the last 10 years, and there's not a gun owner in America who can stand up and say, 'They tried to take my guns away,'" Kerry said.

The here and now
While that contention is debatable, I won't address the last ten years. I am simply going to address the bill that would make it permanant. It is not what we have been subjected to for the last 10 years that we need to be worried about, the bill that will make it permanant redefines what a semi-automatic assault weapon is and does indeed include your semi-automatic "hunting" shotgun.

Sportsmen, John Kerry really is after your guns.
Lets take a look at that bill for a few moments, and since a large number of Sportsmen in Nebraska are Upland Game and Waterfowl hunters, I will confine, for brevity, my analysis to the portion of the legislation that deals with shotguns.

What is a semi-automatic assault weapon as defined by the bill?
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. (bold for emphisis on my part)

1)"A semi-automatic shotgun" is a pretty broad statement that needs to be narrowed down some. The proposed bill does that in these ways and with these definitions.

Most hunters do not use a folding or telescoping stock, true, but how many competition trap and skeet guns have adjustable stocks that TELESCOPE?

Read the definition of a telescoping stock
`(40) FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

2) A pistol grip, as most of us apply it to a firearm is not something generally found on a sporting shotgun is it? If you have a semi-automatic shotgun with a curved lower portion of the stock immediately behind the tripper guard you have a pistol grip. Even if you have a "straight English style stock it may be considered a pistol grip, depending on who is checking your shotgun for compliance.

Read the definition of a pistol grip.
`(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

According to that definition any portion of the firearm you hold onto is considered a 'pistol grip'.

Wait it gets better. How about the forward stock on any shoulder firearm, surely that is not a 'pistol grip'?

Read the definition of Forwward Grip
`(41) FORWARD GRIP- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

Since we have already established that the Bill defines a pistol grip as anything you hold on to it is indeed a pistol grip.

3)But wait, you say, my semi-automatic shotgun only holds 4 rounds in a fixed magazine. That is true, but that is 4 rounds of standard 2 3/4, 3 or 3 1/2" shotshells. Where in that Bill does it state that when checking for compliance, it has to be with standard shotshells. A company called Aquila maunfactures 1 3/4" 12 gauge shotgun ammunition with a choice of 7 1/2 birdshot, buckshot and/or a rifled slug.
(Don't think it will happen? I'll donate a case of AA shotshells to one of the high school trap clubs if I am wrong. If I'm right you donate one.)

The Frosting on the cake
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

There is not one single semi-automatic shotgun on the market today that is not ORIGINALLY made to be used in Law Enforcement or the Military, or BASED on the design of such a firearm. Just because you have used it for years in SPORTING EVENTS does not make it a SPORTING FIREARM.

Time to lick the Spoon
Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

If you want to pass the family shotgun on to a favored son or daughter you'll have to go to the police station to do it leagally.

(a) BAN ON TRANSFER OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON WITH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. (Can't say you didn't know, I just told you.)

Kerry also said; He has pledged to protect Second Amendment rights and said the ban can be reinstated without trampling those rights.

Well pardon me all the way to my favorite gunshop John, but how the hell you figure that?

So there you have it, if you own a very high dollar 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, with an adjustable stock and a fixed magazine that will hold more than 5 rounds of Aquila ammunition, your posession is apparently Grandfathered under this renewal bill.

If you ever want to trade it in you'll have to replace it with a New England Firearms Single barrel though. (Ok you can get a pump, bolt or lever action too).

In theory you could bestow it upon an heir in you went to the police station to do it. However if it holds more than 5 rounds then any transfer is illegal. Go ahead give it to your kid anyway, and send him/her to jail for 10 years.

Still don't think Chuckie, Hillary, John F., Teddy, Barbie and DiFi want your sporting firearms?

The Editors at the Lincoln Journal Star need to be reading this blog... Then maybe they might get something right.

