Tucson Sammy

Though the University of Arizona is an institution of higher learning, it appears that the students and faculty are decades behind in regards to the cultural and legal progress of the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

It was back in 1987 that the state of Florida took the lead in passing a new type of concealed carry law. Concealed carry permitting laws that existed prior to that time were actually remnants from the Jim Crow era; permit applications had to be approved by either the local sheriff, judge, or magistrate with no provision for appeal – good luck if you were a man or woman of color. The new permit laws were written so that anyone who met the criteria, “shall” be issued a permit. When the word “shall” is used in the law, it means it must happen, no discretion here, no denying people of color, political adversaries, mother’s-in-law, etc.

Opponents of such laws warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, they never happened. The idea caught on, and Arizona passed a similar bill in 1994. Opponents of the law warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, you know the rest. The phenomenon swept the country, and now 45 of the 50 states have “shall issue” laws of some type.

Intrigued by this wave of new laws, research scientist John Lott (University of Maryland, College Park, University of Chicago, Yale University, and the Wharton School studied crime statistics from vitually all the counties in the United States. He published the results of this work in the book More Guns, Less Crime. According to Lott, enactment of such laws leads to a significant reduction in violent crime, with a slight increase in property crime. Oddly, Lott’s research received no serious challenged by opponents; rather, they generally chose to attack him personally. Ad hominem attacks are like shooting heroine, it feels really good when you’re doing it, but regular use makes you dull, frustrated, and hollow.

The next milestone was the 2008 United States Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v Heller. The court ruled that outright bans on firearms are unconstitutional because the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right. The case was followed by a wave of challenges to onerous restrictions on gun ownership.

It is interesting to note that the Obama administration, and the Democrat controlled congress, have made no attempt – to my knowledge, not even a mention – of any “gun control” initiatives or goals. Actions not taken are as telling as those that are.

So, both the people, and current legal thought, have evoled into a much more liberal (in the classic sense) view of the right ot keep and bear arms. Consistent with this new enlightenment, the Arizona Senate introduced SB 1011. According to the fact sheet, the bill, “Allows a faculty member with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW permit) to possess a concealed firearm on university or college grounds.” This seems like a rather mild adjustment in these enlightened times, particularly in light of the fact that the universities would still have a more oppressive environment that the state as a whole.

Alas, the University of Arizona is a couple of decades behind the progressive (in the literal sense) thought of today. It became a hot topic with the Associated Students of the University of Arizona (ASUA). At a regular meeting, one day after the bill’s introduction, members showed up ready to pass a resolution against the bill. The Arizona Daily Wildcat reported Senator Daniel Wallace saying, “The overwhelming majority of students I’ve talked to are against having guns on campus,” and, “The faculty shares that opinion.”

Really? From where did this archaic mindset come? I think that there is a clue in Wallace’s statement, “The faculty shares that opinion.” Could it be that, for many faculty members, time stopped somewhere back in the late 60’s or 70’s when they entered academia as a career? Are students learning to pay attention, apply thought and reason, or are they being indoctrinated in politically correct thought that has been long abandoned by everyone from the courts, to the politicians, to the people?

We are well into the 21st century. For the benefit of the students, I hope the universities will decide to join us.

The devastation that is now Haiti has revealed the character of both people and nations. In particular, it reveals the economic and cultural superiority of America.

The Haitian situation is special in that there is no single problem that when cured will allow the country to move forward. There is no country left to move forward. The government has collapsed both figuratively and physically – most of the government buildings lie in rubble. President Obama got it right when he sent in the United States military to establish enough order for the relief services to function. He should be praised for acting unilaterally, without concern for the sensitivities of the United Nations, or anyone else for that matter. The world is not doing it. We are doing it, and the world is helping.

For the most part, members of the European Union are cutting checks. Cutting checks is helpful, but somebody has to go in and get it done. America is doing that collectively with hospital ships, cargo planes, and soldiers. America is also doing that privately with retired soldiers, some medical supplies, and private donations – I’m talking about Team Rubicon (http://blog.teamrubiconhaiti.org/). Team Rubicon is a group of retired soldiers, doctors, nurses, and others who organized themselves, flew to the Domincan Republic, crossed the border into Haiti, and is providing emergency medical treatment to people. Private citizens, privately funded, getting it done. It’s an American thing. Who else does this?

