Page: 1

Muddling Through

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jun 13, 2014, 06:54 AM
Number of posts: 18,858

Journal Archives

2 San Diego police officers shot, one fatally, in traffic stop; suspect held


"Two San Diego police officers were shot, one of them fatally, during a traffic stop late Thursday night in the Southcrest neighborhood, police said.

The names and tenures of the male officers, both part of the department's gang suppression unit, were not released.

One of the officers suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died at a hospital despite lifesaving efforts, police Chief Shelly Zimmerman said early Friday outside Scripps Mercy Hospital. The second officer underwent surgery early Friday and was expected to survive.

Police had one suspect in custody. He had been shot and was being treated at a hospital, Zimmerman said."

Balance of article at the link.
Posted by Muddling Through | Fri Jul 29, 2016, 09:38 AM (8 replies)

Charges dismissed against Planned Parenthood videographers

This story makes me smile:

"The Harris County District Attorney's office on Tuesday dismissed all charges against anti-abortion activists who secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood officials in Houston.

David Robert Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were charged with tampering with a governmental record, for using a fake identification to gain access to the facility. In a surprise move before a hearing on the legitimacy of the indictment, prosecutors dismissed the charges.

Deleiden and his attorneys claimed victory for the anti-abortion movement, saying they were satisfied with the decision.

Daleiden, 27, and Sandra Merritt, 62, both of Davis, Calif., were indicted by a Harris County grand jury in January, accused of tampering with a government record for allegedly using fake driver licenses to conceal their identities while dealing with a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic.


A Harris County Criminal Court at Law judge dismissed the misdemeanor count against Daleiden last month, saying the indictment was flawed."

I wonder if our sad and silly clerk-typist will have a cartoon about this story?

Note: Ellipse to comply with the 4 paragraph rule.

Posted by Muddling Through | Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:44 PM (8 replies)

Court Orders Chicago to Pay NRA $1 Million in Legal Fees

This story makes me smile.

Chicago is not only one of the most anti-gun cities in America, it’s also the most crime infested city with gun violence a constant reminder that gun control only controls the law abiding.

But now the windy city will have to pay up to an organization that has been vilified by anti-gun politicians who have sought to ban all 2nd amendment rights from Chicago residents.

According to the Washington Times,

“A federal court is ordering the city of Chicago to pay the National Rifle Association nearly $1 million in legal fees.

The NRA had challenged a Chicago law banning gun sales within the city limits that a federal court ruled unconstitutional in January.

Chicago also paid the NRA $600,000 in legal fees following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 ruling that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies to the states."

The NRA had challenged Chicago’s ban on gun sales within city limits in Benson v. City of Chicago. The Benson case was packaged into Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago and that case challenged five aspects of Chicago’s law: (1) the ban on any form of carriage; (2) the ban on gun stores; (3) the ban on firing ranges; (4) the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards; and (5) the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state.
Posted by Muddling Through | Thu Jul 14, 2016, 07:32 AM (36 replies)

Charges dropped in Caetano v. Massachusetts Second Amendment stun gun case

Some good news out of Massachusetts

"In March, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Massachusetts high court decision that upheld the state’s stun gun ban. The Massachusetts court’s justifications for upholding the ban, the Supreme Court said, were inadequate:

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” This is inconsistent with D.C. v. Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that are readily adaptable to use in the military.” But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, … the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

Balance of article at the link.
Posted by Muddling Through | Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:44 PM (3 replies)
Go to Page: 1