Dangers to Hunting in Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court issued a terrible ruling of June 20, 2007 declaring cities have a right to ban hunting.

"Astonishingly, the court has said that Michigan's citizens who own land or choose to hunt close to their homes within city limits do not have that right," MUCC interim director Donna Stine said. "This ruling ... essentially is a green light to ban hunting," she added. "There simply was no reason for the Supreme Court to make such a radical statement with statewide implications." -- on the MCRGO web site.

From the MCRGO:
The Director of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership is Senator Randy Richardville, R-17, Senate President Pro-Tem. He made the following statement on the Senate floor Thursday vowing to work with the hunting community to find a solution:

Yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Czymbor v. City of Saginaw case that has caused the hunting community in this state to be greatly concerned. The opinion, which further chips away at the rights of hunters and fishermen, is seen as a setback by those in the conservation community. This decision truly has the impact to further threaten our hunting rights in the state of Michigan. A recent survey by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shows hunting and fishing participation down in the region and nationally, and we don't need further discouragement of the sport.

Mr. President and members, I rise today to make sure that sportsmen and women know that I and many members of this legislative body will stand with them and fight for their rights and our state's great outdoor recreational heritage. Hunters and fishermen in this state need to know that we have their backs covered.

Just last month, the Senate ushered in Michigan Conservation Week. We recognized Michigan's great hunting and fishing heritage and the important role the sportsmen and women have in conserving the natural resources of our state now and for future generations. We also passed a four-bill package that protects the rights of hunting and fishing for Michigan residents. With the issuing of this opinion yesterday, we may now need to revisit the issue and make sure that further legislative recommendations will ensure that our recreational heritage remains strong.

I join many members of this body in saying that we will work with groups like the Michigan United Conservation Clubs on a solution that helps to protect these important rights here in Michigan.

-- State Senator Randy Richardville

The Anniversary of "No Duty To Protect Us"

Today is an awful anniversary. Twenty-two years ago this month, an awful criminal act was committed. In response, the courts committed an even worse act.

Early morning on March 16, 1975, two thugs broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C. Three women and a child shared this residence. One woman was attacked and raped on the second floor, while her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

Since the first call was assigned a low priority, the responding officers left quickly after no one answered when they knocked on the door.

The women frantically called the police a second time. The dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

A long time after things went quiet, the third-story women came down to aid their roommate. Only, the attackers weren't gone. They kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over a fourteen hour period.

The women later sued the city and the D.C. police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, but the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.

The Second Amendment is about your right to protect yourself. The Founding Fathers' believed you had a right - and a corresponding responsibility - to defend yourself and those who depend on you. We can't let government abuse this right. After all, no one else is responsible to protect us.

Modern Proof the Second Amendment is not an Anachronism

What is more fun than bashing gun owners? Besides promoting and passing unconstitutional legislation that "takes away" a God-given right codified in the Second Amendment? Nothing, apparently.

The ACLU, "bastion of our civil liberties," states that the Second Amendment is a "collective right," and now applies only to a state having a National Guard. Other opponents state that it is an anachronism, hopelessly outdated. After all, they suggest, "no one should be allowed to have nuclear bombs in their possession," displaying their terrible ignorance of diction by confusing "arms" and "ordnance."

Republican candidates constantly try to soften their anti-gunning views by saying "this won't affect deer hunting," as if the Second Amendment was about hunting.

Others say our society has evolved where police protect us so we no longer need guns, because guns are "bad." I know we should all hold hands, because if we are holding hands, we can't be holding a gun, but this month we sadly commemorate a recent court ruling that showed us one reason why we have a Second Amendment.

Simply put, the police have No Duty to Protect Us.

That's right - they don’t even have to come when you call during that crisis, assuming you could get to the phone. You hear that window downstairs breaking at 2am, you lock your bedroom door and frantically call 911, you wait for the cavalry to arrive. But according to the law, they don't have to come, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The highest court in the District of Columbia stated the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

Twenty-two years ago this month, an awful criminal act was committed. In response, the courts committed an even worse act.

Early morning on March 16, 1975, two thugs broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C. Three women and a child shared this residence. One woman was attacked and raped on the second floor, while her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

Since the first call was assigned a low priority, the responding officers left quickly after no one answered when they knocked on the door.

The women frantically called the police a second time. The dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

A long time after things went quiet, the third-story women came down to aid their roommate. Only, the attackers weren't gone. They kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over a fourteen hour period.

The women later sued the city and the D.C. police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, but the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.

Now, let's just skip the fact that there isn't always a police officer available when you are being attacked by a thug. The police don't even have to respond to your call. What is so anachronistic about the Second Amendment now? What does it have to do with hunting now? What does it have to do with the National Guardsmen and Guardswomen assigned overseas?

Nothing - as always.

