Archive for the ‘Legal Debates’ Category

February 26th, 2009

Strong Arguments in Favor of the Fifth

I came across an interesting set of videos recently in which a law professor and a police officer take time to discuss the topic of speaking with the police – or rather why you should never do it in connection with any crime. According to Dr. James Duane, (and confirmed by co-speaker Officer George Bruch), you should never talk to the police. Be you innocent, guilty, lying or as honest as the day is long, these two say in no uncertain terms: DON’T SPEAK!

So, what should you do? Dr. J says you’re best off waiting for the case to find it’s way into court, with a jury and a judge, (the way the law intended), or wait for the case against you to die and ultimately disappear. He had some strong arguments, so I present this to you here, and welcome any feedback or additional perspectives on this. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?


Talking to the Police Part 1 of 2

***CLICK PLAY BUTTON BELOW, THEN PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE VIDEO LOADS***

***CLICK PLAY BUTTON ABOVE, THEN PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE VIDEO LOADS***

 

Talking to the Police Part 2 of 2

***CLICK PLAY BUTTON BELOW, THEN PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE VIDEO LOADS***

***CLICK PLAY BUTTON ABOVE, THEN PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE VIDEO LOADS***

Download FREE from iTunes here (Universal Video format, large size):
http://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/regent.edu.1531303458.01531303460

Original Files (h.264 quicktime format, yummy size):
Talking to the Police – Part 1 of 2
Talking to the Police – Part 2 of 2

Original full length video found here (windows media format, small size):
http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

February 20th, 2009

Liberal Media KSL 5 Reports, So does StandardNet…

Once again, liberal media portrays guns as an unsafe and irresponsible dangerous weapon that only the “professionals” should handle. In the latest installment, KSL 5 in Utah reports that the Brady Campaign against the Bill of Rights to Prevent Violence has graded Utah on the safety of their gun laws. The score: 4 out of 100 possible points.

Dee Rowland of the “center for abolishing rights of responsible citizens, but not criminals” Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center agrees with the Brady Campaign and it’s claim that Utah’s laws help feed the illegal gun market.’

There’s really no such thing as Utah’s illegal gun market, at least not what they’re referring to. They are simply using propagandist and inflammatory catch phrases here.

‘”Such as the gun show loophole (doesn’t exist), where you can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon without a background check,” she said.’

This is not true. Any gun sale completed involving an FFL gun dealer in any gun show in Utah requires a background check. Private sales, however, don’t require such a check. So, by their definition of the “gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist) we also have the Catholic Church Loophole, the Police Station Loophole, the Elementary School Loophole, the College Campus Loophole, the Private Residence Loophole, the Chucky Cheese Loophole, the trashtalking-liberal media-Civil Rights hating-morally inept KSL Classifieds Loophole, and even the Golden Grandma Luncheon at the Senior Citizen Home Loophole. This, my friends, is much MUCH more dire than previously thought. This must certainly mean that virtually every gun in Utah is illegal, and it’s all due to these dangerous loopholes. meh.

‘The report card also criticizes Utah’s lack of limiting bulk gun sales’

You can buy a 6, 12, or even 24 pack of beer at any major convenience store. Drunk driving deaths are twice what gun deaths are annually, why not limit “bulk beer sales” first if saving lives is really the concern of these morons?

Paul Helmke, spokesman for the Brady Campaign says lawmakers “have done nothing to improve the state’s reputation when it comes to common sense gun laws.”

Good. Keep it that way. “Common sense gun laws” is an oxymoron. This is akin to saying “Friendly Murderers”, or “Responsible Rapists”. Gun laws don’t stop criminals, they simply aid and abet them.

StandardNet Puts It Into Perspective For Us

The highest score, 79, went to California. Utah, with a score of 4, was tied for next-to-last place. We’re presumably meant to infer that California, with its extensive and complex web of state and local gun restrictions, is a much safer place to live than Utah, where, for example, virtually any law-abiding adult can get a permit to carry a loaded handgun. However, the Brady report says nothing about actual crime rates. According to the 2007 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, California’s violent-crime rate (522 violent crimes per 100,000 population) was more than twice as high as Utah’s (235 per 100,000), and the murder rate in California (6.2 per 100,000) was nearly triple that of the Beehive state (2.2 per 100,000).

Furthermore, preliminary figures for 2008 put Utah’s murder rate at about 1.5 per 100,000, which is lower than Canada’s. Ergo, Utahns needn’t necessarily feel distressed about their state’s low Brady score. For that matter, perhaps they should even be proud of it.

N. W. Clayton
Director of Communications
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)
Sandy

June 26th, 2008

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Imminent, and I Can’t Sleep

It’s only a matter of hours until the most anticipated Supreme Court ruling we’ve seen in years hits the shelves. I’m tired, yet I’ve not yet slept tonight as I’ve been too worked up over this ruling. Whatever happens, one thing is certain: WE MUST STAND FOR OUR RIGHTS! There is no reason why we, the majority, should be losing ground on issues that are most dear to us in the pursuit of our freedom and happiness. What are you doing to protect your God Given rights? Whatever it is, make sure it’s big enough to count. Certainly the attitude of our opponents, the gun grabbing left, will not relent until they have their way.

