Where is the NRA for Ramsay Orta? Or is the term "Good guy with guns" not intended to be for those of dark complexion.

Ramsey Orta, the man who video recorded Eric Garner's death by choke-hold from NYPD officer Daniel Pantale. 2nd amendment rights activists should be clamoring to defend the private sale of fire arms (a .25-caliber Norton semiautomatic handgun), if there was colorblind opposition to the gun control laws like SAFE New York then this would be the best real world situation where the police target individuals based upon Mr. Orta's inconveniently videoing NYPD's malpractice. This arrest occurred last night and Mr. Orta was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon less than two weeks after he videoed the homicide of Eric Garner. The often repeated claim that there is constitutional right to privately transfer firearms is at question in this situation as well as NYPD's (thereby government) overreach that not only ended the life of Mr. Garner and infringe on Mr. Orta's 2nd amendment rights.

Will anybody take me up on a $2 bet that the NRA will not be coming to the aid of Mr. Otra's defense? Will gun-rights advocates be too busy dancing on the grave of recently deceased James Brady (Former Reagan press secretary turned gun control spokesman) to start taking this rare instance of a shared fight with liberals from the big-bad-godless city in the form of Rev. Al Sharpton. It would prove NRA-ILA's integrity and mettle were they to lend defense to Mr. Orta. Are the gun-rights advocates agnostic to whom has access to fire arms, since they are opposed to implementing any sort of national background checks that might bar individuals to access handguns for self-defense? Only time will tell if we see the same sort of banding together of fellow gun owners akin to what we saw in Clark County Nevada with stealing of services of grazing access which was the crime the Bundy Ranch committed (not a crime that has some constitutional question). There is a distinctly constitutional question to whether or not states have a right to intervene or make illegal private transfers of firearms; this past Supreme Court session did set precedence that states could not bar convicted felons of domestic violence from possessing a firearm and a couple years ago overturned D.C.'s universal ban of hand guns.

 

SCOTUS Decides Hobby Lobby Has Right To Determine Employees' Religious Beliefs

The defenders of Hobby Lobby's decision to withhold contraception coverage to their employees claim that the government can not force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for contraception which is against their religious beliefs and that Hobby Lobby isn't forbidding employees from purchasing contraception with their cash compensation (just barring it from the compensation in the form of health insurance). Today's decision ignores the fungibility of compensation and the right of the employee to utilize their compensation within their own religious or philosophical beliefs, and that the employers' religious beliefs supersedes that of their employees and extends the employers' beliefs to wherever their employees compensation is spent. Best not to work for or be customer to any business that holds the belief of medical science is the devils work, since they can continue to get tax rebate for providing health care while refusing to pay for insurance premiums. Hobby Lobby's central motivation had nothing to do with contraception as Mother Jones pointed out earlier this year, that their retirement funds included pharmaceutical companies that produce the same contraceptive products that claiming are against their absolute religious beliefs. As if their religious beliefs were optional when dividends were involved but immutable when their employees chose to utilize that aspect of health services. The employer is given the right in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision to make the most personal intimate decisions on behalf of their employees as if their personal decisions not to use Viagra or some convoluted religious rationale to be opposed to Lenscrafters could then be extended to their employees, because otherwise they would be harmed. The employer or the spouse of the employer still is not being forced to take contraception themselves, but the choice and liberty of individuals use contraception as part of their health care services are having their freedom infringed upon since they can no longer make the health care decisions with advice from their doctor.

The argument that the employer should not be compensate employees with health care services they have an issue with could be easily resolved by the employer not supplying health insurance at all (while forgoing the tax benefits) and letting the employees enter the health care exchange markets for their insurance.But then Hobby Lobby owners won't be able to impose their decisions on their employees, and their religious convictions are opposed to letting individuals chose for themselves how to lead their lives outside of work?

To claim that Hobby Lobby has right to impose their beliefs on their employees is contrafactual just it is farcical to claim that the employees have a religious "freedom" to impose on the owners to use specific health care services with the profits obtained from the labor from the employees. The employer isn't harmed from the employee spending their earned compensation (either cash, healthcare, paid time off, etc) as they see fit, even if it is for contraception or paid-time off used to be drunk and hungover it has no effect on the payer of that compensation. SCOTUS in the 5-4 decision and siding with a business that was seeking premium subsidies but on their own terms were to be extended universally the employees of Hobby Lobby would be entitled to impose their religious beliefs that the owner would have to give away his possessions as Jesus Christ commanded, and just as Hobby Lobby continues to collect dividends contraception producing companies, the employees would be allowed to keep their own possessions.

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision: Too Bad There Is No Means Of Enforcing It In Majority Of The States

Common sense prevailed this week deciding that those convicted of domestic violence forgo their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and with a unanimous decision. Convicted violent criminals can be universally understood, at least by reasonable individuals, to be individuals that can not be trusted with firearms. This comes along with criminal stats that 94% women who are murdered are victims of a male perpetrator were known to them, and two thirds of all murders from the same FBI statistics are committed with firearms. Firearms utilization in two thirds of American homicides has been a consistent percentage within the FBI statistics for nearly a decade, undercutting the primary argument for gun rights advocates that access to firearms isn't determinative to effect homicides. Though if firearms couldn't kill people effectively, the Department of Defense should see if they can get a refund for all of their small arms.

The Supreme Court decision barring convicts of even a "misdemeanor domestic assault" charge is enough of a violation to legally posses or purchase firearms. This is clearly a decision with 2nd amendment's "to ensure security" in mind rather than the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause. I still hold the belief that writers original intentions of the Second amendment was intrinsically tied to conscripted local militias to ensure slave revolts would arise (often refered to as 'slave patrols') and the since the passage of the 13th amendment alleviated the original intentions that necessitated the 2nd amendment it would be perfectly within a state's right to ban all firearms similar to the universal ban of firearms in the Wiemar Republic after Treaty of Versailles until 1928 when a firearms registry was instituted and that was done away with in 1938 (for all of those that believe Nazis against gun rights, they actually did the opposite in 1938, stop believing that misguided claptrap).

But on to the actual point, so the Supreme Court ruling that those convicted of non-felony violent crimes would be included being barred by Federal statute from buying and possessing firearms. If only a minority of states have instant universal background checks, what prevents the local wife beater to drive down to Virginia and purchase a firearm legally without ever even showing ID? If you guessed 'nothing' you are absolutely right! What would the gun manufacturers' lobby have against violent criminals accessing their wears? Will that where the expanding market is, of course. It's actually a two pronged viscous circle with two different expanding markets. The first market is for those convicted of crimes whom have had their firearms justifiably confiscated by law enforcement -- they are itching to get replacement guns when released from whatever correctional facility they come out of. The second market is for the woman that are now justifiably afraid that their convicted male acquaintance might have them at the other end of the right to bear arms-- therefore if there was an universal instant background check national implemented they would be able to play off the fears of women and relying on just law abiding male citizens is just not quickly expanding as much as the shareholders are demanding to be. So we have the acknowledgement of some the most conservative legal minds in the free world that violent people shouldn't be given any access to "boom-sticks", while the National Rifle Association (also known as NAMBLA) exerts force on Congress to do the will of gun manufacturers all for the sake of maximizing profit regardless of the 8,000 or so lives that are loss to homicides by firearms.





http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/26/3419173/man-convicted-of-domestic-violence-cant-possess-a-gun-supreme-court-rules/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-state-conviction-for-misdemeanor-domestic-assault-counts-as-misdemeanor-crime-of-domestic-violence-for-purposes-of-federal-gun-restrictions/

"Fair and Balanced" coverage of the Supreme Court...just hours later

Though several hours after oral arguments ended for the Supreme Court hearing the Hollingsworth v. Perry case that may decide the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, Fox News make unusual decisions in their coverage. Initially I flipped between the three 24 news channels, and noticed that CNN & MSNBC covered it live while Fox News continued to cover less immediate stories such as replays of CPAC speeches and Amanda Knox being retried in Italian court. After several hours away from my TV I came back and MSNBC was going over the transcripts of the oral arguments; which made think 'wonder if Fox News ever covered the story at all?' Above is the screen grab of my television with MSNBC in lower right-hand picture-in-picture and Fox News in full screen. After watching Fox News discussed some Jim Carey "rant" against guns, I realized Fox News isn't going to discuss the likelihood that the Supreme Court will not strike down the lower court's decision and upholding Prop 8 ban of same gender marriage. I then checked out what the hullabaloo over Jim Carey, I give you the Funny or Die video that sparked it all below:



Both the video and the twitter posts were from March 24th, two days ago, not particularly breaking news nor was the following story a repeat of the Amanda Knox retrial story. It isn't that Fox News never mentioned the Supreme Court oral arguments but not covering the press conference live is a large failing for any journalistic organization... good thing Fox News is not associated with all aspects of journalism. FoxNews.com did post it up as the leading headline story for the day, and accompanied a video that appears to have pended on Supreme Court releasing the audio file of the oral arguments. Fox News used b-roll of opposing sides chanting outside of the Supreme Court but couldn't have the same camera crew pointed their camera towards David Boies and Ted Olson when they came out of the highest court of the land? If the opposing attorney Chris Cooper wanted to avoid the cameras, that doesn't preclude interviewing the two attorneys that had  argued opposing sides for Gore v Bush but now are on the same side.

It appears that Fox News chose not to show anything live, leads me to believe that if they can't edit the footage they are not going to let go on air.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/jim-carrey-ruffles-gun-nuts-feathers-funny-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/

Supreme Court: Marriage Equality and Guns

Windsor v. United States (lesbian widow after marrying her life partner in Canada owed the IRS over $300,000 in inheritance taxes that if her marriage was recognized wouldn't have owed a dime) oral arguments are scheduled this week to be heard in the Supreme court. What does marriage equality have to do with guns, you may ask. Both depend on full faith and credit clause and opposite interpretations of the same text of of the Constitution. The same thing that avoids inconvenience of having to retake driving tests when you cross state lines, is that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and it also allows for the Iron Pipeline from Virginia up I-95 to the Northeast's cities that have strict state gun control laws as opposed to Virginia and other Southern states that have only the Federal lenient gun control laws. So guns and driver's licenses can be go back and forth across state lines, and this relates to marriage due to the fact a couple that is of opposite genders only needs to get married once to have that marriage recognized in all 50 states, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The couple could even get married abroad in a destination wedding, no matter what country (probably more difficult in Cuba, North Korea, etc) even Canada.

In 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law and the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA is what is going to argued in front the Supreme Court this week. It is as follows:

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

So married couples have expectations that their marriage is not going to be questioned since a marriage license in one state is accepted in every state, a license to drive a car is accepted every state, a license (or lack of a requirement to have a license) to carry a gun is accepted in every other state. In 2010 District of Columbia vs Heller set forward that Washington DC could not regulate firearms to the degree of an outright ban, but puts into question of other restrictions such as licences to own guns as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc currently has. Guns purchased in Virginia do not require licenses and are not registered in any database. Federal Government has been unwilling to bar the transportation of firearms from one jurisdiction to another and leaves it is up to the local municipality to enforce gun legislation. Full faith and credit is provided to the gun owners who cross state lines, but a marriage crossing state lines is too much and can not receive the same full faith and credit. So the guns can't be held to a different standard from state to state, but marriage licences in the limited cases of same gender marriages get can be? Unique treatment from the Federal Government punishing same gender couple for refusing to acknowledge their marriages. That the same conservative justices are going to vote to continue this injustices while telling the Federalist Society the Constitution is not a living document but somehow seems to twist and move to fit their predetermined concept of how the world should work. In one instance, Heller, reinforces that full faith and credit while doubling down that government shouldn't intervene. In the upcoming Windsor case Scalia, Thomas, Alito will certainly make the case that government should discriminate (thereby intervening) when private individuals go and get licenses from a municipality that through legislature or judicial means provides marriages to any 2 consenting adults regardless of gender.

I could be wrong, maybe those conservative justices will follow their statements that Constitution restrains them to make law and that the legislature can't amend the Constitution via statute and surprise me with a unanimous decision striking down DOMA . I won't be holding my breath.