Sunday Links

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
  • First Circuit dismisses lawsuit against cop who confronted gun owner holding a licensed, legally concealed weapon; took and kept the gun; then remarked that he was “the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”
  • Great photo.
  • New Irish law took effect Monday that prohibits “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion”
  • General Motors, which is already majority owned by the federal government, hires lobbyists to win more preferential treatment from the federal government.
  • Essays like this one make me wonder how anyone could possibly support laws prohibiting assisted suicide. It’s really the height of hubris to insist someone endure that sort of agony because your personal morality must be the law of the land.
  • “…you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.See if you can guess where that statement was uttered, and by who.

    Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark
  • 66 Responses to “Sunday Links”

    1. #1 |  SJE | 

      Bobzob: who spent more money is rarely the best indicator of who got the most results….otherwise 90% of D.C. public school students would be headed for ivy league colleges.

    2. #2 |  AJP | 

      The First Circuit decision in the gun case is bad, but if you read to the end of the opinion, you see they never addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim, because he didn’t properly raise it below. In the absence of the Second Amendment, the rest of the opinion becomes a simple case of “the office saw a guy with a pistol walking toward a courthouse, so of course he was allowed to stop him.” It would be very interesting to see how this case played out if the plaintiff had raised a Second Amendment claim in the district court. I think there is a similar case going on in Georgia, and I believe the plaintiff there has included a Second Amendment claim, so we’ll have to see how that plays out.

    3. #3 |  bobzbob | 

      “Bobzob: who spent more money is rarely the best indicator of who got the most results….otherwise 90% of D.C. public school students would be headed for ivy league colleges.”

      The fact that the pharma companies now have moved to a model where they rely on the government for most basic research is a strong indicator of who got the most results.

      And yes, v–gra, was privately invented, however its structure was designed to bind phosphodiesterase, whose structure and role in vasodialation was discovered by government funded basic research. No government funding to lead the way, no v–gra.

    4. #4 |  bobzbob | 

      I think it is interesting that Radley’s post asking for a source for my claims gets a +6, while mine asking the exact same thing for his claim gets a -5. Your double standards are showing.

    5. #5 |  Rune | 


      since my replies were eaten, it also ate the sarcasm tags ;) Yes, it was based on government sponsored ground research which pfizer thought they could use for better angina medicine.

    6. #6 |  BamBam | 

      The cop from the first story and the interrogator from the last should both be strung up from a tree upside down with their throats slit.

      #33, they should be Dexterized

    7. #7 |  BamBam | 

      Paul DOESN’T stick to his principles. He inserts pork for his local constituents in federal spending bills just like anyone.

      If money isn’t earmarked, then it goes to the federal government to waste, most likely for War On _____. By using earmarks, at least the money has a chance to be returned from the thief (federal government) and given to the lesser thief (state/local government).
      It’s a tactic that also asserts a principal.

    8. #8 |  scott | 

      The concealed carry decision isn’t entirely surprising, but I’m thrilled to see Radley post a note on the current state of the 2A in this country.

      We’ve seen a small handful of states put forth legislation that, on its face, would preclude any federal .gov involvement in the manufacture, sale or transportation of firearms (under very narrow conditions). Specifically, these states have said that any firearm manufactured and stamped for sale *only* in that state are exempt from any federal meddling; the thinking being that the interstate commerce clause is a nonissue if there’s no, ya know, interstate commerce involved. The BATFE has issued letters to those states’ AGs saying, in effect, “Nice try, folks. But we’re still going to act the ass and hassle your firearms manufacturers and owners at our pleasure.”

    9. #9 |  Dave Krueger | 

      #48 Mike

      Let me make a wild prediction: Ireland’s blasphemy law will only be used when people bash islam. When people say bad things about Christianity, hey, no problem.

      I seriously doubt that Christians have been leading the fight for free speech. According to this article the Christians have already been enjoying that protection for some time:

      The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

      I suppose it never occurred to them that they could achieve equal protection by just eliminating the special treatment for Christians.

      Ireland is a monument to peaceful religious coexistence on about the same level as Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan. While their antagonism might not be all about religion, religion certainly defines the teams.

      Ideas that stand on their own merits don’t need laws to protect them.

    10. #10 |  Stormy Dragon | 

      I’m in favor of allowing assisted suicide in theory, but in practice I oppose it, just because I know in this society it far to easy for “I don’t think life is worth living and I want to die” to slip into “we don’t think you’re life is useful and we want to kill you”. Just look at the health reform bills that passed the house and senate. Do you really want to give them euthansia as a method of cost reduction?

    11. #11 |  Aaron | 

      A very important thing to note about the 1st Circuit case that is conveniently overlooked in the Examiner writeup:

      It’s not a Second Amendment ruling!

      Turns out the lawyer neglected to make a 2nd Amendment claim in his original filing. It was brought up briefly in oral arguments, but with no case law to back it up:

      Schubert did not assert a violation of his Second
      Amendment right in his original complaint. Nor did he file an-14-
      amended complaint to alert the court and the other parties to such
      a claim. He also did not raise the claim in his written opposition
      to summary judgment. The issue was first raised by Schubert at
      oral argument on the motion for summary judgment. Having reviewed
      the transcript, we conclude that his counsel’s references to a
      Second Amendment issue were extremely brief and were unsupported by
      citations to specific case law.

      Since it wasn’t part of the original argument, it wasn’t addressed on appeal, so the 1st Circuit has nothing to say about the 2nd Amendment on this case.

    12. #12 |  MDGuy | 

      OK, give me an example of a major pharmaceutical developed in the last 20 years whose basic research wasn’t funded by the government. And copy cat “me too” drugs don’t count.

      Cystic fibrosis hasn’t received government funding because it’s considred an “orphan disease” – that is, there aren’t enough people suffering from the disease to warrent government funding. Through private donations and corporate giving the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has provided start-up funds for all the major pharmeceutical advances (including the DNA research that identified the defective gene responsible for CF in 1989) that have increased the average life expecatancy of a CF patient from about 3 in the 1950’s to about 37 today.

      CFF Drug Discovery Pipeline

      Just sayin’.

    13. #13 |  MDGuy | 

      Why doesn’t the First Circuit Court just dismiss itself permanentaly? It’s obviously already come to the conclusion that cops should be judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. The court has literally declared itself obsolete.

    14. #14 |  bobzbob | 

      Yes, charity accounts for about 3% of the medical research funding in the US – but that is hardly the profit motive is it?

    15. #15 |  Alex | 

      The quote is from al-Rabiah. Whether or not the interrogator said something close to that or not, the exact quote is from al-Rabiah.

    16. #16 |  Cynical in CA | 

      “First Circuit dismisses lawsuit against cop who confronted gun owner holding a licensed, legally concealed weapon; took and kept the gun; then remarked that he was “the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.””

      I’m completely unsurprised. The State will defend itself and its agents against all comers.

      It’s a shame that the officer didn’t rob the plaintiff or in some way act for personal gain because that’s the only way the plaintiff could have won.

      For the millionth time, if an officer of the State is acting in official capacity, not for personal gain, and does not commit a crime of obvious malice (determined by the State of course), then there will be no sanctions by the State of its agent.


      End of story.

      That’s the world in which you live.