Cut & Paste Drivel

In an editorial today, the Lincoln Journal Star published what appears to be a cut & paste pass along pity party. It can't be anything else, it looks just like the crap we are seeing from all over the country.

Blame the NRA

Neither side in the hotly contested presidential election wants to be seen as favoring gun control and feel the wrath of the powerful-beyond-its-numbers National Rifle Association and the rest of the pro-gun lobby.

It is not the wrath of the NRA and other pro-gun lobby groups. (ed... If memory serves me the NRA had a hand in agreeing to some of things that were included in the bill in 1994) It is the wrath of large numbers, even a majority, if you will of "Red-blooded" Americans in this country that probably don't even belong to those groups.

Any American adult that is even remotely mechanically literate understands that this bill never did anything important. It has not reduced crime, even the CDC and the NIJ attest to that. It did not ban 19 guns, it banned cosmetic features.

Editors follow along, here is an analogy: The 1994 AWB had the SAME effect as if you made hood scoops and rear deck spoilers illegal in order to ban fast cars.

Did you get that or was it too much for your journalistic lock-step cut & paste brain cells to digest?

Lies, More Lies and Damnedable Lies

That is a sad commentary on the state of American politics and the power of overheated rhetoric.

The only overheated rhetoric is coming from editorials such as this one, The Brady Bunch and what's left of the Million Commie Mommies.

Rhetoric is for those that don't know what they are talking about. Uhh Guys at the Star, errr... ummmm.... That would be you.

Law enforcement almost universally favors continuing the ban
Law Enforement favors anything they deem might make their job easier, and it is the upper eschelon levels of law enforcement that are purposely mis-stating what the ban really is. (Read that as: purposely lying to people about what the ban is realy about.)

The new version INCLUDES hunting guns Editors

There has been no concerted effort to take guns out of the hands of sportsmen or to extend the ban beyond the 19 specifically cited weapons.

I guess the editors have not read the latest version of the extention and enhancements as proposed and sponsored by high level Democrats.

Editors - Click here for a copy of the latest copy of the bill

Editors take note;If it passes in the form it is in now EVERY SINGLE SEMI-AUTOMATIC HUNTING SHOTGUN MADE TODAY WILL BE ILLEGAL. And that includes the one John F. Kerry accepted as a gift in West Virginia last week. Do you got that editors is that sinking in to your liberal bias anti-gun mush for brains?

They really are after our HUNTING GUNS.

With very few exceptions all of the 19 firearms the editorial refers to are still on the market today. All that law did was ban things like bayonette lugs, so that someone could not mount a knife on the end of their gun.

OH GOLLY GEE I GUESS IT WORKED THEN, I HAVE NOT READ OF ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF ANY DRIVE-BY BAYONETTING IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. HIP HIP HURRAY !!!!

Automatic Weapons have been regulated for 70 years already, where have you been?

Those who would argue that keeping automatic weapons off the market is somehow the first step on a slippery slope to gun registration and control ignore the evidence of the past decade.

I know that things can get pretty slow in sleepy little Lincoln, Nebraska on any day except Game Day.... SO WAKE UP DOWN THERE EDITORS AND READ THIS:

Posession of full automatic firearms without a tax stamp and a background check by the federal Government has BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE 1934.

For the mathematically challenged that is 70 YEARS. The sunset of the 1994 law HAS NO EFFECT ON THE 1934 LAW. HELLLLLOOOOOO !!!!!!!!

As for the slippery slope of gun registration???? Read my previous blog entry. The City of Lincoln has been illegally registering handguns for years. First step? Lead to?? Good Morning Capital City it is already here.

Editors - Click here for the Lincoln ordinances concerning firearms.

While some of them have undoubtedly made their way into the wrong hands, America's streets are safer because the assault weapons, designed for military use, haven't been easily available. But that doesn't seem to matter to the Washington politicians.

