Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

http://reason.tv/…

Should moving a throw pillow get you fined or jailed?

With all the artistry and attitude, it’s no wonder design shows are so much fun. But are the people on those shows putting your life, and even the president’s life, at risk?

Natasha Lima-Younts can’t see how she’s putting anyone’s life at risk. She’s been an interior designer for more than 20 years. She started her own business, and hired dozens of employees. She has an extensive portfolio and magazine features about her work. What she doesn’t have is a state license. That doesn’t bother Yount’s client Angie Stoeker, who loves what Younts has done with her home, but it does bother those who push for licensing laws.

Alabama politicians once threatened unlicensed designers with jail time—moving a throw pillow could get you a year behind bars—and 22 states plus the District of Columbia regulate interior designers. Industry groups lobby for such laws because they say unlicensed designers put lives at risk. “Every decision an interior designer makes affects the health, safety, and, welfare of the public,” says the the American Society of Interior Designers. Another group implies that “confusing floor patterns” and other items installed by unlicensed interior designers cause 11,000 deaths per year.

Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie went looking for dead bodies, and for an explanation for why the state of Florida launched a legal case against Younts. State regulators demand that she obtain a license, a license she says she doesn’t need, a license that could cost her six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Do licensing laws protect consumers from death and destruction or, as the Interior Design Protection Council argues, do they protect licensed designers from competition? Should Younts be stripped of the career it took her decades to build? Should President Obama be worried about his interior designer, the unlicensed Michael Smith? Jump into the throw-pillow fight and decide for yourself.

“Throw-Pillow Fight” is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Director of photography is Roger Richards.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

1. Saturday is supposed to be a day of rest, but the New York Times is hard on the job of promoting the total state. First, there is a front-page article on the plight of refugees from Zimbabwe, and it is well-written and interesting, and very, very sad. However, we should not forget that the Times was an early supporter of the man who is the source of this misery, Robert Mugabe. Furthermore, Mugabe’s policies pretty much square with the state economic control that the Times endorses every day in both its news and editorial sections.That the tragedy in Zimbabwe is an extreme example of what happens when the state confiscates private property, sets price controls, and prints money without end does not negate the fact that the Times for years has endorsed state seizure of private property, price controls, and fiat money. Indeed, one would think that the editors there would recognize the folly of those things endorsed by the Times, but we are speaking of the Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and Duff Wilson (of Duke lacrosse fame).
2. The top editorial excoriates Gov. David Paterson for choosing Kirsten Gillibrand as Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate replacement. Why? In the Times‘ own words:
   

   What is the most disappointing about Ms. Gillibrand’s record is her extreme opposition to reasonable gun control laws. Her opposition to new efforts to trace illegal guns and support for rolling back gun control laws in the District of Columbia go well beyond her declared support for hunters’ rights. She earned a top rating and vigorous campaign support from the National Rifle Association. Her jarring views on guns could cost her a bitter Democratic primary fight next year for re-election if gun-control advocates like Representative Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island challenge her on this issue.

   I’m not sure what “unreasonable” gun control might be. However, the editors do hope that her views will “evolve” to fit those of the anti-private gun Senator Charles Schumer:

   On Friday, Ms. Gillibrand seemed ready to hear arguments against her views on guns. She vowed to help push Ms. McCarthy’s latest bill to speed background checks on those who buy guns at gun shows. She should also agree to Senator Charles Schumer’s offer to escort her on a listening tour of New York’s urban neighborhoods where guns are not used for hunting the Thanksgiving turkey. Senator Schumer said he was confident that once she saw the problem, her views on this grave issue would “evolve.”

   Read that, “Unless you are lockstep with Schumer, we will kneecap you in the upcoming election.” No doubt, she will be horrified. Who knows? Maybe they can have a REAL DRIVE-BY SHOOTING DURING HER VISIT!
   Read More…

http://www.cnn.com/…

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.’s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city’s ban violated the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals — as opposed to state militias — from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose “reasonable” weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The judgment is not yet on the SCOTUS’s website.

It’s another 5-4 ruling. I don’t like these splits. The ruling doesn’t have the power as it would otherwise. In the short term the legal result is the same but in the long run I think it gives more room to question it in the future.

As you can see in the graph below the handgun ban made no apparent or calculable difference in the number of homicides in DC:

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign just said on CNN that “we disagree with the courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Given the history, at least going back to the 1939 ruling, we feel it refers to a ‘well-regulated Militia.’” So he admits that the meaning was different.

Now he just said if you just look at the debates from the amendment’s time that you’d see his interpretation was correct.

Really?

• “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
  –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
• “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
  – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
  –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette
• “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
  – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution
• “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
  – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
• ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
  – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
• ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
  – Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
• “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
  – Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention

Just a few. Obviously it was a topic of discussion at the time. If the Congress had the ability to raise an army and control militias why then would they have to put in the 2nd Amendment less they felt the Congress couldn’t be trusted?

Over at Yahoo we find a quotes from the justices:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

What part of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” does he not understand? “The people” and “shall not be infringed” seem pretty clear to me. The amendment would be pointless unless it was for the people. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution says of the powers of Congress: To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

So, again, why the 2nd Amendment? They can arm them but not disarm them?

http://www.nytimes.com/…

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is determining what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

The argument was lively and intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. Despite “starting afresh,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it, on a subject the court had not addressed since 1939, the justices appeared at least as well informed as the lawyers on minute details of English and American legal history.

Sounds like a fun time. Even if they rule against freedom I don’t see how it’s going to change anything. Freer gun states will do their thing and fascist states will do theirs. People like myself will only put up with the states crap for so long. At some point we will just stop even trying to play nice and follow the rules.

One thing about the old Massachusetts law… DC is under federal jurisdiction not state. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated so it could be an argument if this were about a state law but it’s not. I also don’t see how not having loaded weapons is in anyway the same has not have any.

http://www.upi.com/…

Montana officials said its statehood contract will be breached if the U.S. Supreme Court rules only state-run militias can keep and bear arms.

While there’s no secession talk in Montana, 39 elected state officials signed a resolution declaring that if the court rules the Second Amendment to the Constitution is a right of states, not individuals, Montana’s compact would be violated, The Washington Times reported Monday.

“The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract,” Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to the Times.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on a federal court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s gun-ownership ban. The high court hasn’t issued a broad Second Amendment ruling in nearly seven decades, including whether it provides an individual right or a state government-held collective right, the Times said.

The Montana statehood contract, preserved as Article I of the state’s constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right, reading in part, “The right of any person to keep or bear arms … shall not be called into question.”

I thought the REAL ID would put the states and federal government at major odds first. Seems I may be wrong. This is pretty interesting. You rarely have people in these positions talking in this manner. I doubt very much anything will come of this but it’s fun nonetheless.

There is an issue I have with the Bill of Rights and its application. Through incorporation the federal government says that particular amendments apply to state governments. I have major issues with the fact that these cases where incorporation was cited are effectively random. They seem to create the need for incorporation on the spot instead of there being a blanket statement that in fact full incorporation has occurred. This has allowed for the federal government to cherry pick which it wants to enforce. A notable amendment not incorporated is the 2nd. If incorporation is legit it should be codified clearly by passing a new amendment which states without a doubt that all protected enumerated rights found in the federal constitution also apply to the states and the federal government has the power to pass and enforce laws to do so.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On the evening of December 13, the New Jersey Assembly passed A4225. This is the National Popular Vote Plan. It will receive a vote in the State Senate on December 17.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com : 3-Sentence Desciption

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

I understand what they are going after here but I think it’d be better to work at the federal level and remove the electoral college and implement a runoff or instant-runoff popular vote. Or even better… get rid of the whole thing.