And The Insanity Continues
When State senator Durell Peaden, MD, Ob-Gyn, Esq., NRA, GOP of North Okaloosa County finally had to leave the legislature because of term limits, I had hopes that the frenzy of insane firearms laws in Florida was finally finished.
I thought that surely there would be a end after this tragedy:
Joshua Cartwright, 28, shot deputies Warren “Skip” York and Burt Lopez just before 1 p.m. at the Shoal River Gun Club, according to the Sheriff’s Office. The deputies were pronounced dead at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola a short time later.
But, no, the voters of North Okaloosa have elected another gun nut, Greg Evers, to the Florida Senate, and he wants guns on campuses.
Attaturk has the bad news on Evers and Rep. Jason Brodeur who wants to make it a felony for medical professionals to ask about guns.
I wonder if Mr. Brodeur has considered the implications of what he has proposed to the investigation of assaults and murders?
11 comments
What do they care?
By their own actions they are on the side of murderers.
Thanks for staying on top of this story.
S
I wonder if Mr. Brodeur has considered the implications of what he has proposed to the investigation of assaults and murders?
What bloody planet is Brodeur on? What the hell does this bill hope to achieve?
And why do I suspect that Mr. Brodeur is not going to remove the metal detectors at the doors of the Florida state capital building? :twisted:. Sort of like the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show that just concluded in Las Vegas. Amongst the rules of the show: No personal firearms within the premises, and all display firearms had to have the firing pins removed or disabled.
Gosh, don’t these people know that guns don’t kill people, people do? At least, that’s what they’re always telling us. Hypocrisy, much? 😈
– Badtux the Snarky Penguin
This is all apparently about funding campaign chests and paranoia, and has nothing to do with the reality of this state. The NRA provides the money, and the whackoes like the Tea Party and Operation Rescue provide the paranoia.
Badtux, these guys would cringe in fear if people started wearing guns to their campaign events and carried signs critical of their decisions. Oh, the SHOT thing is about “firearms safety” and has nothing to do with fear of the people who go to these events … just ask them … they’ll tell you as they sell anti-aircraft missile launchers to “collectors”, and full-auto conversion kits to “enthusiasts” … accident prevention and nothing more … really … scout’s honor?
But what about that personal responsibility they are always harping about? It’s my firmly held belief that if you believe in something enough to do it, then you should believe it it enough to own up to it instead of sneaking around like a thief in the night or lying. We need a political song about personal responsibility.
A couple of citizens’ interest organizations are gathering signatures to gauge public opinion on corporate funded campaigns, take a look if you are so inclined to do such things.
http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190
http://www.publicampaign.org/
and my favorite;
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4741359
Ame, I firmly believe that campaigns should be funded by people – the same people who are qualified to vote in the election. Corporations aren’t people. The laws say that only citizens can donate money, and corporations don’t have citizenship – they can’t get a passport or even a drivers license.
The current rules are illogical. When you fine a candidate for accepting donations from foreigners, and then let multi-national corporations finance campaigns , you are entering the Twilight Zone.
…
The Siegelman/Scrushy appeal is at the bench in Jacksonville, and it will be interesting to see how that case plays out with the relatively recent Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS. Those prosecutions were raw political corruption as only Alabama can get away with.
All hope for Siegelman and Scrushy, however, does not rest on the honest-services fraud issue. Also in play is the First Amendment, as recently examined in Citizens United. Schwartz reports that two of the judges seemed persuaded by arguments from the Siegelman/Scrushy team on the First Amendment:
Judge Edmondson said that political contributions were an essential part of participating in the political system, and that some benefit for the contributor was often implied, at the very least. “American politics does run, to a large degree, on money,” he said. “People have to ask for money, and people have to give money. America doesn’t want to chill that.”
Judge Hill agreed. The case, he said, “runs smack into the First Amendment.”
…
How about that? A judge saying such a thing.
from http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/will-siegelman-convictions-collapse.html
The prosecutorial misconduct in that case was open and obvious, but the Obama DoJ has refused to review it. I would prefer that that was used to overthrow the conviction, rather than a decision that “bribery” is legal when it involves campaign funding.
I agree 100%. I’ve wondered, on whom does the justice department rely on for information about cases in the individual states? Is it the Senators, the state AG, a division of the justice department in DC, who?
Go Vermont!!
http://www.alternet.org/news/149620/vermont_is_gearing_up_to_strike_a_major_blow_to_corporate_personhood,_ban_it_statewide/
The case was US v Siegelman and the US Attorneys who prosecuted were employees of the DoJ, so they don’t need any outside help identifying the problem, they did it quickly enough for former Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican. The Obama administration has an anti-Democrat bias, that should be obvious. It is part of the “bipartisanship” disease that affects this Executive branch.
The call for a Constitutional amendment is good, but I would like for the Supreme Court to actually justify corporate personhood. I would like to see where it is found in the Constitution. There has been an assumption that it exists, but it has never actually been part of a Supreme Court decision.