Gee Editors you really do lead a sheltered life don't you? I guess no one told you about that super secret 5000 gun study the Government did in Philly. Bad guys prefer One and two pound handguns that they can easily conceal, not some seven to twelve pound chuck of heavy that is two and a half feet long.

Editors - Click here to read the super secret facts.

Anything will undoubtably make it into criminal hands, possibly even the DVD player in your bedroom. They are not harder to get today, than they were 10 years ago today. (before the ban went into effect) No I can't get a firearm with a bayonette lug, but then again I don't want one. And how many bayonettings were there before the Ban and since?

You haven't let ignorance stop you yet
It is obvious that the editorial staff at the Lincoln Journal Star knows absolutely NOTHING about firearms and the issue.
If you did you wouldn't be publishing such made up nonsense.

Editors - Please note that I did my jouranlistic duty here and cited my sources. (Wheres yours?)

If anyone of you cut & paste copywriters at the Editorial desks knows anything about firearms maybe you can explain the meaning of the Renewal Bill to the rest of your cronies.

The City of Lincoln is not in compliance with the statutes and Constitution of the State of Nebraska

Home Rule Explained

Cities of a certain size in the State of Nebraska have what is called 'Home Rule". This allows the elected or appointed personages in those cities to create local ordinances specific to their situation, with out state legislative approval. It must be noted, however that cities governing under a home rule charter, and any ordinaces passed are subject to the Constitution and laws of the state.

Lincoln, Nebraska has a Home Rule Charter and a population of over 100,000 people and not more than 300,000 and is classified as a city of the Primary Class. The State Statutes that confer on Lincoln the authority to function as a political subdivision of the state are 15-101 to 15-1307. These laws govern how the city does business with the State, other political subdivisions and persons.

Case law for Home Rule Charters is specific in that;

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).

NOTE: State after state has held that regulation of firearms is a state wide concern, and had in place or passed laws pre-empting local regulation on the subject. This has not been done in Nebraska, it is not necessary. the state had been given the power to make firearms regulation nor can it confer it on political subdivisions.

A city may put into its home rule charter any provisions that it deems proper so long as they do not run contrary to the Constitution or to any general statute. Eppley Hotels Co. v. City of Lincoln, 133 Neb. 550, 276 N.W. 196 (1937).

NOTE: By passing laws in areas that the city has not been granted power, there is a distinct and identifiable action contrary to the Constitution and any number of general statutes.

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).

NOTE: General Public Policy of the state, with the exception of the previously addressed unconstitutional, Concealed carry law (28-1202) and the Permit to Purchase Property law, has been (thankfully) hands off firearms issues in regards to law abiding citizens.

In previous writings I have detailed the Constitution and the Statutes of the state of Nebraska and how the legislators have violated their oaths of office in the creation of Statutes for which they had not been granted power to enact.

The City

This dissertation examines the city ordinances that have been enacted by the City Councel of Lincoln, Nebraska in violation of the Constitution and Statute.

Ordinances
Local laws enforceable only within the defined boundries of a home rule city are called ordinances. The section of Lincoln ordinances that deal with firearms, is entitled Weapons and, can be found in Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal code.

Do not have the power
As detailed previously the Representives of State Government and its political subdivisions have ONLY those powers granted to them by the People of the State of Nebraska. These powers are documented in the Constitution. Nowhere is there or has there been any power to regulate firearms granted to the State Legislators. Case law on CI-26 and the legislature exercising powers they have not bee given is quite specific:

A state agency may not, by invoking the doctrine of police power, exercise powers not granted it by and inconsistent with
provisions of the state Constitution. First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938).

Hence forth These same Legislators CAN NOT confer powers to a political subdivision that they themselves DO NOT HAVE.

Why the Lincoln Stautes are uncontstitutional

In addittion to CI-1 created by Initiative Measure No. 403 and CI-26, Statutes 15-255 and 15-263 apply to the legality of any ordinance that the City Councel enacts.

