Too Soon?

With the recent mass shootings, as with any others, the gun control crowd wants to strike while the iron is hot. While emotions run high, honest discourse is politically incorrect and an attitude of "we must do something, this is something, let's do it" might carry the day. We will hear of "common sense" gun laws without any explanation of what is "common" or what is "sensible." Proposals with so little regard for the U.S. Constitution as to smell of treason will be put forth. Reason will be in short supply.

But there are "common" gun deaths and there is some "sense" to be made. Let's look our brothers in the Second City where we find some of the strictest gun laws and yet Chicago operates on a daily basis as an ad hoc but very lethal shooting gallery. The death toll this month will exceed Dayton and El Paso combined. By the end of August well over 300 folks will have been shot and killed so far this year. In one city.

Where is the outrage? Why is there no outrage, at least none rising to the level of a one-shooter-several-victims event? Is there a racial component? Victims are largely black as are the shooters. Does that make the loss of life less important? Is there a demographic component? Is this because these are urban shootings with no connection to the deplorables and their deplorable leader? Is there a political component in addition to that inherent with the urban/rural divide? Urbanal America runs deep blue as does the political ectoplasm of the loudest voices screaming for gun control.

Why are there no learnings? Chicago's laws have done little or nothing to stop the massacre. So why are similar approaches proposed to address recent shoot-em-ups? Is it possible they are not looking to the efficacy of Chicago gun control because it would not support the anti-gun agenda and it isn't so much about saving lives as it scoring a political win?

DCSD: Got Schooled

DeKalb County Schools just learned a $45K civics lesson. Turns out that constitutional rights extend to students and not just parents, not just voters and not just citizens. Even lowly students have rights. Also turns out the founding fathers put these protections in place to guard against government oppression. DCSD even found out that public schools are actually an agency of the government. Who knew? Apparently no one involved in education in DeKalb. 

Airport Open Carry

The chazerai surrounding the bloke who toted his AR-15 thru the Atlanta Airport lobby is actually quite enlightening. Especially if being confronted with other folks' often willful ignorance is a learning experience for you. It centers around the common (mis)understanding of rights and privileges.

In a world of blurred lines between legit information and entertainment where we're bombarded with the notion that we "have the right to cable TV" and where high school graduates cannot be expected to read the front of a ketchup bottle it should come as no surprise that some folks have no ability whatsoever to differentiate between a right and privilege. This shows up a lot.

In at least one case disingenuous misrepresentation has been purposeful. To wit, the pronouncements of Gun Sense (gunsensevoter.org) representatives who have elevated a discomfort being around a visible display of weapons (when not in the hands of government agents) to a right whilst simultaneously trying to argue all constitutional rights have restrictions and the Second Amendment should not be free of the most onerous restrictions. But there is an agenda here and such deceptions and exaggerations are to be expected. They, as a small but vocal minority, would like to impose their will on a larger majority without regard for that pesky ole Constitution. Were they in the majority they would work to amend the constitution which would be the right way to do it.

More interesting are the other creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork who somehow equate a privilege, say driving, with a Constitutional right, say "keep and bear arms." The (il)logic goes like this: "if you must have training and demonstrate proficiency to operate a car why shouldn't you have to do the same to own and carry a firearm." We'll skip the part about "not all weapons are firearms" and cut to the chase. In some states you must complete training and demonstrate proficiency to acquire a carry license. Often this is used to prevent "ordinary citizens" from obtaining a license by establishing an extremely high proficiency requirement--often significantly higher than law enforcement. Most states require a background search and fingerprinting. Not the kind of background search that will get you in the back door at the DeKalb School's palace but the FBI kind. These arguments are as easily debunked as they are silly. Since we are talking about Constitutional rights why don't we apply similar training and proficiency to other rights. How about the freedom of speech in the first amendment? Or better yet, let's tackle a sacred cow and suggest that before being allowed to vote citizens must take courses in civics and demonstrate some knowledge retention? That alone would cut the legs from under those who argue "rights be damned, guns are more dangerous than [fill in the blank]."

