Truth’s not subject to lawyers and guns
Idaho State Journal Editorial
The truth hurts, but apparently not enough to gut the Idaho Attorney General’s Office budget or deter ridiculous statements in the “guns on campus” debate.
After proposing a mean-spirited piece of legislation aimed at degrading the office run by the state’s elected legal expert, sponsor Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, asked the House State Affairs Committee to dump his bill which it did gladly on Wednesday.
Barbieri wanted his own legislative attorneys after A.G. Lawrence Wasden shot down the legality of his pet “nullification” bill. Barbieri proposed establishing a new “Office of Legislative Counsel” staffed with lawyers myopic enough to embrace raw political ambition instead of legal precedent. Money to pay for the new legal eagles would have been stripped from the attorney general’s budget.
During the eight-week debate over a bill to essentially cancel the power of the federal government to enact its new health care legislation, the attorney general issued two opinions saying such action was unconstitutional. Barbieri is the legislator who championed nullification. The bill died in the Senate.
Wasden is a 22-year veteran of the Office of the Attorney General who has served in many capacities to represent the state’s interests before being elected to the top post three times. The University of Idaho law grad served as deputy prosecutor in Canyon County and as prosecuting attorney for Owyhee County.
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office does a lot more than give legal advice to the legislature. It represents the state in criminal appellate and civil cases and protects Idaho consumers from fraud.
When Priest Lake Republican Rep. Eric Anderson called Barbieri’s move to create a separate office for legislative legal counsel “a very bad piece of legislation,” committee chairman Tom Loertscher chastised Anderson. Loertscher said it wasn’t appropriate to condemn another lawmaker’s motives.
We think it is when those motives may be vindictive. Legal advice should be based on established truths, not political expediency.
But the truth took another beating during testimony on a bill to force Idaho colleges and universities to open campuses to firearms. House Bill 222, which passed the Idaho House last week and currently rests in the Senate, would strip colleges and universities of their current right to ban firearms on campuses, except in undergraduate dormitories.
During testimony in the House last week, Republican caucus chairman Ken Roberts of Donnelly made a statement about the value of armed citizens in America that invents its own reality.
“It’s one of the basic facts that keeps America safer today than any other nation in the world. It’s because the citizens are armed,” Donnelly said.
It must be a world that doesn’t include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Denmark or Sweden, among others. The overall homicide rate in those nations is about eight times less than the U.S. per 100,000 people. Murder rates involving firearms are five to 16 times lower in those countries.
Maybe Rep. Donnelly just feels safer than anyone else in the world when he’s packing a gun. We’d hope a little more truthful research and a little less gut feeling nurtured by political fervor would shape Idaho political decisions.
If not, maybe we should all start looking for a good lawyer—or a gun—to defend our beliefs.
I think this new law (almost enacted) giving college students the right to bear arms on college campuses, it just about the dumbest law Idaho has come up with since becoming a state. And we’ve had some dumb ones. [The last law passed concerning weapons was passed in 1912 in Pocatello, Idaho, "The carrying of concealed weapons is forbidden, unless same are exhibited to public view."] I think they need to stick with that one!
If every student that attends I.S.U., and other colleges/universities in Idaho were 100% ‘even tempered’, and not prone to violence in any way, well, then okay! But – and I think most of us would agree, that’s just not happening. College/university students (per se:) are still teenagers (most), and not quite ‘cooked’ fully. They love to party, and drink. It wouldn’t take much for one, or more of them to take something wrong that has been said or done, and think “Well, I’ll show you”, go get their gun (if they are not carrying), and just shoot someone. Then, next day when they sober up, they wonder why they are going to jail. That’s assuming someone doesn’t take revenge and shoot them!
What on earth are our law makers thinking?
If citizens wish to have a weapon in their homes for ‘protection’, then I have no problem with giving them that right. But SCHOOLS? No way!
Just my opinion, folks!
Ken Roberts is right, and the credible research supports his statement. The credible research on this issue has been primarily done by John R. Lott who teaches Criminal Deterrence, Law and Economics at the university of Chicago, Don B. Kates, who is an anti-poverty lawyer,and David B.Kopel, formerly an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, New York, who now is an attorney in Colorado.
Lott Used nation wide, county-level data, and the FBI’s massive yearly crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties for an eighteen year period,in his study which has been published in book form as,”More Guns, Less Crime”.
Kates has published his research condeming gun controls in the Washington Post,the Sunday Posts section and in a book titled, “Restricting Handguns, the liberal skeptics Speak out”. Idaho Senator Frank Church wrote the foreward to Kates book, because he agreed with his findings.
Kopel’s research, “Trust The People, The Case Against Gun Control”, was published by the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis section.
The anti-gun crowd has no credible research but relies on emotionalism and statements by the Brady Bunch and Handgun control as though those statement should be accepted without question.
However,that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be studying the issue of concealed carry on campus very carefully.
I think both the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds tend to get so caught up in their own positions that they fail to listen and consider opposing aurguments.
Listening and considering isn’t the same as agreeing, but no good can come from simply trying to shout each other down, or depicting one group as knuckle dragging neanderthals and the other as anti-American.
I believe the issue of carrying handguns on campus ought to be dedated on several different levels, such as, Does the Second Amendment give law abiding people the right to carry on college campuses?, Does concealed carry or open carry on campus make campus safer?, Would general concealed carry or open carry on campus by students and faculty cause problems for police responding to an emergency on campus, and how well do most faculty and students understand the laws related to the use of deadly force and the responsibility one assumes when carrying a weapon concealed or openly?
There are probably other topics that people seriously considering this issue would want to address, but hopefully I have made my point that this isn’t a black and white issue, but one which requires careful consideration and respectful dialog between all who wish to participate in the debate.
This debate has moved to the Idaho Senate after passing in the house. If you didn’t write or e-mail your opinions to your representatives in the house during their debate, then take a few minutes and write your Senators during their debate on the issue
Smokey,
Well said.
I’d hope a little more truthful research and a little less gut feeling nurtured by political fervor would shape the journal’s editorials.
“We’d hope a little more truthful research and a little less gut feeling nurtured by political fervor would shape Idaho political decisions.”
When pigs fly from the CAFOs. Hey do you know why the Republicans wanted to slap a two year moratorium on windmills? Cause every time they look out there they see hippies waving back at them to a tune from Woody Guthrie.
THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND
words and music by Woody Guthrie
Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
I’ve roamed and rambled and I’ve followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
Chorus
As I was walkin’ – I saw a sign there
And that sign said – no tress passin’
But on the other side …. it didn’t say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city – In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office – I see my people
And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’
If this land’s still made for you and me.
If the Republicans bothered to look a little closer they could see that the hippie windmills are all in a straight line. That would make them feel better.
Hey, hippie windmills are tall. They can see the endless skyway.
Hey Mike – You forgot the guitar! I’ve got one of the original recordings of that song by Woody Guthrie, and another one by his son, Arlo Guthrie. Very touching!
Skezix – Arlo Guthrie, now that’s what I’m talking about. Thanks for bringing him up.
From Alice’s Restaurant:
And that’s what it is , the Alice’s Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come’s around on the
guitar.
With feeling. So we’ll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.
http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml
Woody Guthrie is not related to Jim Guthrie, a local teabagger who believes “this land was made for only me.”
“Guthrie was married three times and fathered eight children, including American folk musician Arlo Guthrie.”
Only you said “Jim”, dude. Don’t you read what you post? Probably not since it seems you said it, twice now.
jack inhoff says:
March 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Oh boy, the Pocatello teabaggers will be absolutely climatic with that picture of Jim Guthrie taped to their ceilings. The hot suzie can take a trip to Carnation and find a device for even more enhancement of her pleasure.
You’re quoting yourself, dork. Don’t get enough coverage and trying to make more? Tom managed a weak snarky comment on the jhub about the gentleman. Seems he won in the election, and you lost. Sore loser?
Stay on subject. Oh, he’s a republican, but you ignored that. He’s looking better and better and you well, still looking down the dry well of dumb comments to re-hash.
[...] in the Idaho State Journal, of the safest-in-the-world remark: “It must be a world that doesn’t include Canada, [...]
Don’t think you got the drift DR. Jim Guthrie is one of our fine Republican Legislatures from Bannock County. He’s pushing a bill to squash the green way in Pocatello. He’d tell you he’s trying to protect property owners rights. Thus Jacks, “Woody Guthrie is not related to Jim Guthrie, a local teabagger who believes “this land was made for only me.” I thought it was kinda cute. You know..”land was made for only me”.
