text:
Write Review
Compare Health Providers
West Jefferson Hospital
out of
, based on
ratings and
reviews & complaints.
Most Popular
More Options >
More filter options:
Posted by
MARRERO, LOUISIANA -- Friday evening I took my husband to the ER as his leg was going numb and he was dragging his leg when trying to walk. We went to Oschner Hospital (Meadowcrest) and waited, since it was taking so long we went over to West Jefferson ER, while we didn't wait as long, other things did happen, while waiting in the waiting room to be called, I left my children in their stroller and my husband with them to step out and call my family, I told him if he was called to call my cell I would run right in. He did, as well as two people came out to grab me. I didn't take long and as soon as I saw my husband call, I was running in, as I get inside the nurse is taking my husband away (in the wheel chair) about to leave my kids in the waiting room alone, She continued to try, until my husband put his foot down on the ground and held the brake with his hand. She then informed me as I was trying to go back with him that I couldn't because of my children, but promised me that she would have a nurse let me know what was going on. She at one point offered to watch my kids so I could go back, which I not politely refused as I don't know this woman. She even made a joke about it to another nurse. It seems that Louisiana is big on asking to watch your kids while you do things. Hah, is that why so many kids are missing here in New Orleans?? So this nurse never gave me information about my husband, I had to get it through text messages from my husband. After waiting all through the night with a 9 month old and a 3 year old, I asked again what is going on. She tells me they are going to be discharging him in the next hour if everything comes back normal, so finally I gave up and left to go get some coffee and food, this is nearly 6 in the morning, when I got back I assumed that he was going to be discharged, and he wasn't. I waited and asked once again, when is he going to be discharged or what is going on. At this point, I was frustrated because my kids were tired and needed to be cleaned up at home.
Also on my husbands side, he had nurses who never checked on him, who left him in there when he needed to go to the bathroom, it took several hours to get anything for pain and only gave excuses for why they couldn't give it to him. Ie the doctor was just called away,(our response what happened to him an hour ago) Also not one person who came in to look at him, actually read his chart and kept asking what are you in here for. The chart clearly states, leg pain back pain etc. It was the worst experience in a hospital EVER.
Was this review helpful?
Read 6 Replies
Add reply
Review Link:
User Replies:
Nohandle on 03/25/2007:
It sounds as if your experience at the ER was horrendous. That having been said, in this area I've never heard of hospital personnel offering to look after children while family members go back to check on the one receiving care. I really don't think I would be criticising the hospital staff who offered to care for your children. I'd be grateful myself.
Anonymous on 03/25/2007:
Maybe a letter to hospital administrator's office to let them know of your concerns. As to your husband's pain, nurses cannot administer medication without a doctors order. Not to defend but unless it was apparent that your husband was in immediate danger they probably set him in a lower priority status. But it would have been decent if they had kept you informed as to his status.
tander on 03/25/2007:
I think at most hospitals, when going to the emergency room, there is going to be a long wait unless your in cardiac arrest or unconscious, you can expect to wait. It's too bad family couldn't of babysat for you.
rhondam718732 on 03/27/2007:
Having a 3 yr old myself I know the stress it would have been to b ein your situtation with 2 young children. However, what the hospital did sounds 100% like any ER I have ever been to. There are long waits, gaps of information, etc. An ER has to function for the patients, not the visitors. Visitors are not the focus and so we are left to tend to things on our own accord.
crzybsh on 06/14/2007:
lady , you aint checkin into the Hilton for God sakes!
mommyoftwoboys on 06/15/2007:
First, nurses have stolen newborn babies from the hospital nursery before. Number one reason I do not know this lady, and I am NOT grateful for her telling me she would watch my children, especially when she started taking my husband away from them prior to me getting back to them in the first place, ANYONE could have walked off with my children. At Oschner there was about eh, maybe 7 people in the waiting room the entire time we were in there. People coming out, but nobody going in. We wouldn't have needed to go to the ER if the urgent care center wouldn't have closed 10 minutes early. The healthcare here in this area, is the worst anywhere I have been. We don't have family here, we're military, so my children have to go with me if anything happens to my husband,or to me. Or even if something happens with one of them, the other has to go too. In regards to the ER has to function for the patients. The person taking the patient in, needs to be notified as well as to what is going on. Especially if it ISN'T life threatening. I was not told any update, and we know someone else who had gone to the hospital and the spouse and their children went back there with them. hmmm very odd. Same exact hospital.
Close comments
Add reply
Posted by
HARVEY, LOUISIANA -- First off I went to the hospital and I went to the back the DR was so rude. I asked her if she could take the neck brace off my neck because it was only hurting my back she then replied I'm taking it off now with a real nasty attitude. She didn't want to help me. When I asked for help she would get very rude with me!! West Jefferson hospital has nothing but rude people. I would never bring anyone there.
Was this review helpful?
Add reply
Review Link:
Heart Attack
Posted by
LOUISIANA -- My husband was having a heart attack and drove to the er to get help. He parked his truck in the parking lot close to the er. Instead of rushing him to the back he was told to move his truck to another parking area. That turned out to be the parking garage at the other side of the block. It took him over 15 minutes to get back to the er. I was in route to the hospital. By the time I got there he was in surgery, having a stent put in. He had damage to his heart also.
We told the doctor and he said he would take care of it. He was as upset as we were. The doctors are great there, but I will not let him go back to that death trap.
Was this review helpful?
Read 23 Replies
Add reply
Review Link:
User Replies:
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Did this staff seriously expect a person having a heart attack to drive? If I were you I would write a formal letter of complaint to the hospital CEO, the director of the ER, and also the state medical board. I am not trying to be rude, but your husband could have died, and I'm positive that the last thing they should have been worrying about was where the heck he parked his car. Best of luck to you and your family, I hope your husband makes a speedy recovery. Blessed be.
Here is their contact information, I truly believe you need to alert them to this situation right away.
1101 Medical Center Blvd.
Marrero, LA 70072
1-504-347-5511 (Phone)
1-504-349-6299 (Fax)
Charlotte Roussel-Chairman
A. Gary Muller- President and CEO
Erie Hebert-SVP
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
On our local TV they run a public service ad pretty regularly which states, in part, if you think you are having a heart attack, DO NOT attempt to drive yourself to the hospital. When he was confronted bythe guards, did he make it clear to them that he needed immediate attention? They may have thought he was there to visit somebody.
I hope he is now doing well.
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Ken that's what I want to know myself. Did the people who told him to move his car not realize that he was ill, did he not tell them he was having a heart attack? If he told them he was having a heart attack and they still made him move his car, they are totally in the wrong and could be sued.
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
Ken and AlleyS: Many people drive to the hospital in mid-MI (heart attack). They do it so frequently that Ken's local TV station ran advice against the practice. The problem is, heart attacks don't always act the same. People, being people, panic and do the wrong thing...a lot of the time. The actions of the hospital staff were atrocious. Since your husband had a documented heart event, he may have suffered more cardiac damage because care was delayed because he was forced to move his car. Speak with a personal injury attorney at once. More damage to the heart now, makes another heart attack later more likely. From my nick, one may rightly assume that I seldom recommend PI lawyers. In this case, it is warranted. Good luck and speedy recovery!
Nohandle on 04/09/2008:
The OP didn't state where her husband was when he realized he was having an attack. A former employee, since retired, had a history of heart problems. He was driving his car and realized the symptoms he was having. Being a short distance from the nearest hospital continued on, pulled into the emergency entrance, pressed and held the horn of his car and emergency personnel came out in less than a minute or so. BTY, he didn't have to worry about parking his car.
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Ghost I've had people come into the ER I worked at complaining of heartburn and a headache and they were having an MI. Women especially for some reason would have more symptoms of GI issues than cardiac issues. Heartburn, sour stomach, back pain, It was surprising and scary. To this day sometimes I wonder if the heartburn is just heartburn.
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
Exactly, Princi. An MI is an MI until proven otherwise via enzymes etc. I am shocked that an ER would treat a person with vague cardiac symptoms so casually. BTW Principissa...just curious...are you Wiccan? Some of your comments suggest so. I ask this with respect.