While I have none of the qualifications for Team Rubicon, I wanted to at least make my own monetary donation. I saw that the White House set up a site for donations to the federal government effort. That struck me as extremely odd. How will our donations make a difference in the government’s operation? Anyway, I picked Food for the Poor (http://www.foodforthepoor.org/), a Catholic charity that has been feeding people in the Caribbean for decades, and has a special Haitian donation stream. I prefer religious charities since they rarely receive government support, and often see their work as a calling. The problem with government support is that it almost always come with strings that have little to do with the mission, and everything to do with control.

I know that anti-Christian bigotry is fashionable these days, so if you can’t bring yourself to donate to a religious group, and you understand the futility of giving to the government, I have a solution! Richard Dawkins, an atheists’ champion, has started an online charity called Non-Believers Giving Aid (http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/). All the relief money will go to organizations with no religious affiliation.

While I believe government has a role in catastrophic emergency response, I think that ongoing charity should been in private hands. Locally, I apply the same guidelines as I did for Haiti. I picked the Gospel Rescue Mission (no government support) for helping the homeless, and I’m looking at the affiliated Crisis Pregnancy Center for pregnant women who need help. Don’t worry, if you are a secular humanist, there are a number of organizations that are not religious and receive city government money.

The problem with having the government handle our charitable giving for us is the same as having the government handle any of our adult responsibilities. It destroys our character, makes us weak, and removes meaning from our lives. If a government picks a charity to support on our behalf, the charity benefits from the money, but you do not benefit from an act of giving, you do not participated in life. If, on the other hand, you voluntarily take the money your were about to spend on those Green Day concert tickets and give it instead to a local charity, you would benefit from making that choice. It would be a demonstration of your character through your actions, and an indication of your evolving taste in music.

The fertility rate in European social democracies varies from 1.6 to 1.8. In America, it is 2.1, about replacement rate. What does that mean? It means that Europeans have given up on the future, given up on life. Raising children is one more of life’s burdens that they can avoid. Why work hard, take risks, and sacrifice when you can sit in an outdoor cafe on the Left bank, drink coffee, smoke Gauloise cigarettes, and complain about those greedy, unsophisticated Americans?

Am I suggesting that you cancel your iPad order and give the money to charity? Heck no! Work hard, buy stuff, and give money away! This is America!

On Tuesday, January 5, the regular session of the Tucson City Council was move to the Civic Center in anticipation of large protest crowds. The agenda that day included the discussion of budget options, including cuts to public safety and a new “Landlord’s Tax”.

Many people from groups representing police, fire, and renters were there. Volunteers from Tucson Tea Party were selling T-shirts. Trent Humphries, of Tucson Tea Party, was there chatting with people. He said that during the study session earlier that day, Ward VI councilman Steve Kozachic, with budget book in hand, offered a number of specific items in the one to two million dollar category that could be cut from the budget immediately. Humphries also reported that both public safety cuts and the “Landlord’s Tax” were now “off the table.”

The abandonment of the public safety cuts and the new tax appeared to take much of the energy out of the crowd. While many people milled around outside the hall, there were few signs and little excitement among the protestors.

In related news, a committee was formed to recall mayor Bob Walkup and councilmen Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich. The committee includes Umberto Lopez, local developer and investor, and the Tucson Tea Party. Papers are to be filed January 6, 2010.

As I am sure you all know, December 15 was Bill of Rights Day. In Tucson, it was celebrated in a manner reminiscent of colonial times.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791, which would make December 15, 2009 the 218th anniversary of that ratification. The Bill of Rights was critical to the adoption of the United States Constitution itself. A number of states refused to vote for adoption of the constitution because it did not specifically guarantee the rights of individuals. There were others who did not want any enumeration of rights for fear of the list being misinterpreted to mean that rights were limited to those enumerated therein. A deal was struck, and the the United States Constitution was adopted with the condition that the amendments would be adopted. The constitution was adopted, and shortly thereafter, the Bill of Rights was adopted. It has been said that that was the last time a group of politicians kept it’s promise.

I attended an event honoring Bill of Rights Day on Fourth Avenue. It was styled after colonial Committees of Correspondence. These committees were formed by citizens to deal with problems as they arose, or by local governments or institutions to provide news reports for other governments or citizens outside the area. Some committees were ongoing, some were disbanded after the problems for which they were created were resolved. Our committee was not organized (those with libertarian streaks do not organize well); rather, it was an informal meeting of local citizens for the purpose of discussing the first ten amendments and how the current governments might be influenced to abide by the its principles.

