Reaction to Brexit
An interesting question to me is why the stock prices in the UK fell less than the stocks in the rest of Europe or in places such as Japan.
Labels: Hillary Clinton Corruption
. . . Two high-ranking New York Police Department officials and a police sergeant who oversaw gun license applications were among the latest arrests in a case that has cast a cloud over the nation's largest municipal police force.
A businessman who contributed heavily to the election campaign of Mayor Bill de Blasio already has pleaded guilty in the case. Earlier this month, federal prosecutors charged the head of the correction officers' union with taking kickbacks. De Blasio, a Democrat, hasn't been implicated in any wrongdoing.
A criminal complaint accompanying the latest charges described how Brooklyn businessman Jeremy Reichberg exploited his connections within the police department to arrange arrests, speed up gun application processing, make tickets disappear, obtain police escorts for him and his friends, get assistance from uniformed personnel to resolve personal disputes and boost security at religious sites and events. . . .
When will politicians finally recognize that they can’t protect all the possible shooting targets?
Possibly the largest mass public shooting in US history occurred early on Sunday morning, leaving 50 dead. On Friday, also in Orlando, singer Christina Grimmie was murdered after a concert.
Both of these shootings had something in common: They both occurred in places where private citizens were banned from carrying permitted concealed handguns.
With the exception of Donald Trump, over the last few days politicians have talked about everything but gun-free zones. Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been talking background checks on the private transfers of guns or banning people who are on the “no-fly lists” from buying guns.
But not one of the mass shootings since at least 2000, including Sunday’s, would’ve been stopped by these laws. Nor would renewing the federal “assault weapons” ban solve the problem; even research paid for by Bill Clinton’s administration found no evidence the ban reduced any type of crime.
Just a couple of months ago, a young ISIS sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. An FBI wire recorded him explaining why he had picked the church as a target: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news.”
Police are probably the single most important factor in stopping crime, but stopping a mass public shooting is an extremely dangerous proposition for officers and security guards alike. Attackers will generally first shoot any uniformed guards or officers who are present. During the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year, the first person killed was the guard who was protecting the magazine’s offices.. . .
A federal judge on Monday [Jan 7, 2014] overturned Chicago's ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal. . . .Now Cook County, like Seattle, has a tax on ammunition. From the Illinois Business Daily (May 30, 2016):
A per-bullet tax on ammunition set to take effect in June in Cook County is expected to provide over $300,000 in new revenue a year, but the tax faces serious opposition at the state level.
“The gun tax is nothing more than a modern day poll tax against the poor,” John Boch, executive director of the pro-gun Guns Save Life group told in an email. “Gun control is racist, classist and sexist--we don't support those things.”
The latest tax is part of a $4.5 billion budget approved last November for the county, which includes roughly $500 million in new spending funded primarily by various sales tax increases, including the ammo tax.
A bill currently in the Illinois General Assembly, however, could stop those ammunition tax increases and even possibly roll back previous ones. House Bill 4348 would take away the power for local governments to impose sales tax increases on weapons and ammunition, stating that cities and home rule communities “may not impose any tax, fee or other assessment other than the normal sales tax rate for goods, on any firearms, firearm attachments or firearm ammunition.” Boch said he hoped the bill would preempt any legal action the group might take against the new taxes. . . .(7th Cir. 2011) (right to arms would be meaningless without right to “maintain proficiency” by “training and practice” at a shooting range); (N.D. Ill. 2014) (right to arms includes “the right to a firearm” so city ban on all gun stores is void). So the courts struck down the bans, but the question is how many shooting ranges or gun stores there are in Chicago. It looks like there are currently no shooting ranges in Chicago. Try Googling "'shooting ranges' Chicago." As of January this year there was one attempt at "pitching plans to open the city's only gun store and gun range," but nothing has happened so far.
. . . A Globe review of 323 criminals released in New England from 2008 to 2012 found that as many as 30 percent committed new offenses, including rape, attempted murder, and child molestation — a rate that is markedly higher than Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have suggested to Congress in the past.
The names of these criminals have never before been made public and are coming to light now only because the Globe sued the federal government for the list of criminals immigration authorities returned to neighborhoods across the country. A judge ordered the names released in 2013, and the Globe then undertook the work that the federal government didn’t, scouring court records to find out how many released criminals reoffended.
The Globe has also published, in conjunction with this story, a searchable database of the thousands of names that were disclosed to the news organization, so that crime victims, law enforcement officials, and managers of sex offender registries — who are often unaware of these releases — can find out if the criminals may still be in the United States. . . .
The media — from fact checkers to late night talk shows — has had a field day claiming that Trump is making false statements on guns. The media ought to have lost credibility by now.
Last Friday at the NRA convention, Donald Trump forcefully repeated his challenge to Hillary Clinton on guns: “As I said before, she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She wants to take your guns away. She wants to abolish — just remember that. … If she gets to appoint her judges, she will abolish the Second Amendment.”
Hillary Clinton tweeted back “You’re wrong, @realDonaldTrump. We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence.”
CNN noted: “Clinton, who swiftly rebutted Trump’s remarks, has called for universal background checks and stricter controls on firearms, but has never called for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, on her website, she calls gun ownership ‘part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities.’” Politifact asserted: “We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, and the bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite. She has repeatedly said she wants to protect the right to bear arms while enacting measures to prevent gun violence.”
But these are the same organizations that assured people that their concerns about Obama on guns were wrong. In 2008, FactCheck.org asserted that there was no evidence that Obama would “appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment.” Obama “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,” the website concluded.
Politifact now tries giving people the same assurance: “The bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite [that she supports gun ownership].” CNN says the same. . . . .The rest of the piece is available here.
President Obama is taking a big step towards creating a national gun registry. Hawaii looks like it is about to provide the federal government with the list of all the gun owners in the state. Supposedly, keeping a list of gun owners’ names will enable the FBI to tell police if a gun owner ever gets arrested.
But a national gun registry isn’t necessary to do this check. The FBI isn’t the only organization that can do background checks on already existing gun owners.
Hawaii already has a gun registry, and can regularly run its list of names to see if people have gotten arrested.
Some concealed carry states do that for their concealed handgun permit holders. For example, Kentucky checks its list of permit holders every month.
Hawaii is going to pay for entering the names in the new federal registry by charging gun owners a new fee. But, even if this registration reduced crime, it would hardly be just the gun owners who have registered their guns who would be the only ones who benefit. Economics would indicate that the people who benefit from this proposal should be the ones to pay for it.
If Hawaii officials really think that this will reduce crime for everyone and they aren’t just pushing this as a way to reduce gun ownership even further, they can pay for these checks out of general revenue.
This will undoubtedly be a waste of money. Out of all the guns owned in the US, just hundredths of one percent are used in committing crimes, and the rate that registered guns are used in crimes is a tiny fraction of that. For concealed handgun permit holders the revocation rate for any firearms related violation is thousandths of one percent, and almost all of those are trivial, nonviolent offenses.
Gun control advocates have long claimed that gun registration will help solve crime. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a registered gun is left at a crime scene, it can be used to identify the criminal.
Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. . . . .
. . . Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.
Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty Friday to the classified information charge, which is part of the Espionage Act, a prosecution spokesman confirmed. No charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion has been made that he ever planned to disclose the photos to anyone outside the Navy.
The sailor now faces a maximum possible sentence of up to ten years in prison, but faced up to 30 years if found guilty on both charges. Federal guidelines discussed in court Friday appear to call for a sentence of about five to six-and-a-half years, although the defense has signaled it will seek a lighter sentence. . . .
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what [Hillary Clinton] did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.” . . .