While it was sad and a bit silly to prance around the airport with an allegedly loaded AR-15 (did anyone actually verify there was a round in the chamber or even in the magazine?) it was indeed legal but it probably was not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The elitist minority wanting to eviscerate select portions of the Bill of Rights might want to ponder that intent in the context of Ferguson, North Charleston and a host of others before they get too carried away with their pontifications.

Expensive Words

It may have been a cut-and-paste by the ubiquitous Staff and it may have seemed expedient at the time but these words and their (ab)use is likely to cost Dunwoody taxpayers a pretty penny:

The purpose and intent of the City Council in establishing the R-100 (Single-family Residential) District is as follows:

(a) To provide for the protection of neighborhoods within the City where lots have a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet;
(b) To provide for infill development in neighborhoods having fifteen thousand (15,000) square foot lots in a manner compatible with existing development; 
(c) To assure that the uses and structures authorized in the R-100 (Single-family Residential) District are those uses and structures designed to serve the housing, recreational, educational, religious, and social needs of the neighborhood. 

This comes from the Dunwoody Zoning Ordinance and is the statement of purpose and intent for R-100 zoning which covers residential lots under one acre (by implication of the other R-x00 codes) but over 15,000 square feet. Generally in law a legislative statement of purpose and intent is used during court proceedings to clarify gaps or vagueness in situations where the letter of the actual law (or code as in this case) does not clearly apply or convey the legislative intent.

In the situation with the Dunwoody Club Forest decision which is political at best and wrong at the very least a judge will most likely be called on to assess whether the Dunwoody City Council followed their own intent.  They have not. Council have stated, in the code, that their intent is to provide for, not deny, infill development. The winners of the debate as it stands today invoke the "in a manner compatible with existing development" clause, but the reality is that two very nice homes on generous, over 15,000 square foot lots, is not incompatible with surrounding nice, but older homes on similarly sized lots.

And the judge may consider whether the Dunwoody City Council has been consistent. They have not. If their intended use of this clause is to prevent "incompatible development" what say they to the development going on right now at the pipe farm? These appear incompatible with existing development as all of the neighboring, existing developments are apartments. In this case "consistent development" would be apartments as had been planned before the real estate bubble burst but which are instead, thru direct City interference, being replaced with single family residences.  Not compatible. Not consistent. Not likely a judge will look the other way.

The fact is the Dunwoody City Council has (ab)used zoning language they approved to do what they want, when they want and in a punitive fashion. We should all be concerned about the costs of these actions. Not just in dollars, but in integrity.

Nasty Ole Constitution

It has been reported in the blogosphere and the legitimate press that the Top Cop in neighboring Brookhaven wants to ensure that law-abiding citizens with a valid Georgia Weapons Carry License cannot bring any of their weapons to City Hall. Some say this is an odious (but legal) effort to undermine the intent of the recently passed Georgia Law and circumvent a Constitutional Right of the citizenry. Perhaps, but we will leave that to greater minds.

This is happening in Brookhaven, not Dunwoody so the immediate impact is minimal. But whilst Dunwoody is a self-proclaimed Smart City it has never demonstrated or claimed to be capable of even minimal originality. Consequently the likelihood of a copy-cat crime of authority is quite high thereby making observations about Brookhaven relevant.

Most important is the meaning behind the words and deeds. Prior to July 1 the only folks bringing weapons to City Hall were criminals (due to lack of screening) and the exempt elites who some refer to as "the only ones" (as in "the only ones who should be allowed to possess a weapon").  With the law in effect citizens with a valid Georgia Weapons Carry License are allowed to carry a weapon into government facilities that are not properly screened for weapons. No part of the law requires licensees to carry. And it is important to note that these individuals have passed an FBI background check and have their fingerprints on file. We believe this to be the same FBI that does background checks on cops.

So the Brookhaven Top Cop is saying:

The threat of a Bad Guy[tm] bringing in a weapon is and continues to be insignificant posing no risk whatsoever to the Mayor, Council, Zoning Board members or any members of the public attending events at City Hall, BUT licensed law-abiding citizens are such a clear and present threat that immediate measures must be taken no matter what the cost.