This is why we must use all of our strength to stand up and declare that this is America. Our country was founded by men and women who desired freedom, happiness, and rule of fair law above all else, even life. I encourage all of you who are reading this to do something today. Speak with your family on the importance of our constitution, make a post on your blog, obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit. Do something which will affect those around you, because until you do, the left will be heard, loud and clear.

So, no matter what happens this morning in the Supreme Court ruling (I believe strongly that it will be favorable based on the arguments), remember that nothing is permanent. If we want to keep our freedoms, we must protect them. Our forebears protected theirs and our freedoms with their lives. What would you give up to protect the same?

June 23rd, 2008

Hopeful for Heller

In a matter of hours we could have a ruling on Heller – arguably the biggest case currently in front of the Supreme Court. This ruling really has the potential to carve out the path of gun ownership and rights for the next century or two, maybe longer.

“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.”

While many are conjecturing on what they hope the Supreme Court rules, others still claim they know what the Supreme Court SHOULD rule, based on evidence of past documents, indicative of the founders’ intent. Some have indicated that the right to bear arms should be coupled with registration requirements, and others still claim that additional laws, waiting periods, and other such superfluous measures must be taken to make gun ownership ‘safe’ or ‘reasonable’.

While on the surface, these arguments seem logical, it is a bottomless pit. The temporary hope of security is squashed by the long term effects of restricting policies. Gun Laws–over 20,000 strong and counting to date–have proven largely ineffective. Registration has proven the first steps to confiscation. Note that the references to England and Australia are not those of handgun or machine-gun-only bans. These are outright bans on all firearms, excepting a select few, which grossly infringe on the right of the people to use firearms for things such as hunting, recreational shooting, Olympic target shooting training, self defense (a God Given right and responsibility), and even law enforcement (the “bobby’s don’t even carry a modern weapon, unless you consider a stick “modern”).

In all of the cases of gun bans, U.K., Australia, and even D.C., one trend has been undeniable. Gun crimes go up. Way up. Guns become a commodity on the black-or underground-market, and hoodlums have access not just 9-5, but 24/7.

If we knock on reason’s door, we get a response. Bans create commerce. That’s right, drug bans, prohibition, gun bans, and even sex trade bans. Often, these bans have just the opposite effect than was intended. In the U.K., there is a tremendous underground effort, widely successful, to import arms from surrounding countries. In fact, reporters have been astonished when they’ve discovered how simple and inexpensive it was to get a fully functional firearm which could be used in any number of criminal ways.

These firearms, while available to all who really look, are only used by the criminals. Why? They’re illegal, and in case you haven’t taken notice, it’s the people who commit crimes regularly – stick with me here – who COMMIT CRIMES REGULARLY. They want to cheat, steal, and kill. This is in their hearts. They don’t care if some lawmaker has said it’s no good to buy guns. They do what they want, because they are lawless, brutish thugs who want nothing more than to live by their own laws, created in their minds and executed by their own skewed inner judge.

This is what has been revealed as the fallacy of gun control. Pull back the curtain, and you see that gun control doesn’t work, it will never work. As long as man has the means to create guns, guns will be used by the worst of humanity.

So, how then do we protect the rest of civilization from these loose cannons we call criminals? We know laws do nothing but disarm the lawful, while empowering the lawless. For those still not with me here, I’ll spell it out: ARM THE POPULACE. That’s right, put a gun in the hands of as many responsible people as you can, as quickly as you can, and you have the makings of a polite society. There, I said it. When a thug knows that opposition, even deadly force, could be right in front of him (instead of 3-30 minutes away) then he takes a whole new look at his decisions. You see, God has given us all a little gift called the will to survive. We cower at the thought of our own mortality; and even cold, seemingly heartless thugs share at least this much in common with society’s betters.

Now for the frosting: This debate is moot. The second amendment is really a matter of the rights of the people. The arguments are currently for or against the individual right vs. the right of an organized militia (U.S. Army). However, this also is a moot point. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? The Bill of Rights, the document authored by the Greats of this nation’s founding, was written for you and me, the people. This was not a hall pass, conditionally or temporarily granting us rights to pass to and fro. The Bill of Rights is a message to all governments, now and in the future, telling in no uncertain terms what the rights of the people are. These rights, granted by God, are for all men. The infringement of these rights will warrant a reaction that the 2nd Amendment testifies to: self defense against all tyranny.

Maybe some are confused by the bill’s language, esp. the presence of a reference to the ‘State’. Is this the “State of California”, or the “State of being free”? In just asking the question, I think it clearly proves rhetorical. The State, whether a land mass or a State of being, both refer to one in the same. States were created to preserve freedom, a state which the settlers fought and died for.

