Re: Brady State report cards are out
Note that the Children and teenagers figure is a 0-19 age-group. If you use a 0-17 age group, the total drops by slightly more than 1/2 (From 2937 total (including DC's 32) to 1433 total (including DC's 11)). Note that DC doesn't get a report card. To see the data apparently used by the Brady Campaign (there may have been a typo or two), go to the CDC's WISCARS page at: webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Under Report Options: 1. Select All Intents. 2. Select Firearm 3. Select United States, All Races, Both Sexes, 2001 to 2001, All Hispanic Origin, and Standard Output. Under Advanced Options Select a Custom Age Range from 1 to 19 Select No Age-Adjusting Requested Select State as your first (and only) output group. Click Submit Request. This will give you the 2001 child and teen deaths quoted in each State's Report Card. (Except for the following states: GA 112 (Brady) / 110 (CDC) , MI 101 (Brady) / 106 (CDC) , NE 23 (Brady) / 19 (CDC), and RI (Brady report didn't come up for me) / 6 (CDC). Note that the page specifically cautions that Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution. This didn't stop the Brady Campaign from noting (without any caveats) that Alaska's rate is nearly two and a half times higher than the national average. Obviously, you can go back and change parameters to explore what happens when you look at data you think might be more appropriate to the issues. Lowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: With 81 children dead in 2001 due to gun violence Maryland garners an A- http://www.bradycampaign.com/ http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/0104/rc04/md.pdf Lowell Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Takings
What grounds does a religious organization have for using the courts to compel the government to prohibit certain activity? The MN case, in particular seems entirely outlandish. If a church thinks that guns should not be carried on it's property, then it should be working to convince any dissenting members (and visitors) of that view. It should have a level of moral authority that the government does not since it bases that moral view on the authority of a deity. For it to now turn around and ask the government to enforce a prohibition that the government has declined (under certain circumstances) to enforce is something that the courts have repeatedly thrown out. After all, the government does not enforce moral rules that should be far more important to religious organizations than peacefully carrying a weapon (for example--not all of which apply to all groups--adultery, dietary rules, holy day observance, charitable giving.) And when the government has provided a method of notice which allows the organization to enlist government authority and assistance in maintaining their moral view (i.e. posting the signs or providing written notice), it's baffling to me that the case is still in the courts. To take one example, it would be like a church asking the courts to compel the legislature to change the divorce laws as they apply to its members--when the legislature has specifically provided that the church could have couples sign court-enforceable prenuptual agreements when they are married in the church. (Admittedly, this is an imperfect analogy since a prenup agreement written today won't affect a couple married yesterday, but as applied to the couple married tomorrow, it works.) To sum it up, this whole thing seems to turn the idea of religious freedom on its head. Instead of religious freedom preventing the government from enforcing certain laws, this would have religious freedom compelling the government to enforce a law that the legislature (for good or ill) does not want to have on the books. Lowell Robert Woolley wrote, in part: But suppose that a radically pacifist religious group *did* want to go so far as to ban possession on its premises of any object (not part of one's person) it perceived as readily usable as a weapon--tire irons, Leatherman tools, metal-cased fire extinguishers, bike-lock chains or cables, ropes, etc. Should this group be allowed, as a matter of public policy (setting aside any particular piece of legislation for the moment), to set compliance with such rules as a condition for entering or using its building and/or parking lot? We can even stipulate that the list the group has compiled is, by overinclusion and/or underinclusion, quite irrational. Does that matter, if the religious belief underlying it is genuine? Lowell Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Interesting state constitutional right to bear arms discussio
A few (I hope, relevant) background points. 1) Sanders (author of the CO1 opinion) is rather well known as a libertarian. Interestingly, if I recall correctly, the last time he was up for re-election, he was actually endorsed by all of the three largest parties (Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian--and he might have been endorsed by the Greens, for all I know.) 2) WA has had a Concealed Pistol License law since 1961. While there were some problems with its administration in some jurisdictions (like additional requirements, or extremely limited hours for accepting applications) the legislature eventually fixed those issues (and they were usually easy to bypass anyway. So, by some reckonings WA has had a Right-to-Carry law since 1961, Also, note that WA's law is quite relaxed. Fingerprints and background check are the only requirements (training or proof of same is not necessary.) Lowell Eugene Volokh wrote: There's an interesting state constitutional right to bear arms discussion in the concurrences to State v. Gurske, 2005 WL 2038536 (Wash. Supreme Ct. Aug. 25). It's particularly interesting because the concurrences would recognize that the right to bear arms to some extent limits armed-with-a-deadly-weapon sentence enhancements even for people convicted of other crimes (here, possession of methamphetamine). The opinions are here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.opindispdocid=7 51561MAJ http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.opindispdocid=7 51561CO1 http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.opindispdocid=7 51561CO2 Eugene Lowell Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: guns at workplace
It seems to me that this is one of those cases where two rights are in conflict. On the one hand, there are private property and contract rights and on the other hand, self-defense rights. Both important, both emotional, both deeply felt by some people. There are all kinds of issues in society where we have this sort of conflict between different rights. The right to protest vs. the right to be left in peace and sometimes, the right to privacy. The right to free speech vs. the right to not be damaged by it. The question I have is: what is the best way to resolve these kinds of conflicts? Is it in the courts (which the conversations below would seem to indicate) or is it in the legislature? If the courts could decide that private property and contract rights should trump self-defense rights, why could not a later court decide that the first decision is in error and that self-defense rights trump property and contract rights and therefore people can bring guns into the parking lot even in states that allow companies to ban firearms? But frankly, I think that a superior legislative solution would be to allow companies to have whatever policy they wish, but create a civil court safe-haven for those companies that follow a particular course. So, take Utah for instance. It might say that if company policy allows workers to carry guns on the job--provided that they are acting within the law (i.e. properly licensed)--then the company is not responsible for any damages should that employee harm someone else with their weapon. But conversely, if the employer bans weapons, then should an employee be harmed (on the job or traveling to or from), the employer will have the burden of proof to show that even if the employee (or a fellow employee) had been armed, the harm would still have occurred. While this still impacts property and contract rights (which, as Kelo, and numerous contract-override provisions in various state and federal laws have shown, are not absolute) it does so far less than the one-size-fits-all approach of thou shalt not current laws. Also, it becomes just one more of several issues a company must consider in developing its workplace rules. Lowell Guy Smith wrote, in part: Grag wrote: 1 - Your motor vehicle is an extension of your home. As such, your private property rights at home transfer to your motor vehicle and, therefore, are exactly equal to the property rights of the person upon whose land you park that motor vehicle, despite the fact that there is at least some kind of implicit grant of permission or licence to park there. The rights being equal, the prohibition is stalemated and must fail because the right to possess/carry the firearm at home either trumps a workplace situation or maybe it occurs first - the right starts inside the house before the worker gets to the parking lot so he simply carries it with him (no pun intended). Being first, it wins. I'm not convinced on this approach. Let's assume for the moment the destination is not a workplace, but another person's home. Is the right of this homeowner secondary? If Maggie doesn't like guns, and doesn't want John to bring his gun onto her property, she can keep him from doing so. Ignoring for the moment the lacking of individual standing that a corporation has, why would their property rights have a secondary status? Taking this one step further: Public parking lots are just that -- available to the public by an implied invitation (Please come shop and the Mega Mall of Memphis!). A corporate parking lot is by specific invitation, and indeed by employment contract. Property and contract rights would have a superior standing (this gets messy when we also consider that corporations invite a subset of the non-employee public onto corporate grounds for visiting -- vendors, potential employees, customer representatives, etc.). Lowell Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
