Feds warns kitchen staple considered part of ‘silencer’
“Put down the Chore Boy and back away from the weaponry!”
It’s an order that actually could be heard, given that a letter has surfaced from the federal government warning against consumers stockpiling Chore Boy household scrubbers because they can be considered a component of a gun silencer and, therefore, regulated by federal gun laws.
The letter is from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF. It was obtained by David Codrea, who publishes online as the Gun Rights Examiner.
And it comes from a federal agency that earlier determined a 14-inch-long piece of shoestring must be regulated under federal gun laws and restrictions because it is a “machinegun.”
The latest unusual determination from the agency is found in a letter submitted to the agency on behalf of a client. The letter is dated Nov. 26, 2010, and Codrea said it was obtained recently.
Michael Avery, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, reportedly sent an email to colleagues saying it is "shameful" to send care packages to U.S. troops.
A Massachusetts law professor has created a campus firestorm with an email to colleagues that declares it would be “shameful” to send care packages to U.S. troops “who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.”
Michael Avery, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, sent a five-paragraph email to colleagues in response to a school-wide appeal for care packages for deployed soldiers, Fox affiliate WFXT-TV reports.
“I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings,” Avery wrote.
The professor, who specializes in constitutional law, wrote the email last week in response to a university drive to collect items for U.S. troops, like sunblock and sanitary products. He also wrote that sympathy for American troops in harm’s way is “not particularly rational in today’s world.”
Paul Spera, past commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, blasted Avery’s remarks on Monday, calling the professor’s argument “despicable.”
Support Our Troops, visit Packages From Home.
Within our own country, the Founders and Framers understood that there has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of the community. They were under no illusions that in a country this large that everyone could hold the same beliefs and goals. They wanted to create a place where, to the largest extent possible, people could be free without imposing on others. You could say their end goal was freedom. In creating the U.S. Constitution, they created a document that would maximize freedom and minimize conflict. For example, rather than elevate one religion over others by sponsoring it by the state, they included the First Amendment, which reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”
What is meant by this is that the FEDERAL government will not become involved. They knew better than to tell the states to what level they become involved in religion or whether or not the states should even sponsor any particular religious practice. By the same token, if one religion imposed its beliefs on others, this would be abridging the free exercise of a faith and that would not be acceptable. Remember, the idea is to maximize freedom and minimize conflict.
The US Constitution was based on the philosophy of government laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which declares:
“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, discusses the Declaration of Independence, the founders, Woodrow Wilson, and the founders of modern liberalism and how they gave more power to government.
Gov. Jan Brewer demanded answers from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission about a handful of alleged improprieties, the first step in the process for forcibly removing one or more of the commissioners.
Brewer today sent a letter to all five commissioners seeking a response to allegations that the IRC violated open meeting laws, public records laws and the constitutionally mandated criteria for redistricting. The letter comes as Republican lawmakers, conservative activists and others have been clamoring for a special session of the Legislature to remove IRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis, who has been accused of colluding with the commission’s two Democrats.
The governor accused the commissioners of “substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct in office,” repeating verbatim the provision in the Arizona Constitution that details the grounds for removing a commissioner from the panel. The removal of a commissioner requires the approval of the governor and two-thirds of the Senate.
“I am duty bound to ensure that Arizona’s redistricting process is constitutionally sound and worthy of the full faith and confidence of Arizona voters,” Brewer wrote. “The IRC has violated constitutional requirements.”
It’s time to face the facts: By any objective standard, the Independent Redistricting Commission has completely botched the job. Governor Brewer and the Senators should exercise their Constitutional duty and replace all of them.
Let’s forget the blatant partisanship and open meeting violations and focus on one issue. The fundamental job of the IRC is to draw districts that fulfil the requirements of the Constitution. The proposed Congressional map clearly violates those requirements.
I’ve printed the full text of the requirements below, but here’s a summary. The first two requirements are right out of federal law: The Districts must comply with the US Constitution and voting rights act and have roughly equal population. Then there are three requirements that were obviously written to prevent Gerrymandering: The Districts have to be geographically compact and contiguous; they have to respect communities of interest and they have to respect natural boundaries.
Then there’s a sixth requirement that uses different wording. Here’s the whole thing.
F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals. (Emphasis added).
Here’s your statutory interpretation question…does the 6th requirement have the same status as the other five, or does it have a lower priority? In the first version of this post, I argued that the 6th requirement was secondary. I still believe that and the lower courts agreed with my interpretation, but (as the first comment to this post pointed out) the state Supreme Court doesn’t like that term. Here’s what the Supreme Court said:
If you haven’t been following the Alinsky methods being used by Randy Parraz and his far-left associates to take down Arizona Senator Russell Pearce (R), you should pay close attention. They may target your Republican legislator very soon. If they can destroy Pearce, they can destroy anybody. The recall election will be held November 8, 2011; early balloting begins on October 13 (that is, tomorrow).
So who is Russell Pearce?
Senator Pearce gained national prominence in April 2010 as the architect of SB1070, one of the toughest anti-illegal immigration laws in America. It allows Arizona to enforce the federal immigration laws which have been left unenforced for many years.
Pearce has spent his political career writing and sponsoring legislation that honors constitutional conservative principles.
Here are some brief highlights.
After former Gov. Janet Napolitano resigned, Sen. Pearce oversaw the biggest budget cut in Arizona’s history: $500,000,000.
He sponsored legislation to stop eminent domain abuse and protect property rights. He sponsored SB1108, the “Freedom to Carry Act,” making Arizona the number one-state for 2nd-Amendment freedom.
Republican presidential contender Herman Cain amplified his criticism Sunday of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement, calling the protesters “jealous’ Americans who “play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac.
Cain’s remarks, on CBS‘ “Face the Nation,” came amidst an escalating war of words between Republicans and Democrats over the merits of the movement, which has spread from New York to other cities across the nation, including Washington and Los Angeles.
GOP politicians in recent days have stepped up their criticism of the protesters, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) calling them “mobs” who have pitted “Americans against Americans.”
But Cain, surging in popularity among many conservatives, seems to have had among the most virulent responses to the protests.
On CBS, Cain suggested that the rallies had been organized by labor unions to serve as a “distraction so that many people won’t focus on the failed policies of the Obama administration.”
Read the rest.
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Independent Redistricting Commission asked a judge Tuesday to quash an investigation by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne into whether members violated the state’s Open Meeting Law, saying its members are not subject to its requirements.
Legal papers prepared by the commission’s lawyers contend the panel is governed only by the terms of a constitutional amendment approved more than a decade ago by voters. That measure requires that when a quorum of members are present, the commission “conduct business in meetings open to the public.”
But the attorneys said the Open Meeting Law that applies to virtually all state and local agencies is “unenforceable” against commission members. And they said the state Constitution does not allow Horne to “wield his investigative and enforcement powers” over its members.
That distinction is crucial.
Public officials found guilty of violating the Open Meeting Law can be removed from office by a judge