That’s “Legislators”. He’s not the whole thing. Although, it’s hard to tell the difference.
Smokey Merkley:
I always appreciate the occasional and insightful comments born of balance and objectivity.
“I think both the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds tend to get so caught up in their own positions that they fail to listen and consider opposing aurguments.”
“Listening and considering isn’t the same as agreeing, but no good can come from simply trying to shout each other down, or depicting one group as knuckle dragging neanderthals and the other as anti-American.”
I agree 100%. The problem is the Idaho GOP as opposed to the GOP as whole on the national level. The Idaho GOP does not believe, comprehend, nor espouse what you have articulated when it comes to policy and lawmaking here in Idaho.
“Ken Roberts is right, and the credible research supports his statement.”
The problem is Ken Roberts and others of opposite views will dishonestly use honest and correct scholarly and credible research to veil an underlying agenda to avoid revealing true motive behind their advocacy for such a narrow issue involving the 2nd amendment.
Ken Roberts per his pre-primary disclosure for this election cycle received $500.00 from the NRA Political Victory Fund of Fairfax, VA. Mere acceptance of this contribution should call into question motive and yield automatic forfeit of his credibility on the issue.
My understanding is that this issue came up in prior legislative sessions. The college and university presidents consulted with Gov. Otter, with whom I don’t care for or support. Nonetheless, Otter got it right on this one by giving due deferrence and support to the presidents of institutions of higher learning in not supporting this proposal. I’m sure that offices of public safety at the state campuses offered very valid reasons for prohibiting firearms that is not politically motivated and based on thoughtful study of the issue as you have suggested. This has already been done.
In Dr. Schow’s subsequent column on this subject, “Chuck” posted the following astute comment being overlooked:
“In this debate about allowing CCW on campus, I would like to point out that non-students can already carry on campus. Also, to be issued a CCW a person must be 21 years of age, so not everyone on campus can have a CCW if this law passes.”
This gets back to my point in a prior forum about a week ago or so: what undying, unprecedented, urgent, overriding reason has been identified that justifies real need for legislative action on a narrow scope involving state gun laws and the 2nd amendment?
I support appropriate CCW rights for gun owners that are deemed properly responsible and trained. Opposition to this proposed measure does not equate to being anti-gun nor not having confidence in students or faculty that want CCW. So the far right zealots in this state need to take a chill pill regarding those that put some thought into the issue and ask the hard questions.
We aren’t anti-gun and pro-gun control; so they need to sit down and shut up with their disengenious co-opting of contrary views to create false perception of those of us who have objective and balanced reason for opposing this law.
This is more about political theater where the bill’s sponsor Erik Simpson is trying to score points with the Idaho GOP leadership by helping them appeal to the extreme base; and Ken Roberts is simply earning his paycheck for his campaign received from the NRA as evidenced by his financial disclosure.
There are much more pressing issues than this one for the State of Idaho that merit greater consideration for the benefit of all citizens; not a narrow political faction.
While the focus is on the ill-conceived dedication of time and resources on the campus gun bill, we should not overlook the following:
“When Priest Lake Republican Rep. Eric Anderson called Barbieri’s move to create a separate office for legislative legal counsel “a very bad piece of legislation,” committee chairman Tom Loertscher chastised Anderson. Loertscher said it wasn’t appropriate to condemn another lawmaker’s motives.
We think it is when those motives may be vindictive. Legal advice should be based on established truths, not political expediency.”
Loertscher’s rebuke from a position of leadership should be an indicator of how supermajority, unhealthy one party rule works. I’m sure Eric Anderson was probably taken to the proverbial woodshed by other members of the Idaho GOP leadership for showing some independence and questioning motive which is just as important as the substance and desire consequences of any legislative measure. Just watching how the Idaho GOP consolidates power and enforces discipline among the ranks, that comment will probably guarantee Eric Anderson is challenged in the primaries and will never be able to hold any leadership position or sponsor bills that will even be considered. That is how one-party, supermajority works in this state.
Eric Anderson probably understood that nullification is a doctrine derived from the Articles of Confereration not the US Constitution. And even if the Articles of Confederation were a binding document of governance, Idaho would not have standing to invoke any tenet of it because it is not one of the original compact members of the confederation. But the prevailing view of the Idaho GOP and its membership is that the Constitution is an extension of the Article of Confederation. Another falsehood promoted by the Idaho GOP.