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Yes I am. :) I'm also an RN.
As far as I'm concerned if this person was so ill that he required emergency surgery to have a stent put in, he was clearly having some major issues.
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
Merry met!! I assumed so (from the kindness shown in your posts) and also assumed you were medically trained. I worked with an RN (Army, and she was a very high quality individual) who was Wiccan and worked in disaster areas with many of your belief. I have always been moved by the compassion shown by those of the Old Religion. I am a cowan...Jewish. And yes, I share your concern for this individual. Clearly, he was poorly handled. Warmest regards.
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Merry Greet! I live in small town Kentucky now, so there aren't many who practice the Religions of Old here. I'm a stay at home mom now, but I'm going back to work once my youngest son goes to kindergarten. Right now I am enjoying the time I have with them.
I have a few friends back home who are Jewish. I've actually gone to Temple with them and it was a very nice service. Hebrew is such a beautiful language.
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
LOL...Small world. I went to your blog site. I lived near Owensboro for a bit...Southern Indiana, Southern Illinois, Western Kentucky. Enjoy your break from work and enjoy the young-uns while you may. I'm curious...back home? Do tell. I'm out for the nite. I had a long day. Take care...and keep the other folks in line on the site. (BTW...Based on our conversation and your posts...I added you to my short 'Trust' list.) Be well!!
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
LOL I'm originally from New Jersey. Born and raised there so for some reason it's still home to me.
Owensboro is only 45 minutes from here! It really is a small world! Thank you for your trust. I will do the same for you. :) Enjoy your night!
DebtorBasher on 04/09/2008:
It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all
There is just one moon
And one golden sun
And a smile means
Friendship to ev'ryone
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
LOL Basher!
DebtorBasher on 04/09/2008:
I just couldn't hold it in any longer! LOL!
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
I actually sang that tonight while I was making dinner. The kids were fighting and hubby was in the bathroom so I kept singing louder and louder until they all looked at me like I was crazy and stopped being so loud.
DebtorBasher on 04/09/2008:
No wonder Hubby stayed in the bathroom for so long!
DebtorBasher on 04/09/2008:
Princi...I always tell my Mom she sings like Lucy..LOL..and I tease her and tell her, "Remember when we were little and you used to sing to us until we fell asleep"...and she'd say yes...then I told her, "Well, we weren't really asleep, we just pretended to be asleep so you would stop singing"...LOL...
Principissa on 04/09/2008:
Anonymous on 04/09/2008:
My family and I once got stuck, mid-stream you could say, on that Disneyland ride. The sad part was the music never stopped. For the longest time, I never wanted to hear that tune again (and neither did my kids)! Now it's just a fond memory. Funny how time heals all wounds!
DebtorBasher on 04/09/2008:
Dianec, that song is too long even when the ride doesn't get stuck!
CrazyRedHead on 04/09/2008:
I live in KY and I went to the Hospital here and I saw a woman come in and tell the front desk that she is having chest pains. They told her to have a seat and someone would be with her shortly. She sat down and was visibly uncomfortable. It was 20 minutes before they came to get her. Some of us other patients kept going up to the counter to tell the staff that there is someone out here having chest pains and possibly a heart attack. They kept telling us to sit. Finally we got tired of this and went through the doors and inside and got a doctor. They took her immediately back.
I was in with abdominal pain and was eventually diagnosed as having a virus, I ended up at the other hospital a few days later in emergency surgery with an infected, ready to burst gallbladder.
Needless to say, I will never go there again.
Sandy Roberts on 07/31/2011:
My nephew, age 11, was take to the ER at WJ by his dad last night. He was having chest pains, has not been able to eat all day long, hard time drinking anything, trouble sleeping cause chest hurts so bad, going on for more than a couple of days, and the child has a family history with heart problems. A nurse practitioner who did not even perform 1 test on this child, and said this was not an emergency. The nurse said he had a pulled muscle and said he should see his doctor. What has happened to Health Care at WJ ER? I would not bring my dog to this ER.
Close comments
Add reply
Top of Page
Next Page >
Consumer Resources
Company Responses
Site Rules
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
About Us


text:
Ahoy there, Cruise Loggers! While Gene Sloan enjoys a few days off, several of us from USA TODAY's Travel staff will be filling in with the latest cruise news. Today, your guest blogger will be Laura Bly, a veteran travel writer in USA TODAY's Destinations & Diversions section.
Aging baby boomers, take note: If you've ever fantasized about getting shipshape with ThighMaster queen Suzanne Somers, here's your chance. The preternaturally perky actress and self-help author is headlining a Nov. 10-15 cruise from Ft. Lauderdale on MSC Cruises' new Poesia, an Italian-flavored ship that typically sails the Mediterranean.
According to SuzanneCruise.com, the fall cruise to Ocho Rios, Jamaica, and Georgetown, Grand Cayman, will include fitness classes, presentations by guest speakers, multiple networking and "Suzanne fun" events, and reveal Somers' "personal secrets to attaining optimum health." (Those secrets, featured on a recent Oprah show, include a controversial regimen of hormone therapy.) Early booking rates for the Suzanne Cruise start at $599 per person, double occupancy.
So tell us, Cruise Loggers - would you be tempted to book a cruise with the former Three's Company bombshell? And if you had the opportunity of sailing with another fitness guru, who would it be?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Authority (Ch 1) Dr.Sunny Bhaskaran - Today's Christian Videos
"BEAUTY FOR ASHES"~ The COX Sisters (cover of Crystal Lewis & Ron Kenoly) - @yakwild
00:03:12 1534 views
The Making of "IZZI RAY" (Crystal Lewis' daughter's debut album~released 2-28-12) - @yakwild
00:03:48 1646 views
Embed yakwild 2137 views 2010-10-01T23:16:32 FAITH ON FIRE is a public access program from Yakima, Wa. Dr. Sunny Bhaskaran and Brian Jones are the speakers. Dr.Bhaskaran also has programs that broadcast in India.
More Today's Christian Videos
- The incredible testimony behind the song Dance Again by LIFE WorshipInspirational Videos
- Carrie Underwood's Stunning Performance Of 'O Holy Night' Will Leave You Speechles...Music Videos
- Jackie Evancho in a Stunning Christmas Performance of Silent NightInspirational Videos
- Amazing Christmas Version Of 'Hallelujah' Reminds Us What The Season Is Really Abo...Music Videos
- 7-Year-Old Will Leave You Speechless With 'What Child Is This?'Music Videos
- Hilarious Family Sends Out Video Christmas Card In Their PajamasComedy Videos
- You'll Be In AWE Of This Incredible A Cappella Christmas ClassicMusic Videos
- You'll FEEL God's Arms Of Love On This Heartfelt Performance With An AMAZING Endin...Music Videos
- Celtic Thunder's Christmas 'Hallelujah' Will Give You Chills Upon Chills. WOW!Music Videos
- Darius Rucker Sings Emotional Holiday Song 'What God Wants For Christmas'Music Videos
- Where's the Line to See Jesus? – Official Music VideoMusic Videos
- One House Gives EPIC Christmas Light ShowMovies
No playlists found for this account.


text:
Utica Weather
Current Temp 22.0 °F
Wind : Calm
Humidity : 82 %
Pressure : 1025.4 mb
Avalanche Warning44.151728 -73.979831
Avalanche warning issued for Adirondacks
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - The state Department of Environmental
Conservation is warning Adirondack back country visitors to be aware of the danger of avalanches.
Recent snowstorms have brought a significant amount of new snow to the region, and that has created conditions conducive to avalanches -- especially on steep, open slopes.
Two skiers triggered an avalanche on Wright Peak near Lake Placid on Saturday. Neither was injured, but the incident underscores the risk of current conditions.
The DEC says the threat of avalanche typically increases during and immediately after major snowfalls, as well as during thaws.
