Friday, June 22, 2012

Was Obama himself up to his ears in "Gun Walker"?

With the options available, why did Obama choose to invoke executive privilege?   That, at least to me, is the pregnant question.  He had a number of other options but  4 months from a critical election, chose the most controversial and potentially damaging one. Why?

Let’s begin with a quote from  a former White House counsel from a Powerline post:

"Even with his fawning press, [President Obama] will pay a price for this one. He knows this, meaning that the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. They have to show either that Holder knew what was going on with Fast and Furious and approved it, or that he directly committed perjury in his Congressional testimony, or both. I just can’t see any other explanation for such a risky move.

Wasn’t the Washington Post just covering big time the 40th anniversary of Watergate? I wonder how much coverage this one will get."

That’s the result of the move – speculation that the documents being withheld point to perjury by Holder or the President, or both.

So let’s break this down a bit.  If it was all about Holder, why would the president risk this sort of a controversial move this close to an election.  It’s not like he’s never thrown anyone under the bus.  In fact James Carville is on record advising Obama to dump Holder.

Obama had the option, then, of letting Holder face contempt charges (not much happens as we’ve seen in the past, to those who are served with contempt of Congress charges) and drag out the document release until after the election.

With the election season gearing up, it is likely that while the controversy would have been an issue, it wouldn’t have been a major issue.   Now it certainly is.

He could have asked Holder to resign.  He could have then used the opportunity to appear as a statesman, a leader and bi-partisan all in one fell swoop.  Depending on how he handled that it could actually have been a positive for him heading into an election.  In the meantime, an acting AG could continue to delay on providing documents.

But he did neither of those things.  For some unknown reason (at least to this point) he chose to do the least likely and most politically damaging thing – invoke executive privilege.  As the lawyer quoted has said, those documents must be “dynamite” to have the president make this move.

And, unsaid by the lawyer is the speculation that the documents show the involvement of the White House to a degree that is damaging – apparently more damaging than the speculation and attention this move by the President has brought.

More here

New Yorkers about to give up last hope of gun ownership
New York State legislators are pushing through firearm microstamping legislation (A.1157B) which intentionally creates firearm manufacturing rules so difficult to implement that most firearms manufacturers just won’t bother selling into New York anymore and those few left making guns in New Y0rk are likely to leave.

New York already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but has failed to see any real reduction in violent crime. So instead of fixing the real issue (law maker’s and law enforcerment’s  inability to end inner-city crime) they go after a popular target: gun makers and gun owners.

Micro-stamping forces gun makers to manufacture and install firing pins with the ability to create tiny stamps on the cartridge casings of the rounds they fire. This is a burden on the manufacturer and on the first person to buy the weapon (which is often a dealer, not the actual first owner).

As defined in the proposed legislation:

Firearm microstamping is a revolutionary forensic technology that produces an identifiable alpha-numeric and geometric code onto the rear of the cartridge casing each time a semiautomatic pistol is fired.

Micro-stamping has several flaws:

- The original purchaser is usually a gun store owner or firearms wholesaler, not the first person to actually keep the gun for personal use

- A firearms manufacturer now has to produce different models for New York, California and the rest of the nation

- As the microstamp is only on the casing (the part of the cartridge that holds the bullet) anyone planning to commit a crime would simply go to a New York shooting range, pick up the fired brass, use those mirco-stamped and reload them. Then then the craft criminal could blame his crime on YOU.

- If you decide to replace your pistol’s firing pin with a titanium striker or other match grade device, you’ve just committed a crime – no more competition upgrades for New Yorkers.

The law is obviously not about tracking firearms or cartridges. The law is about making it impossible for firearms manufacturers and retailers to survive in New York.

Lately, firearms businesses have been moving to Texas and the Mid-West in droves. Tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs are being shunned by New York Democrats like Assemblywoman Michelle Schimmel. What’s more important? Keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens or keeping jobs in a state that sorely needs them?

New York residents have two choices: Decide that any rightful New Yorker should own a firearm or agree with the Democrats that only the criminals should have guns. This law will only prevent lawful ownership of firearms as the gun industry continues to move out of over-regulated states and gun dealers find other locals in which to make money.

If you live in New York and think that Ms. Schimmel is wrong, let your state legislator know before it’s too late.


Australia: Robber dies after crooked cop supplies gun:  "A FORMER NSW policeman will spend up to five years in jail for providing a pistol used in a botched armed robbery on Sydney's northern beaches.  Franjo Vlado Santalab showed no emotion as the sentence was read out by NSW District judge Richard Cogswell on Friday, but nodded and quietly agreed "yes, your honour" when asked if he understood the punishment.  The 34-year-old pleaded guilty at earlier hearings to being an accessory before the fact to the attempted robbery of a Brinks cash security truck outside Dee Why RSL in July 2011.  The key player in the hold-up, Nathan Brodbeck, 32, a former Brinks employee, was shot dead by a Brinks guard as he brandished Santalab's Glock nine millimetre pistol and demanded $750,000 from inside the truck.  He died at the scene after being shot in the chest."

WA:  Burglar shot with shotgun:  "A Tacoma man who shot a burglar in the face with a shotgun Tuesday night likely won’t be charged with a crime, Tacoma police and Pierce County prosecutors said Wednesday.  Police said the shooting occurred about 6 p.m. at South 14th and South Madison streets, as a burglar tried to enter the home through a window. The wounded suspect, 19, remained at St. Joseph Medical Center, Fulghum said. No charges will be filed until the investigation is completed, he said.

No comments: