Laws @ MindSay

Ok, while I think the whole sagging pants look is one of the stupidest trends in dress I've ever seen, I personally couldn't back a law like this. Especially when you know many people who do were once hippies who didn't bath regularly.

It's the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb

Sun Jul 20, 2:06 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_on_fe_st/odd_underwear_law

Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color.

Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.

Remember that guy in DC... Dick Heller. You may have heard about his little court case... Well, guess what!

DC Rejects Handgun Application

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they've had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

Though residents will be allowed to begin applying for handgun permits, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

Friday, June 06, 2008
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991

On the Second Amendment,

Don’t Believe Obama!The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9


1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

District of Columbia’s newly proposed handgun law
Lawsuit Bait: New D.C. Handgun Legislation

By Capital Research Center Wednesday, July 16, 2008
By Matthew Vadum

We may be able to measure the life of the District of Columbia’s newly proposed handgun law with a stopwatch. Unveiled today by Mayor Adrian Fenty and D.C. Council members, this measure is lawsuit bait that makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF file) on June 26 by imposing maximum inconvenience on law-abiding D.C. residents who want to own firearms.

In striking down the District’s previous handgun ban, the Court ruled that “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (District of Columbia v. Heller, p. 64)

So what does the District do? It thumbs its nose at the high court and then brags about it to appease liberal pro-gun control voters. According to a statement provided by the mayor’s office, “the handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home.”

The statement continues, asserting that the bill

“Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home. The bill also includes provisions on the transportation of firearms for legal purposes.”

This means that a gun owner must keep his gun in an inoperable condition right up until the moment he realizes there is an actual threat. At that moment and at that moment only may he load, reassemble, unlock, or take out of a safe his gun.

Violent criminals aren’t going to sit around and wait while residents race to load/reassemble/unlock their guns in order to comply with these onerous requirements that have the effect of preventing handguns from being used for “immediate self-defense.”

The legislation would also impose incredible burdens on lawful would-be gun owners, forcing an owner to have his weapon subjected to ballistics testing “to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime.” This means the law would presume all would-be gun owners to be criminals. Clearly this is calculated to slow the gun-registration process to a crawl.

It includes other bizarre requirements that treat potential gun owners as violent felons. Read the summary here.

Mayor Fenty patted himself on the back at a press conference today. “We think we have struck the delicate legal balance,” he said. “While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground.”

If it passes, we’ll see how long it lasts before a judge strikes it down.


Capital Research Center (CRC) was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism.
Capital Research Center most recent columns
To reprint article, permission of the writer is required. Please email us at cfp@canadafreepress.com.

I'm sorry... didn't you notice the lack of external safeties when you bought the gun?

Sir, here's your sign.

(07-09) 22:37 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP)

An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed after his young son accidentally shot him in 2006 filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the manufacturer of the gun involved in the accident.

Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 — a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol — from the back seat of his pickup truck.

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "non-existent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, 35, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun's holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and the holster. He bought the gun at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club and purchased a holster made by Uncle Mike's and Bushnell Outdoor Products from Turner's Outdoorsman.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

The lawsuit alleges product liability, breach of warranty and loss of consortium, and seeks general, special and punitive damages, and attorneys fees.