Back country skiers and climbers should know avalanche rescue
techniques, carry safety equipment including a transceiver and shovel, and never travel alone.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
More On Demand mini
Most Popular
What's On


text:
Screen Shot 2012-04-27 at 9.12.32 AM
by Michael van Baker on April 27, 2012
Filed under
What's on your mind? Cancel reply
is an online magazine of news & culture. A conversation about the things on Seattle's mind.
- More about us.
- Got a tip for us? Send an email to News and Tips. To contribute, email us your story idea.
- Follow us on Twitter @thesunbreak or Like us on Facebook.
Dear Constant Readers:
You can subscribe to The SunBreak for just $5 per month, and help keep the news & culture coming. Cancel anytime.
Thank you!


text:
|Project by Rockbuster
|posted 05-25-2013 02:37 PM
|1316 views
|5 times favorited
|18 comments
I recently did a genealogy search on my grandfather, and incorporated the services of two wonderful lady professors in New Jersey, my cousin, and her friend ,They were very helpful in my search,so i decided that they should be rewarded for their efforts. I made these little bowls using three layers of shop scraps, and some extra corian that was laying around the shop. The bowls are about 4.50" wide, and 1.75" deep
C&C Welcome
-- Rockbuster,Ft. Wayne,In It is far better to remain silent, and appear the fool, than it is to open ones mouth, and remove all doubt.
18 comments so far
#1 posted 05-25-2013 02:45 PM
Very cool. I like em a lot ! JB
#2 posted 05-25-2013 02:49 PM
don, They are really fancy and I love em. I bet they do too.
-- Bob, Western Australia, The Sun came up this morning, what a great start to the day. Now it's up to me to make it even better.
#3 posted 05-25-2013 03:01 PM
Those are beautiful. I think that they will be a much appreciated gift.
-- "While the world with closed eyes sleeps, The sky knows and weeps - steel rain. " ― Nathan Bell
#4 posted 05-25-2013 03:02 PM
Totally unique an attractive,very nice work. These are super thank you gifts.
-- http://artisticwoodstudio.com Custom furniture
#5 posted 05-25-2013 03:33 PM
That is a very interesting use of scraps, shows that you shouldn't discard your little bits.
-- Al Holstein "I wood do it"
#6 posted 05-25-2013 04:18 PM
NICE!! I like the Corian accents!
-- I didn't go to college, I was too busy learning stuff - Ted Nugent
#7 posted 05-25-2013 05:45 PM
Scraps! You could of fooled me! Those are sweet Don! They are great gifts. I like the grain pattern and the Corian is a nice touch. Very unique!
-- Tony C St Augustine FL, My high school shop teacher said "You can do it"... Now I can't stop!
#8 posted 05-25-2013 06:48 PM
These boxes are very nice and made wonderful gifts. I'm sure they were pleased with them.
helluvawreck aka Charles
-- If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. Henry David Thoreau
#9 posted 05-25-2013 07:14 PM
Awesome gifts !! They are quite beautiful and very unique : )
-- I'm absolutely positive that I couldn't be more uncertain!
#10 posted 05-25-2013 08:42 PM
Makes me wonder what I can do to help with your genealogy search!
-- Kate, http://www.wooden-box-maker.com
#11 posted 05-25-2013 08:42 PM
Oh wow, I love these!!
-- Mike, an American living in Norway.
#12 posted 05-26-2013 03:13 AM
thanks for all the fine comments
-- Rockbuster,Ft. Wayne,In It is far better to remain silent, and appear the fool, than it is to open ones mouth, and remove all doubt.
#13 posted 05-26-2013 07:29 AM
These are some good looking bowls and now you have given me an idea of how to use my scrap paper counter top material.
It looks like, feels like, and machines like Corian without the grit and comes in many different colors!
-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"
#14 posted 05-26-2013 12:40 PM
cute bowls & and nice rolly=polly shape
-- We call the destruction of replaceable human made items vandalism, while the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources is called development.
#15 posted 05-26-2013 02:27 PM
great project very unique,they will like them very much…
-- Jeff,Tucson,Az.
showing 1 through 15 of 18 comments
Have your say...
You must be signed in to post the comments.


text:
Current Articles
From the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
-- Have you heard of some of the new recreational license opportunities, such as early renewal discounts,
multi-year licenses, stacking licenses and combo licenses? All of these new options are a way to accommodate the needs of hunters and anglers in the State, according to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division.
For those potential hunters and anglers who are not yet ready to make an annual license purchase the 3-day combo license allows for hunting and fishing privileges for only $3.50.
Combining hunting and fishing opportunities not only offers a convenience to the sportsman - but can also save money. Before, Georgia offered only a 1-day resident fishing license for $3.50 and a 1-day
resident hunting license for $5.50. Now, potential hunters or anglers can buy a license that will last for 3 days for the same cost of the old 1-day fishing only license. That gives value to the license by increasing the number of days and includes fishing privileges on wildlife management areas and on public fishing areas.
For more information, visit www.georgiawildlife.com.
Customer Service • Email Us • Advertise • Join Buckmasters
© Buckmasters.com, All Rights Reserved. • 10350 Highway 80 East • Montgomery, AL • 36117 • 334-215-3337


text:
Upcoming U.S. Cellular Phones
- Show:
- All
- Smartphones
- Tablets
- Sort
- Filter
Google Nexus 6Compare9 reviewThe Nexus 6 is powered by the Snapdragon 805 system chip, the jewel in Qualcomm's 32-bit crown. This is the last iteration of Qualcomm's Krait CPU core architecture, with four cores running at up to 2.65GHz, along with 3GB of RAM, and Adreno 420 graphics. The devices sports a 5.96" AMOLED screen with 1440x2560 pixels resolution, a 13-megapixel shooter capable of capturing 4K videos, a secondary 2-megapixel unit can be found on the front alongside the two front facing speakers.+ View Specs
9Google Nexus 6
Upcoming U.S. Cellular phones
Filter criteria:
Upcoming U.S. Cellular phones


text:
Preview is not available;
Dapatkan link lagu dan video dangdut-koplo hanya di http://www.dangdut-koplo.com | Dangdut-Koplo.com - MUSIK ASLI INDONESIA - Free download mp3 dengan kualitas prima.
| Uploaded via: 4shared FTP service
Share Add to my account
Is owner
View only
Upload & Edit
Members may only view items in this folder.
Members may view, add, edit and delete items in this folder.
Checked by McAfee. No virus detected.
2 comments Add new comment
Wrong code entered. Please, try again.
Enter the code above to post message:
Remove Ads x
Masa Lalu - Ayu Arsitha - New Pallapa li...File QR Code


text:
Mike Sadowski is a retired salesperson from a local international manufacturing company. He has a long standing interest in history and associated subjects.
Spring 2015 Osher Catalog
Or download the PDF
Member Quote
"I find membership to be fulfilling. I enjoy the friendships I've made. The courses are intellectually stimulating."
- Stephanie Kasper
Learn about the real-world impact of workplace changes. Hear what leaders in both business and academia have to say and help propel yourself or your company into the future. Learn more>>


text:
We are the Puget Sound's leading Dive Charter Company. Based out of Tacoma Washington.
For information regarding South Sound Charter availability, or reservations, contact Rick Myers @ 253-973-0370. For business other than charter information please email Rick using the link on the left.
If you're looking for an unforgettable scuba diving experience with the most professional crew in Puget Sound, call Bandito Charters. Our staff of true dive professionals have over forty years experience in boat handling and diving. To us, your safety and comfort come first.
Bandito Charters can accommodate individual walk-ons, groups of as few as 2 to as many as twenty. We have two dive boats available to service your needs. We cater to individuals, open water classes, instructors with specialty classes, night and technical diving. Rick would be happy to customize a charter around your needs. Non diving children under 12 years old require a non diving adult.
Bandito Charters is a year round company with charters running every weekend. We also run a number of mid- week charters. If you're a single diver just trying to get a break from your work week, or a small group planning a special trip, give Rick a call and see what he has going. Rick will run a charter mid week for four or more divers. If you are interested give Rick a call, you may be the 4th person needed to make a run.
Thanks for visiting and come back soon,
Bandito Staff
Please do not arrive at Delin Docks until specified load time.
If gates are closed please DO NOT UNLOAD in the parking lot. Please wait on the street until the gates open at 7:55 AM.
Delin Docks is a liveaboard marina. Please respect the tenants privacy and do not wander the docks. Please keep the noise to a minimum.
Please - No weights in gear bags.
Non diving children under 12 years old require a non diving adult.
Cancellation Policy - All charters are to paid for in advance, and no refund will be given for any cancellation within 24 hours of departure.


text:
Masterful review and photographs for architecture, innovation, conservation, and construction that deserves earned both.
This is the future of architecture and building. "Low-key," and do-it-yourself are so "now."
An online journal about visual art, the urban landscape and design. Mary Louise Schumacher, the Journal Sentinel's art and architecture critic, leads the discussion and a community of writers contribute to the dialogue.
Too often, green architecture manifests like a concept car. Projects that represent the possible rather than the probable seem to fill the glossy pages of architecture magazines and snag headlines.
These sustainable projects can be incredibly expensive, exquisitely beautiful and – ironically – situated in sumptuous swaths of landscape.
What we might need instead, at a time when 40% of the world's energy is gulped down by our buildings, are more projects that are radically green but deeply pragmatic, too.
Being down to earth for the sake of the Earth is not so easy, though. »Read Full Blog Post
Read and share your thoughts on this story.
Design Ideas is a weekly column exploring the many ways that design intersects our lives.
An ongoing series of interviews with creative people.
Keep up with the art scene and trends in urban design with art and architecture critic Mary Louise Schumacher. Every week, you'll get the latest reviews, musings on architecture and her picks for what to do on the weekends.
Enter your e-mail address above and click "Sign Up Now!" to begin receiving your e-mail newsletter Get the Newsletter!


text:
Britt Nicole Shows Off Her Bowling Skills & Mingles With Fans
Charlotte felt better than gold last night as Capitol Records' newest artist Britt Nicole came to town to bowl with some lucky fans at Strike City. Of course, Britt's not a stranger to these parts. She actually grew up in this area and has been listening to Kiss 95.1 her whole life.
So when she asked to meet some fans we had to say yes! So glad we did because Britt showed up looking cuter than ever to meet and mingle with the most excited fans in the city. (No really, they were so stoked, they couldn't even sit still!)
Britt performed three songs acoustic for her fans including her amazing new hit "Gold", a powerful uplifting song to show everyone they're worthy of more in life than they think. Her songs have such meaning and personality behind them it's no surprise they strike chords with every fan, including a girl who was in tears as she explained her story of depression to Britt before admitting the singer inspired her to focus on the positivity in life.
Britt's new single "Gold" is available now on iTunes, Amazon and every outlet for download and we suggest you go right now and pick it up! Support local music and positive role models.
See pictures of Britt's whole night at Strike City here:
To download your picture:
Safari: Hold down 'control' and click your picture. Click 'Open image in a new tab.' In the URL, erase '?w=420′ and click Enter. This will give you the high quality picture.
Firefox: Right click your picture and click 'view image'. In the URL, erase '?w=420′ and click Enter. This will give you the high quality picture.
Internet Explorer: Right click your picture and click 'properties'. Copy the Address (URL) and paste it in a new window. Erase '?w=420′ and click Enter. This will give you the high quality picture.


text:
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Oregon Supreme Court says federal law does not allow denial of local gun permits for state marijuana users
As detailed in this AP report, today the "Oregon Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a retired school bus driver can have her medical marijuana and a concealed handgun, too." Here are the basics:
The ruling upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court that determined a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify. "We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state's concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses," Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote in the ruling issued in Salem.
Cynthia Willis, one of four plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. "I feel like a big girl now," Willis said. "I feel like a real human being now, not just a source of revenue to the county."
Leland Berger, the attorney representing Willis and other medical marijuana patients in the state, said the ruling was important in the continuing national debate over making marijuana legal to treat medical conditions. "I am hopeful we will end cannabis prohibition the same way we ended alcohol prohibition, which was by refusing to enforce federal laws within the state," Berger said....
Willis, 54, has carried a Walther .22-caliber automatic pistol for personal protection since a messy divorce several years ago. She volunteers at a Medford smoke shop that helps medical marijuana patients find growers, and teaches how to get the most medical benefit from the pound-and-a-half of pot that card carriers are allowed to possess. She uses marijuana cookies, joints and salves to treat arthritis pain and muscle spasms.
Elmer Dickens, a lawyer representing the sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties, said the ruling provided needed clarification on whether the defendants should follow federal or state law on what has been a cloudy issue. Dickens did not anticipate an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, because the ruling focused so tightly on state law. "Every sheriff knows now what the rules are, and we got what we needed," he said.
The ruling also said Congress has no constitutional authority to require states to use gun licensing statues to enforce a federal law like the prohibition on handguns for marijuana users....
Oregon Attorney General John Kroger had argued in favor of the medical marijuana patients and against the sheriffs of Jackson and Washington counties who withheld handgun permits....
Nearly 40,000 Oregonians hold medical marijuana patient cards, with more than 36,000 of them for severe pain, according to Oregon Medical Marijuana Program statistics. Another 22,000 are registered as growers, and 21,000 as caregivers.
The unanimous ruling from the Oregon Supreme Court is available at this link. It will be interesting to see if any federal officials either at the Justice Department or in Congress have any official reaction to this ruling or the broader issues or "lawful" possessors of pot and guns. Because the pot use issue skews left and the gun possession issue skews right politically, I suspect that most federal folks and politicians will just seek to avoid having to discuss this ruling and the intersection of drug policy and gun policy in states like Oregon that tend to favor individuals on both fronts over government control.
May 19, 2011 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Graham and Sullivan Eighth Amendment cases, Gun policy and sentencing, Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Monday, April 04, 2011
"Medical marijuana users fight for gun rights"
The title of this post is the headline of this AP article, which warms my libertarian heart. (Hat tip: How Appealing.) Here are parts of the report:
Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession. Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away.
She is part of what is considered the first major court case in the country to consider whether guns and marijuana can legally mix. The sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties say no. But Willis and three co-plaintiffs have won in state court twice, with the state's rights to regulate concealed weapons trumping federal gun control law in each decision.
With briefs filed and arguments made, they are now waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule. When it's over, the diminutive 54-year-old plans to still be eating marijuana cookies to deal with her arthritis pain and muscle spasms, and carrying her pistol. "Under the medical marijuana law, I am supposed to be treated as any other citizen in this state," she said. "If people don't stand up for their little rights, all their big rights will be gone."...
Oregon sheriffs are not happy about the state's medical marijuana law. "The whole medical marijuana issue is a concern to sheriffs across the country who are involved in it mainly because there is so much potential for abuse or for misuse and as a cover for organized criminal activity," said Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon, who became part of the Willis case because his office turned down three medical marijuana patients in the Portland suburbs for concealed handgun permits. "You can't argue that people aren't misusing that statute in Oregon. Not everybody, of course. Some have real medical reasons. But ...the larger group happens be people who are very clearly abusing it."
The sheriffs argue that the 1968 U.S. Gun Control Act prohibits selling firearms to drug addicts, and they say that includes medical marijuana card holders. Their briefs state that they cannot give a permit to carry a gun to someone prohibited from buying or owning a gun. But the cardholders have won so far arguing this is one situation where federal law does not trump state law, because the concealed handgun license just gives a person a legal defense if they are arrested, not a right.
Oregon's attorney general has sided with the marijuana cardholders, arguing that the concealed handgun license cannot be used to buy a gun, so sheriffs who issue one to a marijuana card holder are not in violation of the federal law....
Sixteen states now have medical marijuana laws, according to NORML, an advocacy group. There is no way to determine how many medical marijuana cardholders also have gun permits. Patient lists are confidential, and an Oregon court ruled the sheriffs can't look at them.
NORML executive director Allen St. Pierre said Oregon courts have not been entirely medical marijuana friendly. While they have upheld the right to pack a pistol, they have also ruled that employers can fire people who use medical marijuana. "A person who uses medical cannabis should not have to give up their fundamental rights as enumerated by the Constitution,"' St. Pierre said. Gordon said he expects the gun issue to come up in other states with medical marijuana laws.
April 4, 2011 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Gun policy and sentencing, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Friday, March 04, 2011
Third Circuit thoughtfully considers and rejects as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1)
The Third Circuit today has handed down a very interesting opinion in US v. Barton, No. 09-2211 (3d Cir. Mar. 4, 2011) (available here), concerning a Second Amendment challenge to the federal crime of felon-in-possession under 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Here is just one of the many interesting passages from the opinion:
To raise a successful as-applied challenge, Barton must present facts about himself and his background that distinguish his circumstances from those of persons historically barred from Second Amendment protections. For instance, a felon convicted of a minor, non-violent crime might show that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen. Similarly, a court might find that a felon whose crime of conviction is decades-old poses no continuing threat to society. The North Carolina Supreme Court did just that in Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009), finding that a felon convicted in 1979 of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, at least as that right is understood under the North Carolina Constitution. Id. at 323.
Unlike the defendant in Britt, Barton fails to develop the factual basis for his as-applied challenge. Barton does not argue that his predicate offenses make him no more likely than the typical citizen to commit a crime of violence, nor could he have done so persuasively in light of the facts of his case. Courts have held in a number of contexts that offenses relating to drug trafficking and receiving stolen weapons are closely related to violent crime.... Moreover, the record indicates that Barton has not been rehabilitated, as he recently admitted to selling a firearm with an obliterated serial number to a confidential police informant. Because Barton has failed to demonstrate that his circumstances place him outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1), we find no error in the District Court's dismissal of his as-applied challenge.
March 4, 2011 in Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Two notable case notes in latest Harvard Law Review
The February 2011 issue of the Harvard Law Review includes brief notes on two significant federal circuit court rulings that have both gotten considerable attention on this blog:
Second Circuit Holds Within-Guidelines Child Pornography Sentence Procedurally and Substantively Unreasonable. — United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010)
En Banc Seventh Circuit Holds Prohibition on Firearm Possession by Domestic Violence Misdemeanants to Be Constitutional. — United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
February 24, 2011 in Booker in the Circuits, Recommended reading, Second Amendment issues, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Fourth Circuit orders Second Amendment hearing to assess constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)
The Fourth Circuit has added a final bit of Second Amendment fireworks to close out 2010 through a long decision today in US v. Chester, No. 09-4084 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 2010) (available here). Here is how the majority opinion by Chief Judge Traxler starts and ends in Chester:
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether William Samuel Chester's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) abridges his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). We vacate the decision below and remand for further proceedings....
We cannot conclude on this record that the government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the important object of reducing domestic gun violence and § 922(g)(9)'s permanent disarmament of all domestic violence misdemeanants. The government has offered numerous plausible reasons why the disarmament of domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to an important government goal; however, it has not attempted to offer sufficient evidence to establish a substantial relationship between § 922(g)(9) and an important governmental goal. Having established the appropriate standard of review, we think it best to remand this case to afford the government an opportunity to shoulder its burden and Chester an opportunity to respond. Both sides should have an opportunity to present their evidence and their arguments to the district court in the first instance.
Here is how Judge Davis starts and ends a quite lengthy concurrence:
In light of the highly persuasive decision of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc), pet. for cert. pending, sustaining the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), the district court should have no difficulty in concluding that the application of § 922(g)(9) to offenders such as Chester passes Second Amendment scrutiny, exactly as district courts have already concluded. See United States v. Smith, 2010 WL 3743842 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 20, 2010) (applying Skoien and sustaining statute); United States v. Staten, 2010 WL 3476110 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 2, 2010) (same)....
I can foresee no difficulty for the district court in sustaining the constitutional validity of the application of § 922(g)(9) in this case. Nevertheless, under the circumstances of the law's understandably slow evolutionary course of development, I am content to give Appellant Chester a full opportunity to offer evidence and argument showing the district court how and why he escapes the law's bite.
A few related Second Amendment posts:
- Can dismissed domestic violence complaint justify revoking gun permit?
- Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoienupholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment
- Notable press account of Skoein Second Amendment ruling with partisan perspectives
- Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence
- Fourth Circuit (unpublished!?) opinion follows Skoien on Heller challenge to § 922(g)(9) ... just after Seventh Circuit vacates it
- Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal conviction for misdemeanant firearm possession
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
- "The Standardless Second Amendment"
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has this effective new post discussing the Chester opinion, which has prompted an interesting comment dialogue about whether and how often minor matters get turned into domestic violence misdemeanor. And, like the thoughtful comments below, folks at Volokh are discussing whether William Samuel Chester's makes an effective poster-child for Second Amendment rights.
December 30, 2010 in Gun policy and sentencing, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Notable Cato review of modern Bill of Rights on their day
Tim Lynch has a this notable post (with losts and lots of links) at the Cato@Liberty blog under the simple heading "Bill of Rights Day." The whole post is worth checking out, and here are parts that highlight some criminal justice stories:
Since today is Bill of Rights Day, it seems like an appropriate time to pause and consider the condition of the safeguards set forth in our fundamental legal charter. Let's consider each amendment in turn....
The Second Amendment says the people have the right "to keep and bear arms." Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms....
The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches and crotch inspections....
The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused shall enjoy a speedy trial, a public trial, and an impartial jury trial. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial. That is why 95% of the criminal cases never go to trial....
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that jailing people who try in ingest a life-saving drug is not cruel....
It's a depressing snapshot, to be sure, but I submit that the Framers of the Constitution would not have been surprised by the relentless attempts by government to expand its sphere of control. The Framers themselves would often refer to written constitutions as mere "parchment barriers" or what we would describe as "paper tigers." They nevertheless concluded that putting safeguards down on paper was better than having nothing at all. And lest we forget, that's what millions of people around the world have — nothing at all.
December 15, 2010 in Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Another star going to NY prison for years for gun possession... and prompting more Second Amendment wondering
As detailed in this news report, "Ja Rule became the latest US rapper to face jail on a gun charge, after pleading guilty Monday in New York to attempted possession of a weapon, prosecutors said." Here are the basics:
Ja Rule, whose real name is Jeffrey Atkins, is expected to be sentenced to two years behind bars and 18 months of supervised release after pleading guilty to attempted criminal possession of a .40 caliber handgun.
Sentencing is on February 9, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney's office said. A more severe punishment could have been expected had Ja Rule gone to trial and been convicted.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said that the city, which has some of the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation, is still working to stem gun violence. "Gun crimes are serious offenses and today's guilty plea should send a serious message to anyone thinking of illegally bringing a gun into New York City," he said.
The rapper was caught with the pistol in his sports car after a 2007 concert in Manhattan. He had been performing alongside rapper Lil Wayne who was also charged with gun possession in a separate arrest and spent much of 2010 in prison.
Though I do not know all the details surrounding Ja Rule's gun possession and the plea deal his attorney's worked out here, I do know that I continue to be disappointed and somewhat surprised that high-profile celebrity defendants facing serious prison time for mere gun possession are not trying to actively litigate a Second Amendment defense to their prosecution. Assuming all that the Ja Rule did wrong was to possess a handgun and that he could reasonably claim that he possessed this handgun for personal self-defense, I do not fully understand why Ja Rule and his lawyers (and his agents) would not want to try to litigate a Second Amendment claim based on Heller and McDonald through the New York state courts.
For low-profile and not-wealthy defendants, I can understand how the notoriety and economic costs of a Second Amendment challenge may make such a defense to gun possession charges not worth pursuing. But for a rapper like Ja Rule, the notoriety could be a benefit to his career and the economic costs should not be a show-stopper. (Indeed, I suspect some public interest lawyers might even take on a high-profile constitutional case like this at a discount.) Moreover, Ja Rule would likely be able to stay out on bail while this kind of claim was litigated, and the prospects for a good plea deal would not seem to get much worse from the decision to litigate a constitutional challenge to the very law with which the defendant is charged.
If Ja Rule has a long criminal history of other offenses or if there are other factors preventing him from being a sympathetic Second Amendment litigator, then I guess I understand why he might accept two-years in prison for simple gun possession. But lots of defendants get much less prison time for crimes that seem much worse and do not have even the patina of the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Thus, I never quite understand why defendants like Ja Rule and Plaxico Burress and Lil Wayne accept deals that mean long stretches in prison for doing something that a majority of the Supreme Court might well say is constitutionally protected to do.
December 14, 2010 in Gun policy and sentencing, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Media reports on public support for Atkins, Graham, Heller and Roper
As detailed in this new press story, which is headlined "Public backs most high court rulings," a recent report suggests that the general public is generally supportive of the Supreme Court's recent pro-defendant Eighth Amendment rulings and pro-gun Second Amendment ruling. Here are snippets from the press story:
The Supreme Court shifted to the right four years ago when conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. succeeded moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. And if American public opinion is the measure, the Roberts court has made the right call in most of its major decisions since then, according to a recent study that asked respondents about cases.
A strong majority favored conservative rulings that prohibited "partial-birth" abortions, upheld a homeowner's right to have a gun, and required voters to show photo identification.
The majority also supported liberal rulings that said environmental regulators could restrict the carbon pollution linked to global warming and that struck down state laws that put juvenile criminals in prison for life without hope for parole....
Columbia University law professor Nathaniel Persily said the court historically has been "to the left of the public" on issues that attract attention, such as crime, religion and affirmative action. Along with Harvard political science professor Stephen Ansolabehere, he set out to survey the public's view of actual cases. Their Constitutional Attitudes Survey asked more than 1,600 respondents in 2009 and 2010 about issues that were before the Supreme Court....
Overall, the court's current and nuanced position on the death penalty and abortion is in line with public opinion, the survey found.
A majority supports the death penalty for murder, and the court has upheld capital punishment. The public also agreed with the rulings that ended the death penalty for those who are mentally handicapped (in 2002) and for those under age 18 at the time of their crimes (in 2005).
On abortion, the public supports –- by a 61 percent to 38 percent majority –- the Roe v. Wade ruling that set forth the right to an abortion, but it also supports regulations and restrictions, including limits on late-term abortions.
At Nathaniel Persily's webpage, I found what appears to be the July 2010 report on the Constitutional Attitudes Survey upon which this press article is based. This 113-page "Constitutional Attitudes Field Report" (which is available for download below) is a bit hard to sort through, and I was not able to find the results showing public agreement with the 2010 Graham LWOP decision. Also, though not reported by the press, it appears that the survey also revealed strong disagreement with the Supreme Court's 2008 Kennedy decision prohibiting the death penalty for child rapists.
Download Constitutional Attitudes Field Report_Client-1
UPDATE: Via a helpful e-mail, Professor Persily has clarified where the Graham results can be found and what they showed:
We asked the following question (page 99 of the codebook):
In general do you agree or disagree with the following statements: A state should be allowed to sentence for life in prison a person under 18 years of age for armed burglary.
Stongly agree 10.9%
Agree Somewhat 24.6%
Disagree Somewhat 38.0%
Strongly disagree 23.4%
Refused to answer 3.1%
October 17, 2010 in Graham and Sullivan Eighth Amendment cases, Kennedy child rape case, Second Amendment issues, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
"The Standardless Second Amendment"
The title of this post is the title of this new Issue Brief authored by Tina Mehr and Adam Winkler coming from the American Constitution Society. At this link, here is how ACS describes the piece:
ACS is pleased to distribute "The Standardless Second Amendment," by Tina Mehr, an Attorney Fellow at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and Adam Winkler, a Professor of Law at the University of California Los Angeles. In their issue brief, Ms. Mehr and Professor Winkler discuss the state of Second Amendment law following the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The authors observe that "[i]t is often said that there are 20,000 gun control laws in the United States," and these two decisions, which "held that the Second Amendment guaranteed individuals a right to possess firearms for personal protection," raise questions about the constitutionality of these laws. Despite the Court's two recent decisions, Ms. Mehr and Mr. Winkler argue that "Second Amendment doctrine is profoundly unsettled" and that "the Supreme Court failed to give [lower courts] adequate guidance on how to resolve gun control controversies." The authors discuss how courts have been resolving these disputes and the implications for future cases. They conclude by contending that, "even in the absence of sufficient guidance about how to analyze Second Amendment controversies, the lower courts have consistently read Heller and McDonald to permit lawmakers wide latitude to protect public safety through gun laws."
October 13, 2010 in Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Can dismissed domestic violence complaint justify revoking gun permit?This local story from Massachusetts provides an interesting spin on both "sentencing" based on dismissed charges and the Second Amendment rights of those accused of violent behavior. The piece is headlined "Man challenges state gun law: Constitutionality of 2005 permit revocation questioned," and here are the details:
Citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a Shrewsbury man is challenging the constitutionality of a state law under which his license to carry a firearm was revoked five years ago by Police Chief Gary J. Gemme. Lawyer Mel L. Greenberg, who represents Raymond J. Holden, filed an amended petition in Central District Court Sept. 10 appealing Chief Gemme's 2005 revocation of Mr. Holden's firearms license based on a determination that Mr. Holden was not a "suitable person" to carry a gun.
In a memorandum of law accompanying his amended petition, Mr. Greenberg said the term "suitable person," as it appears in the law, is unconstitutionally vague given the Supreme Court's June 28 ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. The nation's highest court ruled in a 5-4 decision in that case that the Second Amendment grants citizens a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be infringed upon by state and local governments.
Mr. Holden, who has a place of business in Worcester, had been granted a license to carry a firearm in 2001, but the license was suspended by Chief Gemme on Sept. 14, 2005, four days after Mr. Holden was arraigned in Westboro District Court for an alleged assault on his wife. The assault and battery complaint was dismissed Oct. 3, 2005, after Mr. Holden's wife recanted a statement in a Shrewsbury Police Department incident report.
Judge Dennis J. Brennan, since retired, then ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Holden's license in light of the dismissal of the assault charge. Chief Gemme followed the court's order, but then revoked the license, saying he could consider underlying evidence that a crime had occurred even if a charge had been dismissed....
"The McDonald ruling adds the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the list of fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. Consequently, any state statute or regulation which restricts or regulates such a right is subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny to insure that it reasonably regulates without infringement of that right and that its application does not result in a denial of due process rights," Mr. Greenberg wrote.
Vague laws violate due process "because citizens do not receive fair notice of the conduct proscribed by the statute and because they do not limit the exercise of discretion by officials, creating the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement," the lawyer said in his memorandum.
As regular readers know, the Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of enhancing an offender's criminal sentence based on acquitted and dismissed conduct. But, of course, in those cases the offender has been duly found guilty of some other offense.
Here, Mr. Holden has not been convicted of anything at all. But, of course, he also is not being sentenced, just having his gun permit revoked. And if Police Chief Gary Gemme has a sound basis for concluding that Mr. Holden did in fact beat his wife, his permit revocation decision would seem to accord with Congress's basic view (which finds expression in federal criminal law) that a person who commits even a minor form of domestic violence should never be allowed to possess a firearm under any circumstances.
September 18, 2010 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Eighth Circuit (gleefully?) rejects Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(3)The Eighth Circuit today in US v. Seay, No. 09-2778 (8th Cir. Sept. 8, 2010) (available here), rejects yet again a federal defendant's effort extend the reach of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment work in Heller. That fact alone is not especially notable, but I could not help but notice that the panel seems almost gleeful to reject a Second Amendment claim. The Seay opinion works hard to dodge an appeal waiver in order to address the Second Amendment merits, and then it has this to say (with lots and lots of cites omitted):
Following Heller, many defendants have argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), or some subsection thereof, violates the Second Amendment. To date, none have succeeded. For example, we have upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession). Our sister circuits have upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), as well as § 922(g)(4) (persons committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as a mental defective) and § 922(g)(9) (persons convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor)....
Turning to the subsection at issue here, § 922(g)(3) makes it unlawful for anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess a firearm.... Following Heller, one circuit and several district courts have upheld § 922(g)(3) against Second Amendment attack....
Nothing in Seay's argument convinces us that we should depart company from every other court to examine § 922(g)(3) following Heller. Further, § 922(g)(3) has the same historical pedigree as other portions of § 922(g) which are repeatedly upheld by numerous courts since Heller. See Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213. Moreover, in passing § 922(g)(3), Congress expressed its intention to "keep firearms out of the possession of drug abusers, a dangerous class of individuals." United States v. Cheeseman, 600 F.3d 270, 280 (3d Cir. 2010), pet. for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3731 (U.S. June 1, 2010) (No. 09-1470). As such, we find that § 922(g)(3) is the type of "longstanding prohibition[] on the possession of firearms" that Heller declared presumptively lawful. See128 S. Ct. at 2816-17. Accordingly, we reject Seay's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1).
September 8, 2010 in Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Friday, September 03, 2010
Seventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment arguments against § 922(g)(3)
Today through its decision in US v. Yancey, No. 09-1138 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2010) (available here), a Seventh Circuit panel provides yet another example of the disinclination of lower courts to extend the reach or applicability of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment work in Heller. Here is the start and end of the per curiam Yancey opinion:
Matthew Yancey pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana but reserved the right to argue on appeal that the offense of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). We conclude that the statute is constitutional and affirm Yancey's conviction....
In sum, we find that Congress acted within constitutional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.
September 3, 2010 in Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Another notable Second Amendment claim rebuffed by another federal judgeAs detailed in this local report, which is headlined "Federal judge orders BB-gun toting woman to serve sentence," the now-familiar pattern of lower federal courts refusing to give broad application to the Supreme Court's recognizition of individual Second Amendment rights is continuing. Here are the specifics this time around:
A federal judge Tuesday refused to delay a jail sentence any longer for a Santa Cruz Mountains woman who has been fighting to overturn her misdemeanor gun-brandishing conviction with an argument that her Second Amendment rights have been violated.
In a nine-page order, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that Stanford-educated medical doctor Barbara Saldinger is unlikely to prevail in her legal battle and that she should begin serving her 60-day jail sentence immediately....
A Santa Cruz jury convicted Saldinger more than four years ago of brandishing a weapon after she was arrested during a dispute with neighbors in which she displayed a BB gun as she chased them away from her horse farm. Saldinger and her husband had been feuding with the neighbors for months over the location of the boundary between their two properties.
In appealing her case in the state and federal courts, Saldinger's lawyers maintain that her conviction should be overturned because her conduct is covered by a constitutional right to bear arms to protect property. Among other things, Saldinger's appeal argues that recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings extending the Second Amendment to state and local regulations entitles her to a new trial.
Hamilton did not rule on Saldinger's federal claims, but did reject her bid to stay the sentence until her case is fully resolved. The judge called her Second Amendment argument "misplaced," and indicated she does not believe, based on the facts of the case, that Saldinger's appeals will succeed.
Dennis Riordan, Saldinger's high-profile defense lawyer, said the appeal will continue. Even if she serves her sentence, Saldinger has vowed to try to clear her name....
Deputy Attorney General Gregory Ott, who represented the state, said Hamilton's assessment of Saldinger's chance of prevailing is correct. "The Second Amendment was being thrown out there to make a merits claim," he said. "The Second Amendment doesn't have any application to brandishing."
August 25, 2010 in Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Seventh Circuit rejects as-applied Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), but suggests a non-violent felon might prevail
The Seventh Circuit handed down today another intriguing Second Amendment opinion in which it finds unavailing an as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession criminal prohibition. There are lots of interesting aspects of the panel's ruling in US v. Williams, No. 09-3174 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2010) (available here) -- including the fact that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the members of the Seventh Circuit panel (though she was not the author of the unaninous panel opinion).
But Williams strikes me as especially notable because the panel's emphasizes on the fact that the defendant challenging § 922(g)(1) had previously been convicted of a violent felony. And then the panel opinion throws in this very noteworthy paragraph:
And although we recognize that § 922(g)(1) may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent, that is not the case for Williams. Even if the government may face a difficult burden of proving § 922(g)(1)'s "strong showing" in future cases, it certainly satisfies its burden in this case, where Williams challenges § 922(g)(1) as it was applied to him. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973) ("[A] person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court."). Williams, as a violent felon, is not the ideal candidate to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).
It seems that the panel here in Williams may be essentially urging that a better candidate in the form of a non-violent felon, take a Second Amendment run at § 922(g)(1).
A few related Second Amendment posts on related issues:
- Former SG Ted Olson suggests Heller could impact broad prohibitions on felon gun rights
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
- "Convicted Felon Sues State Over Right To Bear Arms"
- North Carolina Supreme Court finds state constitutional right for some felons to bear arms
- The lack of originalist justification for excluding felons from the Second Amendment
- Heller's impact on felon-in-possession crimes finally starting to generate attention
- Notable new Alaska appellate decision on denying gun rights to non-violent felons
- "Why Can't Martha Stewart Have a Gun?"
- Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoien upholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment
- Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence
- Fourth Circuit (unpublished!?) opinion follows Skoien on Heller challenge to § 922(g)(9) ... just after Seventh Circuit vacates it
- Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal conviction for misdemeanant firearm possession
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
August 5, 2010 in Offender Characteristics, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Third Circuit rejects Second Amendment attack on federal crime of possessing gun with obliterated serial numberThe Third Circuit has a very detailed and interesting discussion of Heller and the Second Amendment's impact on gun possession prohibitions and regulation today in US v. Marzzarella, No. 09-3185 (3d Cir. July 29, 2010) (available here). Here is how the lengthy opinion gets started and ends:
This appeal presents a single issue, whether Defendant Michael Marzzarella's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) for possession of a handgun with an obliterated serial number violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hold it does not and accordingly will affirm the conviction....
Second Amendment doctrine remains in its nascency, and lower courts must proceed deliberately when addressing regulations unmentioned by Heller. Accordingly, we hesitate to say Marzzarella's possession of an unmarked firearm in his home is unprotected conduct. But because § 922(k) would pass muster under either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny, Marzzarella's conviction must stand.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court's denial of Marzzarella's motion to dismiss the indictment and affirm his judgment of conviction and sentence [which was 9 months imprisonment].
As the opinion's penultimate paragraph suggests, the Marzzarella opinion proceeds deliberately and in so doing cover more Second Amendment ground than any other opinion I can recall from the last two years. (I am tempted here to make a bad pun on the defendant's name by saying that the Marzzarella opinion comes with extra Heller cheese and lots of dicta toppings.)
In short, the Third Circuit's work in Marzzarella is a must-read for anyone following the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence. It also provides another notable data point for those hoping (or fearing) that Heller would not seriously impact the vast majority of gun control laws.
UPDATE: The Legal Intelligencer now has this report on the Marzzarella decision, which is headlined "In Wake of 'Heller,' 3rd Circuit OKs Ban on Unnumbered Guns."
July 29, 2010 in Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Friday, July 23, 2010
Tenth Circuit dodges Second Amendment issue in gun possession prosecution involving self-defense claim
The Tenth Circuit handed down a notable decision today in US v. Pope, No. 09-4150 (10th Cir. July 23, 2010) (available here), in which the panel dodges a potentially challenging Second Amendment issue on procedural grounds. Here is how the opinion starts:
This case began when a grand jury indicted Mark Pope for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). That statute makes it a federal felony for a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a gun. In response to the indictment, Mr. Pope filed a motion to dismiss. While he admitted to being previously convicted of a domestic violence crime, and to possessing a gun, Mr. Pope pressed an affirmative defense that, he said, precluded his conviction. Because he possessed the gun in question only on the property where he was living and only to protect himself, others, or his property, he argued that the application of § 922(g)(9) to him would violate the Second Amendment. While the statute may be constitutional as applied to other situations, it is, he submitted, unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case.
