Daily Archives: 6 June 2013

It Doesn’t Get Much More Naked Than This

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Connecticut’s recently passed extensive gun ban law, a bill passed in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings.  Essentially, it banned firearms the State’s government has defined as “assault” weapons.

Last Monday, the legislature “tweaked” that bill to “clear up confusion;” Governor Dannel Malloy (D) is expected to sign it.  One of the tweaks cleared up confusion surrounding the legal possession of these weapons that had been on order before the original legislation was signed into law but not received until after enactment.  Such firearms can now be legally possessed.

It’s another tweak that’s of interest here, though: this one expanded the list of those who can legally acquire these “assault” weapons, now that the gun ban law has been enacted:

  • sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles
  • the chief state’s attorney office
  • the department of energy and environmental protection
  • some constables with police certification

Additionally, the tweak

  • exempts [the above] officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership
  • allows them to [retain their “assault”] weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Notice that: the citizenry are being denied the ability to possess weapons adequate for their own purposes (an inalienable right and a right acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment), but a broadened list of government officials is granted the ability to possess “assault” weapons.

State Senator Joe Markley (R) is on the right track, but he was a lone voice in the Connecticut wilderness:

I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves [thus, the allowed expansion of weapons possessions], I think we have to acknowledge that we’re putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves.

Now why would a government seek to disarm the citizenry while expanding its own arsenal?

Hmm….

Holder’s Defense

Posted on by
Reply

On 15 May, Attorney General Eric Holder testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that

With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.

Yet he had already been consulted concerning, and subsequently approved, a search warrant application to search the personal emails of an individual reporter (James Rosen of Fox News), a warrant that said in part

Because of the Reporter’s [Rosen’s] own potential criminal liability in this matter….

A three-page Department of Justice letter to the Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and that committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations is cynically unresponsive (quite aside from the fact that while the chairmen had addressed their concern on the “disconnect” to Holder, the latter didn’t deign respond, instead having an underling do so).

The letter devoted two and a half pages first to piously proclaiming Holder’s reverence for the role of a free press in American society and then to outlining the way getting warrants to search members of the press is supposed to work.  The underling then proclaimed that there was and is no disconnect between the facts of Holder’s testimony and the fact of the warrant’s accusation.  That’s it—just a bald, unsubstantiated pronouncement.  The underling offered not the least shred of evidence to support that claim.  The underling did, though, include this shocker in his penultimate paragraph:

At no time during the pendency of this matter—before or after seeking the search warrant—have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal charges against the reporter.

DoJ and writers of the Left have made much of that word “potential,” saying that there was no prosecution after the fact, as though this non sequitur eliminates any potential.

Yet Holder did not testify “with regard to prosecution;” he testified explicitly to its potential.  And the warrant he’d already approved at the time of his testimony spoke explicitly about that potential.

It’s clear that Holder still has some tap dancingexplaining to do in order to reconcile his sworn testimony with the content of the search warrant he’d approved prior to his sworn testimony.

But there’re an additional couple of questions in my mind that goes to Holder’s fitness as the US’ chief prosecutor.  What kind of prosecutor accuses a man of criminal activity—that warrant—in order to obtain a search warrant while, at the time of the accusation, having no intent of prosecuting that man should the warrant produce the relevant evidence?

Did Holder lie to the judge in his warrant—he didn’t consider the reporter to be “potentially” criminally liable at the time?  Related to that, is it normal DoJ practice to deliberately mislead a judge with such ruses in order to get a warrant to conduct a search?  And: if the warrant is unobtainable without such shenanigans, how legitimate can the warrant be?

The DoJ letter can be read here.  The Rosen search warrant can be read here.