Pogo lives! He has met the enemy and the enemy is us!

The pervasive banality of Dunwoody all but guarantees we will talk the same talk and walk the same walk so we at The Other Dunwoody would like to offer a few suggestions should Mayor and Council like to salvage any moral or intellectual integrity:

• come up with a really good story as to why a law allowing licensed carry at City Hall pulls the trigger on weapons screening in spite of the fact it was never necessary to catch the oft-mentioned Bad Guys[tm] who are otherwise used to justify everything from SWAT Teams, to APCs, to anti-terrorism junkets
• explain the costs upfront and keep detailed records of costs going forward and report these costs on a quarterly basis
• detail your commitment to your responsibility should anything tragic happen to one of our citizens in your semi-gun-free zone (explained below)

And the real kicker is:

• If you are going to make a "gun-free-zone" make it a 100% gun-free-zone with no exceptions. Absolutely none. That means no exception for the Mayor, Council, Judges, board members and most importantly police. That's right. In passing the checkpoint cops drop their Glocks in a box. Tasers in a basket. Clubs in a tub. If this gun-free-zone is safe enough for us then it is safe enough for you and we, the citizens you allegedly serve, don't need you, our servants, bringing weapons into an area that you seem to think attracts Bad Guys[tm] so they can take that weapon and use it on us. And we, the citizens, know that is a likelihood with precedent and if you don't believe it then Google "Brian Nichols" and tell us why we should feel safe because you're bringing in a gun that a Bad Guy[tm] can grab. If you're so worried about tempers flaring at a zoning meeting what about when you discuss police budget and raises? And while you're at it you can explain how this semi-gun-free-zone is safe enough for us but not safe enough for you. Is that because YOU have the guns?

At the end of the day this chazerai is a lot less about guns than it is about the arrogance of government, even at the local level and their increasingly fascist behaviour.

Having A Blast?

How ironic is it that the most recent victim in what appears to be American Society's favorite drama, Cops Gone Wild, is pronounced "Boo Boo"? Some apologists would like to dismiss this as a little fuquey uppey. You know--shit happens. Others point to a trend often citing the Kathryn Johnston disaster that resulted in the temporary disbanding of the special force whose members murdered her. Sadly that group has been recently re-formed. Or they look to the strikingly similar case of Trinishia Dukes who was also bombed with a flash-bang grenade and whose lawyer has made it clear this is out of control: "It has just become 'If SWAT goes out we're using flash bangs.' They think it is a toy." It is also epidemic with Clayton SWAT grenading citizens at a rate of over one per week. For over three years.

All this leaves many of us asking:

Others are beginning to ask why but as is so often the case this can be explained by money. Drug busts lead to property confiscation with due process denied in practice and afforded only as a legal theory. Increasingly police agencies are funding not only their peccadilloes but their core operational budgets from this revenue source. Attacking the public is now for fun AND profit.

They have also co-opted confidential informants who have been falsely identifying innocents and worse yet running entrapment schemes in order to avoid threats of punishment should they not meet quotas handed out by their police handlers. Using what would normally be seen as blackmail police handlers are using these informants to violate Constitutional Rights entrapping otherwise law abiding citizens while maintaining the one degree of separation they feel indemnifies them.

In militarizing the force the police (with our negligent approval) have done what is necessary in all military conflicts: dehumanize the enemy. And in this case the public is enemy number one. They speak in vague characterizations--the Bad Guys--terms that can be applied at their discretion to anyone they see. Those that buy into this view, who bandy about the chimerical threat of these mysterious Bad Guys to assist in expanding the military nature and capabilities of what should be a civilian law enforcement operation are the real Bad Guys. The public are the Good Guys and increasing the police are, well...