The Second Amendment is about your right to protect yourself. The Founding Fathers' believed you had a right - and a corresponding responsibility - to defend yourself and those who depend on you.

So the Second Amendment reminds (not assigns) you that you have the right to protect yourself and others.

By the way, to those who think militias are a thing of the past, who protected neighborhoods right after Hurricane Katrina? The New Orelans Police Department? FEMA? The National Guard? Nope. It was gun-owning citizenry keeping crime out of their neighborhoods by patrolling day and night. It was gun-owning citizenry acting in a militia-capacity.

Now, anti-gunners will take these arguments and try to pervert it right away. They'll label it as an attack on police officers or some such thing. It isn't. I am thankful for the police who protect my city. Buy I also know it is ultimately my responsibility to protect my family and myself. And I know that I have a God-given right to do so, regardless of what the anti-gunners say. You do, too.

Shocking

Almost all moral education is indoctination. It's the reason we have public schools.
- U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf

What was Judge Wolf talking about? He made this comment on a lawsuit brought by parents who object to their 5-year-old son being taught in kindergarten to approve of homosexuality. The school district is asking Wolf to dismiss the lawsuit. Regardless what you think of homosexuality, the statement is shocking.

HT - World Magazine.

Wiretapping In Court

Ah, another battle over the government's right to invade privacy. Oh, wait, isn't it supposed to be about our constitutional rights? I forgot we had any.

A Federal Court case in Detroit opens today to determine how much eavesdropping the government can legally get away with. Sure, since the government doesn't pay attention to law (reference our constitutional rights), this case doesn't matter. But it should be fun to watch. As the Detroit Free Press writes:

The opening salvo of what is sure to be a closely watched and potentially landmark case over whether the U.S. government has the right to eavesdrop on thousands -- and potentially millions -- of telephone and e-mail communications will be fired in federal court in Detroit today.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in January, will ask U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to abolish the Bush administration's program of intercepting international phone calls in its fight against terrorism, saying it violates Americans' free speech and privacy rights.

The Justice Department, which represents the National Security Agency, is expected to argue that the program is legal and a key weapon in the administration's war on terror.

If the Founding Fathers' could see what we've allowed our government to become, they'd roll over in their graves.

Crime Fighting in England - Wouldn't Arrests Work Better?

Photo (AFP/File/Joshua Roberts)

Actual Caption From the Sunday London Express:

Police in northeast England have resorted to a more traditional method for crime-fighting, by enlisting the help of a town cryer, the Sunday Express reported.
Here's what he says whilst ringing a handbell:

"Oyez, oyez, Beware! Burglars, thieves and vagabonds are operating in this area.
"Keep all windows and doors locked. Shut it, lock it, don't give them the opportunity!"

I guess it's cheaper than actually arresting the crooks.

- as reported at Mullings.


In a related note - the London Express also reports that the government is simply "cautioning" - not arresting - at least 40 rapists annually.

crime , England

Property Rights

Keith Carabell stands on his land in Chesterfield Township. Sixteen of his 19.6 acres have been classified as wetlands. Federal regulators prohibited him from filling the land, even though he received a permit from a Michigan administrative law judge.

Photo Copyright 2006 ERIC SEALS/Detroit Free Press


The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two property rights cases from Michigan. The rulings will impact millions of acres of federally-designated "wet land," even if these pieces of land are no where near actual streams, rivers, lakes or other bodies of water.

It also pits the property-rights crowd against the environmental/conservation crowd.

The rulings won't impact two pieces of property in Michigan - they will impact every property owner who wants to do something with his or her property.

The Supreme Court must answer this question: can the federal government restrict development on isolated wetlands not adjacent to navigable streams and lakes to protect water quality?

The Government says "yes." The Clean Water Act allows it to protect isolated wetlands, drainage ditches and tiny streams because of their impact on the health of larger lakes and rivers.

The Property rights crowd says "NO!" The Clean Water Act only regulates navigable waters and wetlands adjacent to them. Applying this Act any other way is effectively a confiscation of private property.

Tags: Property Rights , Environmentalism , Conservation , Supreme Court

Did Jesus Exist? Let a Court Decide?

You know the phrase. "Now I've seen everything," or "now I've heard everything."

I have often uttered "Now I've heard everything." And yet, I frequently re-learn that, no indeed, I haven't heard everything.

This story from Italy really does have me thinking, "now I've heard everything.".

How is this for jurisprudence: a court in Italy is trying to determine if Jesus existed... and if the Roman Catholic Church is breaking the law by teaching Jesus lived around 2,000 years ago!

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Mr. Cascioli is taking Father Righi to court, to make him prove Jesus existed as an historical figure.

"In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

So they are going to a court of law to make a priest prove Jesus existed? Now I've heard everything.

Tags: Jesus , Court