by Bob Barr | Jun 5, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWe defenders of the Second Amendment are no stranger to disinformation and ignorance by the Left when it comes to issues regarding firearms in America. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” routinely manipulates gun violence statistics to fit its narrative. The mainstream media still appears willfully ignorant about what is an “assault weapon,” even though they use the term amply in their reporting. And, who can forget Virginia state Delegate Joe Morrissey’s inane rant against gun violence while holding an AK47-style rifle as fellow members pleaded with him to remove his finger from the trigger (a basic rule of gun safety).Yet, an editorial from the Washington Post last weekend sets a new standard for mind-boggling superficiality when it comes to the Left’s lack of understanding about firearms. The editorial itself is a laughably weak criticism of sound suppressors like the one used in last week’s tragic mass murder in Virginia Beach; but one paragraph in particular truly catches the knowledgeable reader’s eye. The author is Juliette Kayyem, a faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; and she writes, “In terms of death-to-time ratio, single-shot weapons are preferable to multi-round handguns and handguns are preferable to the semiautomatic, and the favorite of mass shooters, the AR-15.”Say what? In no way whatsoever does this text make any sense; not mechanically, not factually, and not even grammatically. Still, Kayyem doubles-down on her polemic by boasting on Twitter that her critics were simply “mansplaining” firearms to her because she “know[s] something about guns.” Her editorial suggests otherwise.However, the incoherence of Kayyem’s screed and the smugness with which it is delivered, are par...
by Bob Barr | May 29, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWhen America’s first red light camera system was installed in Jackson, Mississippi in 1992, it was hailed as the beginning of a program that would save lives, improve driving skills, and free police officers from having to monitor busy intersections. The devices sprang up at intersections in cities large and small across the country; fueled by the huge amount of money the devices generated for local governments (and for the private companies that actually owned and operated the cameras and the accompanying software). Defense lawyers, civil libertarians and privacy experts raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of the devices and questioned the manner by which fines were being levied on owners of vehicles nabbed by the electronic cameras. Many complaints focused on the fact that the devices were designed more to generate revenue than for safety. Not surprisingly, however, when questioned about the propriety or legality of charging drivers with expensive traffic offenses, local officials would claim with straight faces that revenue was not the primary – or even a secondary – reason for installing and using the devices; and the money kept rolling in.But something odd was happening at many of the intersections monitored by red light cameras. Even as the number of citations issued for running a red light at such locations increased dramatically, so too did accidents. Studies of this counter-intuitive phenomenon revealed that at camera-monitored intersections, accidents were occurring because drivers – fearful of being caught on camera slipping through a light just before it changed from yellow to red – were slamming on their brakes, and either rear-ending the vehicle in front of them, or...
by Bob Barr | May 28, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerYou can’t be tried twice for the same offense. The concept of being free from “double jeopardy” is a right that has been recognized in law for thousands of years. The ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish legal systems incorporated the principle of double jeopardy in their judicial codes.So fundamental has this right been viewed, that it survived even the ravages visited upon the rule of law during the Dark Ages. The right of a person to be free from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” found its way into the core of our Bill of Rights.Now, in the latest example of a liberal state government placing its hatred of President Trump above respect for long-standing legal tradition, the New York General Assembly has decided to weaken the protection against double jeopardy heretofore enjoyed by those within its borders.First, a note of background.In our federal system of governing, power is shared between the federal and the several state governments, with each constituting a separate and legal “sovereign” empowered and entitled to enforce its code of criminal law; even if doing so places an individual at risk of a successive prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding what appears on its face to be an exercise in “double jeopardy,” the U.S. Supreme Court has long permitted the practice (but a case currently before the High Court for decision could change that).However, recognizing the fundamental unfairness resulting from this application of “dual sovereignty,” many states, including New York, have enacted laws that prevent state prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against a person if that individual had previously been...