Some say these are isolated incidents that are being blown out of proportion by those with anti-government proclivities. The Cato Institute begs to differ and offers an online map to help elucidate the extent of these abuses of power. This is a serious and growing problem and measures must be taken:

• Issuing no-knock warrants must be taken more seriously as it is a clear violation of Constitutional Rights. We must stop issuing these warrants to any agency below the state level--no more city or county LEO's playing warrior. Judges issuing these warrants should be at no less than the state level as well. There should also be a minimum 48 hour period between issuance and execution--if the cops are afraid the suspect will flee then that is an excellent time to apprehend--w/o a no-knock warrant. 
• A minimum of two law enforcement agencies must be involved in executing these warrants with at least one being at the state level or above. When cops misbehave (as they apparently have in bombing beds and bassinets with their flash-bangs) there needs to be someone at the scene of what has become another crime to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Yes, this will always be problematic.
• Body and vehicle cameras must be a mandatory prerequisite for mission-go and must be operational and active before vehicles roll and cannot be disabled in the field. Un-redacted video is proactively supplied during discovery and is available to the public under FOIA requests within 48 hours. 
• The use of confidential informants must be curtailed. While it has become quite the commercial ecosystem with all the for-profit operations providing training and seminars those are exactly the kinds of operations that indicate this practice has become excessive and long detached from its original usefulness. Severe penalties, greater than what the cops can hold over informants, need to be applied to cases of entrapment and equal responsibility and punishment must be afforded any handler whose informant is successfully prosecuted. Informant and handler must hang together.
• We must stop paying law enforcement to behave badly by ending property confiscation as it exists today. All confiscated assets must go to the State and not local agencies. This money must be dedicated, in order, to: a) victim compensation; and b) programs to deter or rehabilitate offenders. Any left over assets (there should be little or none) must go to the general operating fund. Furthermore any seized assets must be held in escrow (IE: impounded) until the owner of that asset has been convicted of any charges brought against them. As a part of their sentencing, the presiding judge will determine what assets can be seized, which must be returned in whole or in part to others with claims on those assets and determine the allocation of seized assets according to the guidelines above. 

This will not be well received in some quarters but let's apply the logic so often used when government wants us to freely give up our Constitutional Rights: if they're not doing anything wrong what are they afraid of? Where cooler heads prevail there will be an understanding that these efforts will do as much to protect police officers as it does anyone else. Unnecessary use of paramilitary tactics (keep in mind the Habersham suspect was captured later at a different location without the need for Seal Team Six) puts officers as much at risk as it does the public.

If we as a society do not take direct, firm action we run the risk of benignly supporting the political creation of an oppressive police state.

Gun Nuts

Fans of the Brady Bunch just cannot get past the recently signed gun bill and with the help of local mainstream media continues to wage a war of dis-and-mis-information. For those who would like to administratively repeal portions of  the U.S. Constitution there are some inconvenient truths:

• The law did not take effect the day Governor Deal signed it, it takes effect on July 1st.
• The law, current and new, has no impact on the sale and possession of firearms. 
• The law does not affect the requirements (including fingerprinting and FBI background check) or legal limits on probate court foot-dragging associated with acquiring a Georgia Weapons Carry License.
• It is a Georgia WEAPONS Carry License and weapons includes more than guns.
• You must be 21 or older to obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License or 18 to 21 with proper military training and these restrictions apply to all college students in this state.
• Georgia does not license or register firearms (it is explicitly prohibited by this law) but does require a license to carry weapons that are identified in State code and unlike other states does not allow open carry without a license.
• Allows does not mean Must. Not in the vernacular and certainly not in legal language.
• The law allows churches to decide whether or not to allow their congregants to legally carry-with a valid license-on church property.
• The law allows a legally licensed citizen to carry in some government facilities IF AND ONLY IF that government chooses NOT to provide security measures to ensure that no one, licensed or not, cannot carry into that facility.
• The law allows certain school officials to allow specific persons to carry a specified weapon for a specified period on school property and at school functions.
• The law allows teachers and other school personnel to possess a weapon on school property but only if that person holds a Georgia Weapons Carry License and then only if the weapon is stored locked in a vehicle.
• Hunting with silencers or suppressors is allowed only on private property and only with verifiable permission of the property owner. 
• Excepting specially loaded cartridges a vast majority of bullets exit the barrel at supersonic speeds with the inevitable sonic boom that no silencer can suppress. 
• Licensed citizens can carry into a bar, but cannot consume alcohol-the weapons version of a designated driver.
• Applicants are not eligible for Carry License if within the last five years they have received in-patient treatment for mental disorders or alcoholism.
• That someone is carrying a weapon is not adequate legal justification to presume such possession is in violation of the law and they cannot be detained without such probable cause as necessary to pass court muster if no weapon was involved. 
• The government cannot suspend constitutional rights by declaring a state of emergency.

And perhaps most importantly:

These laws and any restrictions or relaxation of restrictions apply only to law abiding citizens and those with a valid carry license who have been finger-printed and subjected to an FBI background check.

Mainstream media needs to quit pontificating on "guns and religion" and "guns and alcohol" being bad ideas--most folks agree and most legally licensed gun owners have no intention of doing these things just because it is now allowed. If the media want to engage with facts (often kept at quite a distance when it suits their agenda) then perhaps alongside their daily handwringing over the latest shooting in the ATL they can identify all the participants that were in possession of a valid Georgia Weapons Carry License. Then we'd all have ammunition for a much more meaningful conversation.

Zero Tolerance For Rights

You may have noticed the hubbub around some schools' zero tolerance weapons policy. Some described these rules as draconian and applaud those in authority who are working to bring "common sense" into the mix. Sounds good.

But...if you are blessed with only a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution (the legal document not the boat--that's U-S-S) you are or should be very concerned. Let's look at only one case as reported in the AJC:

[...]two Cobb County students were arrested within weeks of each other after police found knives in their cars parked on school grounds. [...] In one case, 17-year-old Cody Chitwood, an avid fisherman and senior at Lassiter High School, had filet knives in his fishing tackle box in the trunk of his car.

and continues with a quote from Mike Huckabee on the matter:

"He had it locked in a tackle box in a car."

That's the gist of it and since the article is primarily about the politics around zero tolerance it isn't surprising that a number of questions are left unasked and unanswered:

1. What EXACTLY initiated the questioning of students? We will assume these students were ASKED before their PARENT'S vehicles were searched.
2. What legal basis supports the search of a private vehicle? 
3. Was there probable cause? For what exactly?
4. Was the vehicle owner's permission obtained before the vehicle was searched?

We should all take note of what happens to constitutional rights and civil liberties when a government agency decides it knows what's best.

Make Independence Day Meaningful

It has been pointed out there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting an updated City Charter that creates anything even faintly resembling a democratic form of government for Dunwoody. The subtext, which we all know, is that we have what we have because the few and the powerful who pushed this City into existence wrote the original charter and installed the original bureaucracy. They still have the power, they like it that way and you can't change it.

But there is something we can do. We can put a stop to the hypocrisy, to the charade that is an insulting slap in the face of the citizens of Dunwoody and of every democratic form of government on this planet. We can update the charter to eliminate the election of the Mayor and Council. Not the actual positions, just the election. They have rendered the ballot box worthless so let's all act like grown ups and accept it.  We can stop this madness. We can do this because those in power will let us.

This may not be easy to figure out. While we may be smart we don't score very well on the Edison-Tesla Innovation Scale but then again pride has never prevented our purloining what we like from other cities so we should take a cue from Dorset, Minnesota.  But only a cue. While they did select their Mayor at random they used a most inferior technique--drawing a name from a hat. There is a far superior option--a raffle. Raffles maintain the underlying random nature of a draw but add that something special that makes it all things Dunwoody. It makes money for our bureaucrats to piss away.

For those who believe anything remotely resembling political office must somehow be subject to manipulation an open raffle allows any one person to buy as many tickets as they wish. Given enough money someone could all but buy a position. It may not be democratic but it sure as hell lines up with local politics round these parts.