This is another crucial piece of the puzzle. John Adams, George Washington, and Mr. Franklin didn’t just risk everything so they could have tea with George the third. They risked life, limb, and country so they could enjoy the freedoms they knew were inherently theirs, and they did it against a tyrannical government. Their sentiment at the time was for one overarching objective: guard against future tyranny as the one just defeated. Power belongs with the people, and the people grant the power.

“This is a free country”. Children run in the streets screaming this to their foes, knowing the truth stands on their side. I love my country, and am honored to live in a land which provides me and my family such a bright future. Some despise our freedoms, some want to destroy them, and some simply don’t understand them. That’s fine. You’re free to come if you want to be one of us, or leave if you don’t.

That’s what’s so great about our country: our freedom to choose our own course. But one thing I will not tolerate is the efforts of the select minority to strip these freedoms away from me and my fellow Americans. This is my land. If you don’t care for such freedoms, or cannot manage these freedoms for yourself, then please choose another land with another government. We are here to stay. Say what you will, but in our hearts, we remain unsympathetic to the whining of parliaments, politicians, and presidents who would infringe on our God Given Freedoms.

And should the time come, we will fight for these rights, every one of us, just as our Forefathers did before us: with our lives.

June 19th, 2008

A Message to Journalists – Study Your Code!

News reporting of late has become so skewed and twisted, it leaves one to wonder what really drives the opinions of these so-called “unbiased reporters”. My thoughts? News is money, controversy is cash, and after years of opposing major public opinion for years in order to ‘stir the pot’, our country’s news agencies have developed a belief system that, generally speaking, finds our country and it’s freedoms abhorrent. It’s shameful, disgusting, and appalling. We must speak up about this blatant disregard for truth in reporting – the breaking of a code which as I understand it is a journalists 1st Commandment – and call them to remember what they represent and act accordingly, or leave. Dan Rather, anyone?

Check out these two media clips below, both issued about the same time. The first is reported by Fox News in Utah, the second by KSL. How different are the tones of the reporter. The first report, while not a slam dunk for gun rights advocates, is moderate and factual in the reporting, not tilting to one side or the other. However, the second video is hard to defend as unbiased in ANY dimension. Check them out, and make a decision for yourself. And next time you turn on the news, remember to turn on your brain, as well. Oh, and shame on you Nadine Wimmer. Your bias is evident. You’re an insult to America, and an insult to Utah.

FOX Clip:

KSL Clip:

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE KSL CLIP ON THE YOUTUBE SITE WITH ANNOTATIONS. This will shed more light on just how biased this clip really is.

June 19th, 2008

Heller vs. D.C. – A Supreme Court Case to Root For

In mere days we should hear the ruling that could forever change the way guns rights are viewed in this nation—either way. Dick Heller is challenging the District of Columbia’s ban on individual possession and use of firearms, in the home or otherwise. This ban–which has been in place for more than 30 years–has left virtually all D.C. citizens helpless and hopeless as they struggle to live in one of the most unique areas of the U.S.

You see, D.C., neither a part of a state, nor it’s own state or country, and as such has become the farthest thing from a model citizen. Our nation’s capital city is probably one of the furthest examples of democracy and freedom that our founding fathers intended as they risked their entire future on our conveniences today. Personal freedoms being infringed, the Bill of Rights being trampled on, and crime that would put New York to shame…well, it soon may all come to an end. A ruling from the Supreme Court on the matter is imminent, the possibility of the Justices indicating that D.C.’s infringement on the Bill of Rights is in fact unconstitutional could be likely.

That’s right, we may finally have our highest court rule that you and I, in fact, are legally entitled to lay claim on our God Given Rights to protect our own lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the property which we work hard to acquire from the criminally minded thieving thugs who would just as soon take your life so they can take your stereo.

D.C. has had their day in the sand box. Actually, they’ve had their 11,682 days in the sand box, according to my calculations. And what have we seen? A steady, statistical rise in murders, violent crimes, and gun related deaths since June 26, 1976 – ironically nearly 32 years ago to the day (oh the irony if they came out with a favorable ruling next Thursday, on the 32nd anniversary!). In fact, the crime rates (murders included) were on a decline until the ban was made effective put into effect, just like England, just like Australia, and just like Canada. We have three countries probably most closely relating our own, and we have seen in no uncertain terms that gun control does not work in reducing crime. In fact, it has statistically shown exactly the opposite.

Now is the time for us to take back our 2nd Amendment rights, and fight for the freedoms that our founding fathers first fought for. That glorious piece of paper does not exist to tell us what we can or cannot do. The Bill of Rights is simply there to inform the governing body of politicians and judges what God has told us already – Our Rights as Human Beings. These, my friends, are our rights, and they are not to be trampled on. Blood has been spilt already to establish that these are our freedoms. Let us not forsake them so easily as our distant cousins across the pond. We will regret it, much as they do now. Stand up and let your voice be heard.

Freedom walks a fine line between comfort and complacency. Complacency has never bought anything more than the abolishment of comfort and freedom. Where will you stand when the chips have fallen?

Read the Transcript of the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court
Listen to the audio recording of the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court

© 2008 RIKBA.com - All Rights Reserved.