U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights to hold hearing on Stand Your Ground Laws

From Roll Call:

Trayvon Martin’s mother will be a featured witness at a Senate hearing on “stand your ground” laws next week. . . .
Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton is scheduled to testify along with Lucia McBath. Her son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed last year in the parking lot of a gas station in Jacksonville, Fla. . . .
[Other witnesses include]
William Meggs, State Attorney, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Fla.
Ronald Sullivan, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law School
John Lott, President, Crime Prevention Research Center
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute

Read More

This is pretty scary: In Australia police will soon be able to search for guns without a search warrant

Well, if they really "know" who are the bad guys, it would seem easy to get the warrants that they want.  From the Sidney Morning Herald:

NSW Police will be able to stop and search people, cars, bikie clubhouses and "criminal dens" for guns, without a warrant, under legislation to be introduced into parliament this week. 

Under the changes, police would be able to stop and search anyone who had been banned from owning guns without a warrant, even if there was no cause for suspicion, Premier Barry O'Farrell said. "The changes mean officers can also search their cars and their premises for firearms." 

Fewer than 70 people in NSW are subject to a firearm ban but the new laws would make it easier to increase the number, Mr O'Farrell said. Penalties will rise from 10 to 14 years for possession or supply of illegal weapons. 

Police Minister Michael Gallacher said the laws would enable police to target known people. "It will give police the ability to target people they know are involved. . . .

Read More

Chicago ends gun registry, some notes on the debate and what the registry achieved

Something no one addresses is how many crimes have actually been solved as a result of the registry.  When I was in Chicago I couldn't get to the police department to point to a single example where the registry had solved a crime.  From the New York Times:

. . . Chicago’s City Council voted to make the change on Wednesday, modifying the municipal code to comply with a new state law that will make Illinois the last in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public. While the city’s strict bans on assault weapons and gun dealers remain, the loss of control over its own registry, in effect since 1968, was another setback for gun control proponents — this time in President Obama’s hometown, in a state run by Democrats. 

“This is an ongoing battle and struggle to make sure our laws reflect the safety our residents need,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said at a news conference on Wednesday, expressing disappointment with the “concealed carry” state law. . . . 

the gun registry database in Chicago, which contains more than 8,000 gun owners and about 22,000 firearms . . . . 

In the end, legislators enacted a law that gives full control of gun licensing to the Illinois State Police, abolishing Chicago’s gun registration and firearm permit requirements. Other changes included a block on new assault weapons bans, though Chicago was one of a dozen cities and villages to tighten restrictions during a 10-day grace period. 

Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said Chicago’s gun registry was unnecessary, nothing more than a bureaucratic headache for residents who wanted to protect themselves. . . .

I have no trust in the University of Chicago Crime Lab, but here is a little more detail from the Chicago Tribune.

There are now about 8,650 Chicago firearms permit holders who have registered around 22,000 firearms, according to Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office. That's compared with the roughly 150,000 Chicago households the University of Chicago Crime Lab estimates currently have guns. . . .

If just 5.8% of households that have guns have them legally in Chicago, how do we make sense of this statement in the New York Times piece?

“There’s no scenario where this makes the jobs of police easier,” said Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, about having to repeal the registry. . . .

Here is another discussion on the recent changes in Chicago's laws.  From the Chicago Tribune:

. . . The latest changes also would eliminate the requirement that guns in a home be locked up or secured with child-safety locks. But remaining in place is a requirement that those steps be taken when someone younger than 18 is in the home, unless the owner is carrying the weapon. 

Vandermyde took issue with that too, saying state law requires those steps only when a child younger than 14 is in the home. He also said state prosecution can occur when the gun is accessed by the minor and great bodily harm or death occurs, while city ordinances allow prosecution just for not securing the weapon. 

Another point of contention, albeit one that is unlikely to come up much in the city, is the distance from a dwelling unit where hunting can take place. In state law, it's 300 feet. In the city, it's 750 feet. 

The city had modified its gun registry three years ago to require that all handgun owners get a permit. That move followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the city's handgun ban, which had in place since 1982. 

Also Monday, the council's Public Safety Committee endorsed a measure that would toughen penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm within 100 feet of transportation facilities. A first offense would carry a minimum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail. . . . .

Read More

More on Wikipedia's errors/biases, an example of how the discussion on Alawites is apparently biased for political reasons?

My friend David Friedman has a new post on his website that notes:

The Wikipedia page says that they "follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam," and goes on to add that "Alawite beliefs are kept secret for outsiders, even for non initiated Alawites. Therefore many rumours about their religious beliefs have arisen," but says nothing about what those beliefs are.  

With a little searching, however, I found quite a detailed account on another web page. I do not know  if it is accurate, although my guess on internal evidence is that it probably is. If so, it sounds as though their beliefs deviate from Islamic orthodoxy as much as Muslim beliefs deviate from Christianity and probably more than Muslim beliefs deviate from Judaism. They apparently believe that Ali was some sort of incarnation of God, reject the Koran, and believe in reincarnation for males but not females. 

Which makes me wonder whether the absence of information in the Wikipedia page reflects a successful attempt to defend the identification of Alawites as Shia in support of Assad's alliance with (twelver Shia) Iran. . . .

At the very least, it is additional evidence that one should be very careful before trusting anything on Wikipedia.

Read More

Remember Paul Krugman's attacks on Germany's economic policy, comparing it to Germany in the early 30s? Now read this

Remember Paul Krugman's attacks on German "austerity" in his pieces in 2010 and later?  Well, fortunately, Germany didn't take his attacks seriously.  Now with Germany's elections approaching, we see stories in places such as the Washington Post noting this:

Merkel, who is favored to win a third four-year term next week, has benefited from Germany’s strong economy and low unemployment.
That’s even truer in Bavaria, the tradition-minded homeland of retired Pope Benedict XVI and also a high-tech and industrial center, where nearly 9.5 million people are eligible to vote. Its jobless rate is just 3.8 percent, the lowest of any German state and well below the national average of 6.8 percent.
At his pre-election rallies, Seehofer has described Bavaria as “the gateway to paradise.” . . .

Read More

Talk at "Lincoln/Reagan Dinner to be held Sept. 25" in Carroll County, Maryland

It should be a fun talk.  

The Lincoln/Reagan Dinner, hosted by the Carroll County Republican Central Committee, will be held at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 25, at Martin's West, Jermor Lane, Westminster.
The speaker will be John Lott, author of "MORE GUNS LESS CRIME." The cost is $80 per person or two for $150. Reservations are required.
For information/reservations, call James E. Reter at 443-985-6361; 410-875-2748 or email jreter0155@aol.com.

Read More

Major problem solved by Obama: He moves to end outrageous discrimination by movie theaters against blind and deaf

It is about time.  I don't know how previous presidents let this go on without ending outrageous discrimination against the blind by movie theaters.  Surprise, some movies theaters will probably be put out of business.  From The Hill newspaper:

The Obama administration is nearing completion of a proposal to require that movie theaters offer technology so blind and deaf people can go to the cinema. 

The draft rule, which is part of a decades-long effort by advocates for people with disabilities, would likely require thousands of movie theaters across the country to offer devices that display closed captioning and provide audio narration of what’s happening onscreen. 

Disability associations say that the new regulation will make sure that blind and deaf people can appreciate the latest blockbuster just like everyone else. 

But theater owners worry that a federal mandate will force small, rural and struggling theaters to close given the costs associated with the rule. . . .

The upcoming proposal from the Justice Department is expected to require that a certain percentage of the more than 40,000 movie screens across the country offer headsets that provide a running commentary of visual action for the blind, glasses that display closed captioning for the deaf or other devices to explain what’s happening onscreen. . . . 

By definition this fails the cost-benefit test.  The question is what the blind would have been willing to pay and whether that would have been larger than the cost of providing these services.  If they were willing to pay enough, we would see these services.  Since none exist, they must not be willing to pay enough. 

Here is another way of thinking about it.  Suppose you gave all blind people an amount of money equal to cost of providing this service.  What are the odds they would spend it on going to movie theaters?  My guess is that only a small number of recipients would spend it on movies.

Read More