While we're at it let's modify the term to a single year. It isn't as if there is much of a learning curve for positions that rubber-stamp whatever the City Manager puts before them and single year terms will serve to maximize the raffle revenue. It's not a federal grant, but in this Smart City it's what our masters call "win-win"--they win and...they win!

And we should hold the drawing at the end of the Fourth of July parade with immediate transfer of office between the seated Mayor and Council and the newly selected. This transfer of title symbolically represents the permanent transfer of real power from the voters to just another bureaucrat and signifies that government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from this place.

After all, isn't that what our forefathers fought and died for?

When Seconds Count...

...the police are only moments away.

It seems Dunwoody PD's "scare 'em into giving us more money" tactic is working. The 2013 budget is likely to sail through on the headwinds of the HOST windfall with staffing and pay increases. But there also appear to be some unintended consequences.

Anecdotal data suggest that folks in Dunwoody, not just The Other Dunwoody, have begun to take their personal safety, well, personally. This really all started back when the City was formed with the bumper sticker crowd who painted Dunwoody as a pretty dangerous 'hood. You know, those "Bad Guys Beware" stickers. But the public reaction now goes beyond the home alarm system which primarily serves the purpose of initiating the police-report process and generating false alarm fines. Folks are taking the PD's most recent chicken-little justification--recent and future increases in crime--to heart. And Dunwoody is up in arms. Literally.

Unsubstantiated reports indicate an increased interest in firearms for personal and home defense. In other areas this might be seen as over-reacting, but in the South and in a conservative community like Dunwoody, it should come as no surprise. Still, the image of an SUV-driving soccer mom with a cell phone in one hand, a latte in the other and an LCP in her purse might give even the most ardent libertarian occasion for pause. Since this trend appears irreversible it is prudent that those considering substantial personal and home protection become well informed.

The first suggestion from those in the know about personal defense is to avoid danger. Dangerous areas and dangerous people. If you believe you live in an area where "Bad Guys Beware" is a cogent message you should move. If that means leaving Dunwoody, so be it. After all, the pros are telling us crime is on the rise.

The next suggestion, much like the first, is that you should immediately extract yourself from any dangerous situation you inadvertently find yourself in. This is often called "running from danger" but in The Other Dunwoody it is called "Flight Before Fight". You are always well advised to determine just what ground is beneath your feet before "standing your ground" as running from danger rarely lands one in prison. Combat duty is a special case.

Even for those that remain undeterred these first two suggestions are still the best options for personal safety and should always be top of mind. If arm you must, just remember that managing your personal safety in a responsible manner has two key requirements: training and practice. To that end, anyone considering such an important step, such a pro-active role in their own safety, should ensure that their actions do not compromise that very safety they seek to maintain (see "unintended consequences" above).

This is not difficult nor is it expensive. Just outside our City borders are two fine and related facilities, the Sandy Springs Gun Club on Roswell Road and the Norcross Gun Club on Peachtree Industrial. These clubs offer training, equipment rentals (try before you buy) and guidance on acquiring a Georgia Weapons Carry License. While you may think going all "Dirty Harry" and toting a forty-four magnum around sounds like a good idea, you just might want to see if you can hit the broad side of a barn with that cannon. The folks at these clubs will help you out and you may find that shooting is primarily a sport and a fine one at that, but one best engaged in at a range.

Get the training, keep it up with practice, then decide.

Get With The Pogrom!

Help Keep Dunwoody PURE*

by making your patriotic donation today!

Just text

"dunwoody"

to

1-666-4POGROM

That's 1-666-4764766

Text "dunwoody" NOW!

  * Dunwoody PURE (Purging Undesirable Residents Expediently) is a non-existent and consequently non-profit organization. All donations will go exactly where you want them to. Trust Us! We're your neighbors.

Going Our Way

Dunwoody is home to a new crowd of whiners. These folks, once ardent supporters of cityhood, now see things are not "going their way". They have stopped touting "local control" and are increasingly mumbling "out of control". Their new rally cry is "Not What We Bargained For!"

Those in The Other Dunwoody who were dragged, by these very fools, into this mess with eyes wide open are probably wondering, then as now, "what were they thinking?" Well, they weren't. And many still aren't.