Statute 15-255 Public safety; measures to protect, is part of the statute that gives the city of Lincoln its powers to act in making its own ordinances. According to 15-255 the only power given to Lincoln concerning firearms is the power to PROHIBIT carrying of concealed weapons. That is it period. That is all the state has given power to the city councel to do. Of course it is a moot point, as has already been established that the state did not have the power to enact 28-1202 (Concealed carry law).

Even given that the city "could legally" ban concealed firerarms, that is the only thing they would be empowered to do. Any other law they made would have to be declared unconstitutional if it did not apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm.

Statute 15-263 General welfare; ordinances to insure; powers; enforcement; penalties; imposition; Allows the city to make ordinances not inconsistant with the Constitution ...... in addition to special powers granted by law. In plain English here, if the constitution does not give them the power to do something then they cannot do it. Not hard to understand, unless you are a politician I guess. All ordinances passed by the Lincoln city councel and signed into law by the Mayor MUST be consistant with the Constitution in order to be valid. The phrase "in addittion to special powers granted by law" means that the city must have been granted a special power by law in order to create an ordinance regulating something. There just is no place in the Constitution or Statutes that grants power to the city to regulate weapons beyond the (already proven illegal) power to ban concealed carry".

NOTE: The is one other power granted the city concerning firearms and that is, the city may regulate the discharge of firearms. That however is not important to this discussion.

As noted the applicable Lincoln City ordinance chapter is numered 9.36 and titled Weapons. The first ordinance is 9.36.010 and makes it a crime to discharge a firearm within the corporate limits. The second ordinance is numbered 9.36.020 and makes it a crime to furnish a firearm to a minor, with exceptions for training and sporting purposes. 9.36.025 requires any business that sells firearms or ammunition to keep it secured while on display. The ordinances to this point are pretty benign and are probably Unconstitutional as well.

Gun Registration
Yes Lincoln has gun registration. Handgun registration to be exact. Ordinance number 9.36.030 States that anyone person or business selling a handgun MUST report the sale of that handgun to the Police Department using a prescribed form PROVIDED by the Police Department. This must be done on the day of the sale. Rifles and shotguns of a type commonly used for hunting are excempt from this reporting requirement. This ordinance, given everything that has been presented, is a diliberate, and probably willfull disregard for the Constitution, and the statutes that grant power to Lincoln as a Primary Class city. The State legislature has never ever given the city power to enact this type of ordinance. EVER.

Switch Blades and Toy Guns
The next ordinance numbered 9.36.040 makes it illegal to buy, sell or trade a switch blade in the city. It is quite possible under current state law that this statute is illegal as well, but it won't be addressed here, as it is not a firearm. Ordinance 9.36.050 makes it a crime to discharge BB guns, toy guns and slingshot within the corporate city limits. 9.36.060 makes it illegal to carry a toy gun around town and 9.36.070 makes it a crime to furnish a Juvinile with a toy gun and/or slingshot.

Cops get a free pass and explosives movements
9.36.080 bestows the expected and usual exceptions on cops and/or other good guys. 9.36.090 relates to the transportation of explosives in and around the city.

Chief says you can't own a gun, in his city, if you have been convicted of certain midemeanors in the last 10 years.
9.36.100 wa just enacted last April 7th 2003. There can be no doubt as to the unconstitutioanality of this ordinance what so ever. This little infringement is the brain child of Chief Tom Casady himself. At his urging and brow beating the City Councel passed this ordinance that bans an individual from posessing a firearm for ten years, if they have been convicted of certain MISDEMEANOR crimes. The crimes listed to qualify a person to be subject to the 10 year ban are inded serious crimes, but for the most part they are misdemeanors and under the Constitution of the State of Nebraska and all apllicable statutes the city did not have the authority to enact such a law. CI-1 states that the state nor its political subdivisions shall DENY or INFRINGE the right to keep and bear arms. Note when reading it that it has the standard military/cop exemption. Its ok for a cop to have been convicted of one of those crimes listed and still carry a gun, but if your an average citizen forget it.