Charles Heller, host of the “Swap Shop” and “Liberty Watch” radio shows heard on KVOI 1030 AM, and all around good guy, arranged the event and acted as the moderator. The food was catered by Fourth Avenue Delectables; it was fantastic. Folks volunteered to take turns reading the amendments, including the preamble. After each was read aloud, it was discussed.

At one point, Charles asked Ken Rineer to read the second amendment of the constitution. Ken recited from memory, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize maintain or employ an armed body of men.” There was much smiling, and some chuckling, as the folks in the room recognized his recitation as not the second amendment of the United States constitution, but rather the equivalent in the State of Arizona constitution (Article II, Section 26) – as you can see, a much stronger statement than the federal version. Most states have there own version of a statement of rights in the their respective constitutions similar to the federal Bill of Rights.

The discussion touched on a broad range of topics from the affect of the fourteenth amendment on the application of the Bill of Rights, to state nullification of federal regulation, to the affect on checks and balances of the 17th amendment.

If as I described the discussion, you pictured in your mind’s eye a bunch of suits talking shop, or perhaps a few late middle-aged pony-tailed professorial types , guess again. Were you to line us up along the sidewalk, we would look no different then the folks waiting for the bus. The folks at the event were regular people – no celebrities, no movers, no shakers. They do, however, possess a depth of knowledge of American history and law rarely seen in modern citizenry. Most are engaged in the politics of their city, county, state, and country. This is American citizenship as God and James Madison intended. If this does not make you feel just a little choked-up, I pity you.

It is said that change does not happen from the top down, only from the bottom up. I do not believe that. As I write, we are getting hammered with change from the top down. I do believe that legitimate change only happens from the bottom up. If we all had the same love of America, and sense of civic duty as our neighbors who attended the informal Committee of Correspondence, imagine how much better our governments and institutions would be.

Tucson’s Arizona Daily Star reports that Sentor Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma has written a letter to Malcolm Hughes, and the University of Arizona Legal department, asking him to not destroy records regarding what has come to be known as the “Climategate” scandal. Professor Hughes is also one of the developers, along with Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the controversial “hockey stick” graph.

The “Climategate” scandal involves over one thousand emails and other data that was downloaded from a University of East Anglia server by an unknown hacker. Some of the emails appear to show that researchers were manipulating data to achieve results that would support the theory of man-made global warming. Reports and publications based on these data are used by governments to support and shape international treaties, and “Cap and Trade” type legislation.

Here’s an email that suggests an admission that global temperatures have been dropping for the past ten years – and a prediction by at least one scientist that the cooling will continue until the year 2020:

From: Phil Jones

To: Tim Johns , “Folland, Chris”
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009
Cc: “Smith, Doug” , Tim Johns

.

Here’s a humorous one from Michael Mann in which he diplays the “very thin skin” nature of which he is accused in the quoted text – note that Malcolm Hughes is one of the recipients:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Ray Bradley , “Malcolm Hughes” , Mike MacCracken , Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones

, Tim Osborn , Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “Lonnie G. Thompson” , Kevin Trenberth
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

The Augusta Mining Company’s plan to build an open pit mine in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson has been controversial from the start. The Rosemont Mine project will cover 4,300 acres, about one third of which is privately owned by Augusta, the rest is U.S. Forest Service land. Many support the plan for economic reasons, while others see it as a bight on the landscape and an ecological disaster.

The Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (DMMR) released a describing the economic impact the mine would have. The data are based on a recent assessment conducted by the Arizona State University.

The DMMR included the following in a press release dated November 20, 2009, “During the projected 20-year production/post-production phase, the State of Arizona will see an average annual increase of $907 million per year in economic activity, $214 million in residents’ income, and $32 million in state revenues. The project will support 800 additional jobs for Arizona residents above the 2,100 added in the three-county area.” It also reports that during the twenty year production/post-production phase that “the total gains to the U.S. economy add up to $27 billion in output, $15 billion in gross domestic product, $8 billion in personal income and $3 billion in federal government revenues.”

Along with environmentalists and residents in the area, Pima County has taken an anti-mine position, even though it has no legal authority to participate in the decision process. The U.S. Forest Service has sole authority in that regard.

Ironically, Pima County had an opportunity to purchase the private land (approximately 1,000 acres) prior to Augusta, but turned it down.