Does the other side really want “reasonable, common sense gun control”?
Remember Nancy Pelosi saying that if she could have, she would have said “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” or words to that effect? That intent still exists beneath the relatively transparent surface of the usually more disingenuous gun prohibitionist movement.
We offer as evidence, Professor Alan Dershowitz.
Now, “to give the devil his due,” I’ve had some good things to say about Professor Dershowitz in public, and I’m happy to repeat them here. I’ve heard lawyers criticize him for using his law students to do his research for cases he was getting paid for, and I defended him for that: he was giving those students priceless real-world on-the-job training in high profile cases, and reducing the legal research costs for the defendants in the bargain. His comments why the prosecution of George Zimmerman, and the manner thereof, constituted an outrage were outrage were in my opinion spot on, and I said so…in this space, and elsewhere.
However, there are some points where I profoundly and vehemently disagree with the professor. One of those was his assertion that police are taught to lie on the witness stand – to “testi-lie” – in the police academy. Having more time by far in police training than he has, I call BS on that.
And then, of course, there is Dershowitz’ radical position on “gun control.”
On the opposing side is an old friend of mine, Richard Feldman, Esq. Watch it yourself. Feel free to comment here as to who won the “reality check.”
The Hard Line | Alan Dershowitz and Richard Feldman discuss proposed gun-free zones
Reading a city newspaper while having breakfast in the airport yesterday, I glanced at the news roundup. It included that fact that in Texas outlets, the Whataburger chain is putting up “no open carry” signs, since the allowing that recently passed in the Lone Star State.
The item, printed without a byline, says in part, “In an open letter on the company’s website, Whataburger president and CEO Preston Atkinson said many employees and customers are ‘uncomfortable being around someone with a visible firearm.’”
This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision that gay marriage was legal, and such a marriage performed in any one state has legal standing in all the other 49. I have no problem with gay marriage – why should we heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
This actually makes sense. It has always been anomalous that states would recognize one another’s pilot’s license, heterosexual marriage license, driver’s license, etc., but not one another’s permit to carry concealed and loaded handguns. If heterosexual marriage didn’t set a precedent creating national reciprocity on carry, I’m not clear on how gay marriage somehow will.
Coincidentally, I happened to be in Chicagoland when it happened. As you might imagine, advocates of the right to self-protection are smiling rather smugly. Being one of them, so am I, all the more so because of my long service on the board of trustees of the Second Amendment Foundation, which funded the landmark US Supreme Court case of McDonald, et. al. v. Chicago, which paved the way for concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens in Illinois.
What brought me to Chicago in the first place this trip was the largest conference of police instructors in the world, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, in Wheeling. This coming Friday morning, I’ll be on a “train the trainers” panel chaired by Don Alwes, whose topic is dealing with mass murder attempts in progress. The shooting mentioned above has already been discussed at this seminar, with much the same approval as is being seen from the law-abiding armed citizenry. It promises to be an interesting discussion.
By the way, as is usual in seminars that cater to actual working cops, the National Rifle Association had a booth showcasing their current and long-lasting support of police training, and the anti-gunners were conspicuous by their absence…