They voted for a referendum while the powers-that-now-be withheld "task force" documents from the public. Once the referendum passed, these whiners elected a cadre of entitled refugees from a homeowners association, long frustrated that their only power lay in the law suit and gave these busy bodies the power to tax, the authority to write law and an armed force to ensure ordinary citizens knew and stayed in their place. They stood by as city positions were filled by those with connections rather than those with qualifications--after all, they felt they had connections as well. They all but cheered when the city did an end-around to effectively deny some their constitutional rights. They gave no notice to the city arbitrarily raising occupation taxes--without warning or explanation. Surely they could have acted when the council engaged in foolish antics around the issues of garbage, chickens and signs. Or become a bit alarmed that while our roads fall further into decay, the council is voting itself gold-plated benefits (not a raise, mind you) or heading off on junkets retreats. They did not.

One would have thought this dung heap they themselves piled up in city hall would be noxious to even their numbed nostrils. That this stench would be a clue, a sign that something was amiss. Not so.

But now a straw has broken the backs of even these sturdy camels. Someone is suggesting their cars are not pleasing to the eye--that limits must be placed on public display of their "automotive yard art". Yes dear readers, constitutional rights be damned, chickens are for frying and who cares whose friend is draining the city coffers, but you better not touch them cars! Dunwoody surely has more folks who are compensating than any other place on the planet.

But this is not the time to jeer and laugh at these poor unfortunates who are just now joining ranks with The Other Dunwoody. Instead it is time to embrace them, to soften the blow as they come to realize what many already know: "that in the real world, where we live, most of the time things don't go your way."

Spinning in Their Graves

Is this what the patriots who founded this country fought for?

Or against?

Supreme Court Matters

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson

We now have nearly two generations of Americans increasingly comfortable with redacting, in effect if not in fact, portions of the Constitution with which they take issue. This is exemplified in a recent letter to the AJC in which the author states: "No matter what [...] the Supreme Court say...", followed by the writer's conclusion that not only were the Founding Fathers flawed in their thinking, but the framework they established for our governance and the current Supreme Court are equally flawed.

He and others like him play fast and loose with Constitutional interpretation as it suits their needs, yet are unwilling to argue their position within the context of that very Constitution by seeking remedy in the amendment process. History will judge this hubris harshly. Those now turning their backs on our Constitutional liberties and the rights that maintain them not only dishonor our Founding Fathers but are condemning the United States to death by a thousand cuts, and by their actions all those who have died will have died in vain.

Correcting Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In this year's session under the Gold Dome, legislators will consider two bills addressing in what way and to what extent our rights will continue to be infringed. In the Senate we have  Senate Bill 291 and in the House Georgia House Bill 615, both of which simplify the process of obtaining a valid GFL, and clarify some of the (some say intentional) confusion around where concealed (or open) carry applies.

Of the two, the House bill is superior as it:

• requires licensing by the Secretary of State, not probate courts
• permits open carry without a license
• protects requisite private information
  
• provides for permanent licensing
• provides greater clarity on where carry applies
• provides for temporary surrender at prohibited locations

Those opposed to second amendment rights decry the fact that this expands concealed carry. This "expansion" would include locations, like public sidewalks, where protests might be legally held--remember the Scientology protests on Shallowford just a few months ago? It would also cover access to businesses prohibited from arbitrarily denying service to customers based on almost any other "consideration". This "expansion" would almost put second amendment rights on par with these first amendment  and civil rights (indirectly based interpretations of the Constitution's Commerce Clause).

Almost.

It still requires fees that would be considered a "poll tax" were this about voting rights. It also requires background searches, fingerprinting and data retention, by the government, of private information that would have civil libertarians screaming were it applied to something even as clearly a privilege as driving a car. But "almost" is better than what we have now.

While this bill will not put Georgia in the company of Constitution-respecting states like New Hampshire it is a step towards restoring our second amendment rights and deserves the support of all Georgians who believe in our country and support its constitution.

Let your legislators know where you stand.