NOTE: Why is it necessary for a Police Officer to have an exemption from this law? If an officer is guilty of some of these crimes he probably shouldn't be an Officer any more.

Get your vehicle stolen and go to jail says Chief Casady

And now the best for almost last. Ordinance 9.36110 makes it a crime to leave a firearm in your vehicle for more than 24 hours. Tom Casady shoved this one down the throats of the citizens he has sworn to serve and protect too. He pushed this one through at the same time as he did his 10 year posession ban. His reason for this one? Simple, he claims that there have been to many vehicles stolen with firearms in them and that presents a danger to his officers. The real reason? Someone steals your car that you left a firearm in. It also contains a firearm that you left in the trunk so you report the firearm as well. You are then charged with the local crime of leaving a gun in your car and Chief Casady can claim, on paper, to have made at least one arrest in the case. Makes his Department look good when he documents an arrest in a stolen vehicle crime.

NOTE: Just got back from the range and ran in the house real quick to use the potty and while your in there your car gets stolen? Guess what you get a ticket and will have to convince a judge that it hadn't been there for more than 24 hours. Get the Picture?

The very last ordinance dealing the weapons section is 9.36.120. This law simply defines what a firearm is pertaining to city ordinance.

Lincoln is not unique, except in the requirement to inform the Police of all handgun transfers. Several other cities have crafted their own local laws as well. It should be readily understandable for anyone, by now, to see that the provisions of Constitutional provisions CI-1 (shall not be denied or infringed) and CI-26 (can not exercise the Doctine of Police Power for a power not granted), along with the applicable Statutes, render any and all of these local laws invalid.

Even under the aspicies of "Home Rule Authority" and the General welfare provisions of the Primary Class Statute, the city of Lincoln has not ever been granted the power to enact the firearms legislation that is on the books in the Capital City.

Given the evidence presented, each individual has to decide for themselves. Whether a person likes or dislikes firearms is not relevant. The point is, based on the evidence, over a period of time, has the Lincoln Mayor, City Councel, local/district judges and the Police Department violated the Consitution, the statutes and their oaths of office by enacting and enforcing these ordinances?

Previous posts:

The Truth

A Challenge

They don't understand

Nebraska needlessly sends jobs overseas

For the second time in as many days I am giving a link to someone that usually presents an opposing view to mine.

This time I happen to agree with his assesment of the situation.

I have never been a fan of our Governor Mike "the RINO" Johanns (R Ne), even when he was Mayor of Lincoln.

The sad part is that Johanns apparently has his eye on a Senate seat now held by ex Governor Ben Nelson (D Ne). That's a tough call, but I think at this point I would vote Nelson. (yea you read that right Two)

Two in his commentary Exporting Nebraska takes the state to task for issuing a contract to India, that was fully capable of being handled by and awarded to an in State company.

This kind of outsourcing is unnecessary, and from what I have read he is right on the money in his assesment, I just wish he had provided some links for a more in depth reading on the subject.

Suprisingly, in all of the socializing I have done lately this is one subject that has not come up in casual political conversation. It just doesn't seem to be having the effect that I thought it would when I first heard about it.

But then I suppose that is just another reflection on the apathy of the sheeple in the Cornhusker state that I have commented on in the past.

It is disgusting that the attitude is; If it's not happening in Nebraska why worry about it, and if it is happening in Nebraska as long as it doesn't effect me why worry about it.

Quickshots

AWB DRT? Maybe ... for now
I hadn't heard this myself, But Clayton Cramer is reporting the AWB as being dead.
WASHINGTON - The fight to renew a favored ban on assault weapons effectively died Tuesday after the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to continue restrictions on the sale and manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons conceded defeat.

Walking the Walls
Walking the walls is a blog created by Publicola, triggerfinger and GeekWithA .45 to provide up to the minute information on the ABW progress, now that the legislature is back in session.