This is an example of unrighteous dominion being excercised.
The Idaho GOP: bad for America, bad for Idaho.
Well, it didn’t take long for the comments on here to veer off the subject of the editorial.
I’d like to return to the discussion of guns on campus.
As most of us know, there were several reprsentatives from various law enforcement agencies that traveled to Boise to speak against concealed or open carry of weapons on Idaho college campuses.
Although not all police officers are necessarily against concealed or open carry in Idaho, the news media certainly made sure they covered the officers who showed up to oppose guns on campus.
For those who don’t understand why law enforcement might be opposed to students and faculty carrying on campus, there are three primary issues.One is the concern that a campus full of people carrying handguns could possibly interfere with police responding to an energency on campus, a second reason is that if they are responding to someone with a gun, and lots of people on campus have guns, things can get dicey. The police however, are good at handling dicey situations, but those who think they are part of the solution, may be shocked at the instuctions they are given by the police who will be anxious to deal with the problem they were dispatched to handle. A third reason falls under the term, “Unconcious Incompetence”, because of lack of training by most law abiding citizens.
Most people who have attended one or more of this country’s elite defensive handgun, shotgun, and rifle academys would probably agree that most civillians are not prepared for the stresses present or the responsibilities required of those who go into harms way on behalf of others.
In other words, most civillians, even those with good marksmanship skills, and who think they are prepared to protect themselves and others, usually do not understand their parameters in a setting such as a college campus. Such people are prone to making mistakes that will get themselves injured or killed, or getting innocent people injured or killed.
The stesses involved in deciding when deadly force is justified can give people tunnel vision, sweaty palms, otic occlusion, the inability to make decisions quickly enough, or miss their target at less than seven feet away.
That is why one defensive firearms school calls it stressfire.
Now, are the police right in their opposition to concealed or open carry on campus, or should we trust the people and consider law abiding adults twenty-one years old and older capable of handling the Stress and responsibility of carrying on campus?
Back to the gun issue.
This a perfect example of hypocrisy on the part of the Idaho GOP that historically promotes local control, less centralized and mandated control on communities.
Universities and colleges are in and of themselves communities. I’m sure each college and university developed guidelines and policy regarding weapons on campus that has nothing to do with liberal faculty against guns; but more about common-sense approaches to campus safety.
Given the law provides for CCW rights for those over 21 and otherwise deemed responsible, should we not in the name of local control and self-determination of community let the universities and colleges decide the best policy for their community through student government, faculty senates, and administrators?
The problem is the Idaho GOP really does not have faith or believe in local control.
Smokey:
Another great post. Thank you.
I believe campus public safety departments and/or police departments are correct on this one per your excellent summation of what truly is required to be an adequately trained civilian that possesses CCW permit.
But try to convince the Idaho GOP of that.
Jayson,
Thank you, your comments are also appreciated.
I was hoping we all could discuss this issue and hopefully educate each other. For that reason I have tried not to espouse a particular position. I’m not sure I have been entirely successful in that endeaver.
I think many of us have experiences and thoughts that we all could benifit from hearing and considering.
Mike Mathews,
I got it, he’s a republican and someone is trying to tar and feather him with a Tea Party appelation. Seems someone is fascinated with using his name on here. Google it if you don’t believe me, same person, again and again.
Greenway is a commuter road per some. Either you want one or you don’t and you seem to not want one going this way.
Like Jayson says, stick to the subject at hand. You amuse far too easily.
While not part of this forum, it has been established that CAFOs are a result of special interests that have bought and paid for the very soul of the Speaker of the House as evidenced by campaign contributions on file with the Secretary of State.
The wind farm issue is likewise evidence that the Idaho Republicans do not believe in local control and do believe in the the expansion of centralized governance.
Eminent domain is likewise a valid issue that is very important; but is being used as a source of political theater and to promulgate a veiled agenda. It is another hypocritical act of not putting trust in local government on the part of the legislature.
The City of Pocatello nor the open space committee have recommended eminent domain to gain easement for the Portneuf Foundation to complete the greenway. But the local GOP wants to pre-empt this issue to create political incursion into non-partisan governance of a municipality.
Jim Guthrie, sponsor of the legislation, has effectively established incestuous GOP relationships as evidenced by campaign contributions:
Scott Bedke, an Oakley rancher and deputy majority leader contributed $500.00 to Guthrie.
Ken Roberts, who loses credibility on the gun issue, split the NRA contribution received by giving $250.00 to Guthrie from the $500 he received from the gun lobby. Then he donated to him another $750.00. Guthrie received approximately $3,600.00 from GOP lawmakers.
The State, County, and Legislative GOP organizations contributed $3,000.00. Approximately 8 GOP operative PACs kicked in $5,250.
Monsanto, Micron Technologies, as well as two private education companies with a vested interest in Luna’s reforms donated to the cause. The local medical establishment donated $2,150 and the realtor interests provided $600.
Guthrie does not represent constituents, but rather the individuals reflected on his campaign disclosure statements.
In the interest of being balanced, Guthrie’s opponent in the general election Greg Anderson interestingly received contribution from Idaho Kidney Institute, LLC in the amount of $1000.00. Guthrie only received $500.00 from the same entity. This entity lost on its bet with this election.
As to be expected, organized labor donated 3,250, the Democratic Legislative Caucus donated 500, and Idaho Education PAC gave 2000.
What is compelling is Anderson raised pretty close to the same amount as Guthrie, but he did so more from individuals. The contributor list for Anderson was probably 4 to 5 times more than Guthrie, but Guthrie was financed by more narrow interests, less individuals, and more PACs and business interests than Anderson in outraising him. While both have contributions typical of the two party system, it is apparent that Guthrie represents interests and the Idaho GOP more than he does constituents. At least Anderson received more financial support from a cross-section of individuals and fewer PACs and narrow interests than Guthrie.
I’m sure this scenario is replicated throughout the state which once again is another indicator of unhealthy, one-party supermajority rule on the part of the Idaho GOP.
Thank you Jayson.
Jayson,
Although you claim to be an independent, I have noticed that you tend to come down a lot harder on the Idaho GOP than the Democratic Party.
I also percieve that there is an underlying motivation to your rants against the Idaho GOP that you have not articulated.
I personally believe that the Idaho GOP could benefit from some serious analysis of, and a more focused modification of it’s top priorities. However, we in Idaho have learned from sad experience that the Democratic Party’s agenda is diametrically opposed to the interests of most Idahoans.
As far as Anderson and Guthrie go, I’m not disappointed in their performance so far. I’m personally in favor of a state law that would prohibit municipalities from using emminent domain to give land to a private foundation.
Although I am not a member of the NRA, and never will be, I agree with some of their basic principles, and have no problem with their decision to financially support candidates and legislators that believe in the Second Amendment. as a matter of fact you may have alienated a large segment of the Idaho population by trying to cast the NRA in a bad light.
Besides, don’t Democratic candidates and legislators also recieve financial support from people and organizations that believe in the Democratic Party’s agenda.
Maybe you ought to write a column for the ISJ, outlining your concerns of majority party rule in Idaho.
I would read it, consider your opinion, and maybe comment, if the spirit moved me to do so.
Jayson,
I’d read it too. Smokey gave you some reasoned advice you might consider.
Have to agree. If the time ever comes that we need the ‘eminent domain’ for something very important like helping to prevent someone from taking us over, (like having an alternate route), it’s nice to know we can depend on it. To just use it for people to take away private property because they think they can, and wish to stroll along the back yards of people’s property, is not nice. It ‘borders’ on legal theft!
I don’t live on a river bank, but I know people who do, and they are really steamed up about this whole agenda. They have also told me they intend to fight it to the supreme court, if they need to! Don’t blame them. I would to! I say let them build a path along the roadways, where they can.
Just my opinion, folks!
Smokey and DR:
I’ve never really considered submitting or writing a column. Not even sure how the ISJ handles those types of things. A couple of other posters have been kind enough to make similar suggestions as you both. I appreciate the encouragement.
Smokey:
My only motivation to the rants on the Idaho GOP is to simply point out what I have said many times before: absolute and supermajority one party rule is extremely unhealthy to good governance. I have no personal axes to grind and no personal agenda.
I have no undisclosed or underlying motive for my criticisms or participation in this forum. I take personal interest as an individual citizen who happens to follow the issues, has no political capital or considered political aspirations, has no money to have any prospects for influence with public officials, and likes healthy debate of civic matters provided it can be constructive and leads to solution driven discussion.
If we happened to live in other areas of the country like California, you’d probably hear from me similar rants about the California Democratic Party. Idaho just happens to be dominated by extremism and narrow mindedness that has been effectively consolidated into absolute power due to no meaningful opposition and an uncompetitive electoral climate.
There is a marked difference between Idaho Republicans and those of the GOP in other areas of the country.
I agree that I do come down pretty hard on the Idaho GOP. But I attempt to provide a premise for my criticism. That does not mean I don’t support local, balanced, non-establishment GOP candidates that manage to stay out of the fray of insanity on the part of the Idaho GOP. But they are becoming fewer and far between.
I stand by my comments of the GOP that I don’t think requires any more explanation than what has been stated before.
I agree with you: “Democratic Party’s agenda is diametrically opposed to the interests of most Idahoans.” Many of my core values do not support the traditional Democratic Party agenda, particularly at the Federal level. Therefore, I can’t be a member of the Democratic Party either.
However, Idahoans have this idea that only Republicans have conservative values that work in their best interests and any Democrat is automatically discounted of being conservative when in reality they actually are conservative. Thus, blind support of the GOP at the ballot box without analyzing how the Idaho GOP veils agendas behind a conservative banner that works against interests of average and conservative Idahoans. The Idaho GOP uses wedge and umbrella issues to dodge the real issues that will impact the average citizen or mask motives that otherwise would not be supported by the average citizen. This likewise makes scare tactics effective that Idaho Democrats are going to bring the national progressive agenda to Idaho.
The Idaho GOP needs more than analysis, it needs a dose of political chemotherapy and radiation to eradicate the cancer of reactionaries, polarizing ideology, and arrogance that has metastasized into a malignancy of oppressive, short sighted, and unwise governance.
I’ve said this many times before; the two party systems are completely beyond repair and there is no room for independent minded individuals that prefer balance in either party.
Even when well intentioned individuals elect to follow a party, their efforts are only reduced to being enablers of the very unsavory aspects of the organization they want to reform; or they are marginalized for not following the party leadership or platform despite objective, valid, and constructive reasoning for not following the leadership or party line.
The two parties are beyond reform from within and any well intentioned effort by honest and sincere individuals to reform them is simply not possible given judicial interpretation of what constitutes speech as it pertains to campaign finance law and the actual campaign finance laws as they stand.
There is a political postulate to the golden rule which applies: he/she that has the gold makes the rules.
My focus on the now past legislative election between Anderson and Guthrie was due to Guthrie’s sponsorship of the eminent domain bill which was brought up in the forum.
I used that local race as an example to illustrate how the postulate to the golden rule in politics can apply to local races. It was not because I have an axe to grind with Guthrie or Anderson for that matter.
I use forensic analysis of campaign contributions to show how many well-intentioned individuals that choose party affiliation are duped into thinking the party affiliation or the party affiliated candidate supports their interests.
But campaign finance really determines the true agenda and who the real constituents are. Anderson and Guthrie financial disclosure statements on contributions illustrate organized labor and education interests vs. business, agriculture, and narrow political interests.
However, Anderson’s campaign contributions reflect greater individual support over PACs, etc. Both received backing from their respective parties, but Guthrie received greater support from other GOP campaigns and the GOP at all levels. I might add, I did not vote in this race because it is a race outside of my legislative district.
In the end, we don’t really get valid choices of individuals independent enough to represent constituents but rather narrow interests that expect deference to agendas that benefit the few at the expense of the whole.
The NRA really does not promote responsible gun ownership and responsible exercise of 2nd amendment rights in the same manner that you do. Therefore, I don’t support the NRA. But unfortunately given the co-opt nature of interests groups and parties; there is the false perception in premise that in order to be a credible supporter of the 2nd amendment, one must automatically support the NRA. Another false choice from the political establishment.
“[A]s a matter of fact you may have alienated a large segment of the Idaho population by trying to cast the NRA in a bad light.”
I’m not concerned about alienating those in Idaho that support the NRA. I personally don’t need to affiliate with the NRA as a bind sheep to support responsible exercise of 2nd amendment rights. Popularity contests and peer pressure ended for me after junior high and high school. I just happen to harbor the opinion the NRA hides behind the 2nd amendment to harbor less desirable agendas regarding firearms. And I have seen firsthand in my professional life the impact of those less desirable agendas advanced by the NRA.
Finally, my point on eminent domain is that jurisprudence, current state laws, and the Idaho Constitution are on the landowner’s side in the case of the greenway in Pocatello and other potential instances elsewhere. And I think there is local support by office holders and the public to respect the rights of the landowners in this instance.
We hear that once a tax increase is enacted, it never gets repealed. Well, the same goes for laws. Once you get them on the books, they never get repealed or properly amended when they become obsolete.
The attempt to legislate the most minor detail of any issue renders law convoluted and inapplicable or subject to mandatory litigation. It also dilutes local control on many issues. There is such a thing as over-legislating to justify agendas or appease narrow interests. 60 Minutes many years ago had a great segment on over codification of governance. We should not lose sight of that.
Jayson,
Great defense and good points. I totally agree with you on the failure of the two party system. You would do well to post an original editorial for comment by others. I usually enjoy your comments. You are respectful and get to the points that need discussion.
Jayson,
My comment that you might have alienated a good portion of Idahoans by casting the NRA in a bad light was simply a reference to the position most Idahoans take on gun ownership.
I probably have alienated a few myself, when they learned that I wasn’t interested in being a member and had some serious issues with the NRA in spite of my training and support of the Second Amendment.
I believe the NRA does try to promote responsible Gun ownership. My disappointment in the NRA is that they never seem willing to consider that everything is not black and white, and that there may be legitimate concerns as to whether firearms are appropriate in certain settings.
Although they stress the importance of training in gun safety, they are unwilling to support the idea that gun safety training isn’t sufficient for carrying in certain settings.
I also wasn’t satisfied with Wayne LaPiere’s rsponse to a letter I sent to him personally concerning my view that the NRA lacked objectivity and was actually hypocritical in some of it’s positions concerning gun issues.
I really don’t see myself as an enemy of the NRA, but I don’t support concealed carry by the general public aboard commercial aircraft,in court houses, and as you probably know, I have some reservations about concealed carry by the general public on University campuses.
My personal training and experiences have convinced me that gun safety training is essential but only a beginning for those who have decided to carry in public.
As far as your views on the breakdown of the two party system I agree we need to fix a lot of things, or our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a mess that we shouldn’t have allowed on our watch. I’m not sure we even come close to agreeing on what we need to do to turn things around, but, a discussion on the issues might be enlightening.
Good posts by all. Rest assured however there will be those who will abide by the law and get the required permit to carry a concealed weapon, more than likely there will be a majority that will and continue to carry guns without permits. Since Congresswoman Gabriell Giffords was shot in Tucson, 2500 others have met their end by gunfire as of today in the USA. Certianly these shooters were not permit carring citizens or are they?
Harley,
The last statistics I saw on the issue indicated a fraction of 1% of CCW holders had their licences revoked for any reason. It wasn’t broken down into types of offenses, but the report did say that the majority of offenses were misdemeanors, which would not include the 2500 incidents you mentioned.
Harley,
This is the cloest I can come to answering your question.
States that in 2007, 87,391 CHL permits were issued. So thats 0.3% of the population of Texas in that year.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf
Shows that, in Texas, for violent crimes, 61,260 total convictions for that year. (guns used in the commission of a crime if I understand the report correctly)
160 were CHL holders.
So 61,100 were not CHL holders.
61,100 / (23,904,380 – 160) = 0.2556% of the general population was convicted on 2007.
(160 is removing the CHL from general population to be fair)
160 / 87,391 = 0.18308% of the CHL population was convicted in 2007.
(total number of chl convictions, divided by total number of chl holders, not all convictions were for murder. VPC report included of all things, traffic tickets given to CHL holders among other things. Why, I don’t know.)
I think my math is good but feel free to correct.
Smokey Merkley:
“My disappointment in the NRA is that they never seem willing to consider that everything is not black and white, and that there may be legitimate concerns as to whether firearms are appropriate in certain settings.”
My sentiments as well. The NRA lacks balance and pragmaticsm as it applies to the second amendment.
Very good comments.