So far there have just been the usual rhetoric.

The NRA attacks Kerry
Say Uncle reports that confidence at the NRA headquarters is so strong that they are not even going to run ads, against the renewel, instead they are taking on Kerry abismal record on the Second amendment.

As Bitter puts it "Beautiful"
Bitter links some real good information concerning the bruhaha that has erupted about John Kerrys new shotgun. The one that would be banned if he had his way.

And now on the local front
Two, a Matt Connealy supporter gives his take on last Sundays debate at the Nebraska State Fairgrounds. I guess everyone knows, by now that I support his opponent Jeff Fortenberry and logged my comments on it a few days ago. It never hurts to know what the otherside is thinking though.

Added 11:00 pm

Did he want a recount?
Al Gore was busted recently for doing 75mph in a 55mph speed zone. He sent his check to pay the fine well before the deadline. I guess he learned his lesson the last time he demanded a recount. The Cop said he was even polite about it.

Driver admits to police it was the bumper stickers for Fortenberry and Bush/Cheney

Last week I published a post that detailed an incident of road rage commited against us because of two bumper stickers on our car supporting Jeff Fortenberry for the U.S. House and Bush/Cheney for the Whitehouse.

What I couldn't report at the time was that the incident was reported to the Lincoln Police Department, complete with a decription of the driver, his motor vehicle and his license plate number.

Last evening the very professional and courtious Officer that took the original report called to tell us that, he did indeed harrass us BECAUSE of the Republican candidate bumper stickers and ADMITTED to it.

He did not confess to his actions concerning the movements of his vehicle or yelling obceneties, but he did confess to waving his arm out the window and giving us the finger BECAUSE we support Jeff Fortenberry and George Bush.

He was issued a citation by the Lincoln Police Department for Disturbing the peace. And we will be going to court to testify against his disgraceful and possibly life threatening actions.

I was taken to task by a couple of people in the comments section of the original post. I hope this clears up any confusion they may have had, considering they weren't there at the time of the incident and have only Monday morning quarterbacked the entire incident.

Understanding pain versus drug fun

Early this year Senator Ray Mossey of Papillion, Nebraska was arrested for fraudulently trying to obtain, Hydrocodine, a prescription pain killer.

Ray Mossey was a cop
At one time Ray Mossey was a dedicated Sheriffs Deputy with Sarpy County and later an Omaha Police Officer. Ray was forced to retire in 2001 after a drunk driver hit his police cruiser. Mossey received career ending back injuries as a result of that crash.

Appointed to the unicameral
Filling a vacant seat Republican Governor Mike Johanns appointed Mossey to the Unicameral in 2002. Since his arrest the Governor has turned his back on his once political friend, calling on him to resign.

Pain management
Ray Mossey explained that his drug abuse was an attempt at pain management. Senator Ernie chambers compared Mosseys pain management to a back robber calling his robberies "budget enhancement".

As usually Senator Chambers, like a lot of people just do not get it.
Ray Mossey has applied for the diversions program in order to put this behind him. Senator Chambers is challenging his elligibility for that program. Ernie Chambers sent a letter to the county attorney stating that Mossey is not and should be deemed ineligable from participation in the program.

Pain versus being with the in crowd
The difference between Ray Mossey, Rush Limbaugh and others like them, is that they are in pain, levels of constant pain that the average person probably can not comprehend. A kind of pain that rules your life. A kind of pain you just wish would ease a little so you can run errands or just sit and talk. A kind of unbearable pain that grates on you affecting what you can do and how you relate to people.

These people want and need to take pain killers for very different reasons than recreational drug users. The kind of pain they suffer is the kind of pain that makes it difficult or impossible to perform everyday functions, like going to the bathroom, making a sandwich, getting dressed.
Recreational users, do not have that kind of pain, they are looking for something, a mental escape, a high, an enlightenment or what ever. They don't need to do it, it is the hip, fun, fit in with the buds kind of thing.

It is wrong to compare the drug use of the Mosseys and Limbaughs to people like this. The pain they have is real, they carry it with them every every waking movement of every waking day.

Mossey refuses to quit
Ray Mossey is not giving up his seat in the state Senate, Ray Mossey is seeking election to the seat he was appointed to two years ago.

The New and Improved "Homeland Defense Firearms Ban" and how it effects Nebraska Sportsman

To this point I'm sure some of you that have been reading this Blog, are not convinced that the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to take your favorite pheasant/quail/duck/goose gun. You just can't believe that your elected officials would do that. After all they profess to support gun rights for hunters.

The truth is that the Second Amendmant is not about hunting and they do want to take your firearms.

UPDATE #2Here it a link to the whole text of S. 1431. How many guns do you own that meet the "Assault weapons" definitions? Look closely the mini 14 is now on that list. If you fireram even looks like the type used by the police or Military it will now be illegal to own it, under the new law, co-sponsored and endorsed by John Kerry.

UPDATEPublicola is saying the same thing your about to read here with a much more indepth list of linked resources. I'm not alone in telling you this stuff folks. Scroll down to Get a Grip

Fellow nebraskans this should put to rest once and for all the notion that your "hunting firearms" are safe from government confiscation.
For the past few days Matt Drudge has been noting that John Kerry has been presented a shotgun as a gift. The interesting part is that if he had his way that particular "sportsman hunting tool" he was seen waving around down in West Virginia would be banned under current legislation co-sponsored by him.

The Democratic elite yammer on and on about how they do not want the firearms sportsmen use to hunt. That is pure unadultered Nebraska farm by-product.

The original Homeland defense firearm ban is scheduled to sunset in a matter of days.
For the last year people like Fienstien, Schumer, Kennedy and Presidential hopful John F. Kerry have been conducting a campaign to not only make the ban permanat but to add firearms to it. (thanks to Heartless Libertarian for the link.)

In the words of the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection act of 2003" the definition of an assault weapon would read as follows;

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip;
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds
(b) RELATED DEFINITIONS- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip

Did you catch that? the term "pistol grip" means any characteristic that can function as a grip.
The common term applied to the bottom curved portion of a shotgun stock that is not a "straight English" style is called a PISTOL GRIP. (Thanks to Gunner @ No Quarters.)

Carefully consider the other features listed there as well. Semi-automatic, fixed magazine capacity of more than five rounds and a pistol grip.

Are you willing to let someone else decide if your Granddads Reminton 11-87 is now considered an assault weapon?
Granted most "sporting semi-automatic shotguns do not have a capacity of more than 5 rounds of 2 3/4" or 3" shotshells. But who is it that decides what shotshell the law refers to. Consider how many of the Aquila 1 3/4" shotshells will fit in a Remington 1100, or a Benelli Black Eagle.

Are you still thinking that is a stretch? Who do you think is going to decide which length shotshell is used, you or an Attorney General appointed by President Kerry?

I have said it before
As I said before, the power elite of the Democratic party do not think the original bill went far enough, they, including John Kerry are lobbying, not only to have it made permanant, but to include even more fire arms in it.

Look at the definitions they propose, this time around they REALLY ARE after your hunting shotgun.
You may not have been interested in the catagory of firearms that are black, plastic and cosmetically challenged in the past. To tell the truth in most part I haven't either.

I am not a conspiricy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a firm beliver in the "Domino Principle". (and I don't mean pizza) I knew ten years ago that the people that created the AWB would try to make it permenant and pile more on to it in 2004. That is just history.

It is now 2004 and the things they are now piling on are, the kinds of firearms that many in Nebraska use every year for hunting.

I don't make this stuff up
Still think I am making this stuff up? Re-read above the pertinant section of the proposed law again, and then go look it up for yourself and see how many firearms you own that are included in the "New Hi-Powered Industrial Strength version of the Democratis product.

IT IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.