The district court denied Mr. Pope's motion to dismiss and today we affirm that decision. We do so without passing, one way or the other, on Mr. Pope's Second Amendment defense because an antecedent procedural problem lurks here. All the material facts on which Mr. Pope's motion to dismiss relies are outside the indictment, hotly disputed by the government, and intimately bound up in the question of Mr. Pope's guilt or innocence. Under these circumstances, Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) and our precedent preclude the resolution of Mr. Pope's asapplied constitutional challenge before trial.
Notably, as the Pope opinion explains, after the district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, "Mr. Pope opted to plead guilty and was sentenced. In agreeing to plead guilty, however, he reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his pre-plea motion to dismiss." In light of that plea decision, and now the Tenth Circuit's procedural ruling, it is unclear whether or how Pope's Second Amendment claim will ever be adjudicated on the merits.
A few related Second Amendment posts on related issues:
- Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoien upholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment
- Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence
- Fourth Circuit (unpublished!?) opinion follows Skoien on Heller challenge to § 922(g)(9) ... just after Seventh Circuit vacates it
- Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal conviction for misdemeanant firearm possession
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
July 23, 2010 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Friday, July 16, 2010
Brady Center VP already making much of Seventh Circuit's ruling in SkoeinIn a week full of eventful circuit opinion, the Seventh Circuit significant Second Amendment ruling in Skoien from earlier this week (basics here, commentary here) still seems to me to be the most noteworthy. Conforming my view is this new piece at The Huffington Post from Dennis A. Henigan, the Brady Center's Vice President, which is headlined, "New Court Ruling Throws Cold Water on 'Gun Rights' Celebration." Here is how the piece starts and ends:
For those in the extremist gun lobby and the libertarian right who view the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment rulings as assault weapons ready to blow holes in America's gun laws, the Seventh Circuit's ruling this week in U.S. v. Skoien must be a bitter pill.
Skoien is no doubt the most significant lower court ruling on the Second Amendment since the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller two years ago recognizing the right of individuals to have guns in the home for self-defense. The Seventh Circuit heard the case en banc (i.e. with all eleven judges sitting) and, by a vote of 10-1, upheld the conviction of Steven Skoien for violating the federal law barring possession of guns by individuals with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. Skoien, like many other convicted gun criminals, saw Heller as a way to avoid punishment by seeking to strike down as unconstitutional the law he had violated.
The Skoien ruling is a bucket of cold water thrown on the "gun rights" celebration following the Supreme Court's decision last month in McDonald v. City of Chicago striking down Chicago's handgun ban....
It is easy to understand why libertarian bloggers like Josh Blackman are upset about the Skoien ruling, which he cites as evidence of the "epic failure" of both Heller and McDonald to truly establish a constitutional basis for the gutting of America's gun laws. Blackman frets that Judge Easterbrook's opinion in Skoien sets forth "a framework that will likely be relied upon by most courts." If he's right, and I think he is, strong gun control laws have little to fear from the Second Amendment.
A few related Second Amendment posts on Skoien and related issues:
- Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoien upholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment
- Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence
- Seventh Circuit gives a little life to Heller challenge to prohibition on DV misdemeanant gun possession
- Fourth Circuit (unpublished!?) opinion follows Skoien on Heller challenge to § 922(g)(9) ... just after Seventh Circuit vacates it
- Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal conviction for misdemeanant firearm possession
- SCOTUS undercuts constitutional gun rights in Hayes without even mentioning Heller or Second Amendment
- Given Hayes, can jurisdictions criminalize gun possession by any misdemeanant?
- The lack of originalist justification for excluding felons from the Second Amendment
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
July 16, 2010 in Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Thursday, July 15, 2010
NBA's Delonte West sentenced (lightly? harshly?) for weapons offenses in Maryland
The fact that the Supeme Court has now made clear that the Second Amendment applies to the states apparently did not prompt NBA player Delonte West or his lawyer to think he ought to try to fight his prosecution for keeping and bearing arms on a Maryland highway last year. As detailed in this Washington Post article, West today pleaded guilty and was sentenced for his arms possession:
NBA player Delonte West pleaded guilty Thursday to two weapons charges and was sentenced by a Prince George's County judge to eight months of home detention, two months of probation and 40 hours of community service.
West had been charged with six weapons offenses and two traffic violations. He pleaded guilty to carrying a dangerous weapon -- an eight-inch bowie knife -- and illegally transporting a handgun.
At a court hearing in Upper Marlboro, West's attorney, C. Todd M. Steuart, said his client was taking the weapons from his mother's home in Brandywine to his house in Fort Washington when he was stopped by a Prince George's police officer on the Capital Beltway in the Landover area, miles away from either home. West was carrying two handguns, a shotgun, the knife and more than 100 shotgun rounds.
West told Circuit County Judge Graydon S. McKee III that he felt remorse for the incident. "I want you to know how apologetic I am to you and all the other professionals in here who do the right thing," he said. West said he often speaks to Washington area youth who have been in trouble. "I'm able to share my experiences with them," he said. "I'm able to relate to them. If I never dribble a basketball again, I think I found my calling."
Following the hearing, State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said the sentence will allow West to go to Cleveland for his job as a player with the Cleveland Cavaliers. West will be allowed to attend practices, home games and away games, Ivey said.
Prince George's prosecutors typically ask for a year in jail for defendants convicted of a weapons offense. Judges usually sentence defendants with no prior convictions -- like West -- to probation or home detention, Ivey said. The terms of West's plea bargain ensure he is being treated no differently than any other defendant in similar circumstances, Ivey said.
As the title to this post suggests, I am unsure whether it is fair to view West's sentence as light, harsh, or perhaps just right. As I suggested in this post right after West's arrest, a person with a robust view of the Second Amendment might be greatly concerned that West is subject to a significant sanction for merely keeping and bearing arms. And yet, in light of the significant prison sentences given to Plaxico Burress and Lil Wayne for gun possession in New York City, West likely should consider himself lucky to avoid any serious jail time.
July 15, 2010 in Celebrity sentencings, Gun policy and sentencing, Offense Characteristics, Second Amendment issues | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Notable press account of Skoein Second Amendment ruling with partisan perspectivesThe AP has this notable new piece, headlined "Court's decision offers some clarity on gun laws," discussing the Seventh Circuit significant Second Amendment ruling in Skoien from earlier this week. Here are some highlights:
A federal appeals court upheld a ban on gun possession for a domestic violence offender in a ruling that several anti-violence advocates applauded Wednesday for providing some clarity after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark decision on gun restrictions....
"Even with the new definition of the Second Amendment, it (Tuesday's ruling) shows that you can still have reasonable gun restrictions," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said of the appellate ruling. "This case really reaffirms that you can have limits."
But Herbert Titus, an attorney for the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, which filed an amicus brief for the Wisconsin man called the decision outrageous. He said the Supreme Court's ruling put the Second Amendment on par with the First Amendment, which can't be taken from someone.
"No one has said you lose your First Amendment rights if you violate some law," he said. "Why should we assume just because you violated some law, the government can take away your Second Amendment rights?"
The Wisconsin case involved Steven Skoien who was convicted twice of misdemeanor domestic violence involving two different women. While on probation, the Janesville, Wis., man was arrested in 2007 for gun possession, pleaded guilty the following year and was sentenced to two years in prison....
Some experts said Tuesday's ruling at least provided some clarity for what gun restrictions might be acceptable -- if only for narrowly defined terms. "This decision clarifies for the moment that people who are situated in that same situation as the plaintiff don't have an immediate Second Amendment claim," said Nicholas Johnson, professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York.
But the ruling left much in doubt, including whether a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence could earn back the right to carry guns. "There will be time to consider that subject when it arises," Easterbrook wrote in his opinion.
I am pleased to see that a gun-rights group like Gun Owners of America is not backing away from its forceful views on constitutional gun rights in a case like this. I wonder if other like-minded groups, and especially the National Rifle Association, will express a similar view.
Especially if Steven Skoien seek Supreme Court review of his loss in the Seventh Circuit, which I expect he will, the amicus support of groups like Gun Owners of America and the NRA could play a critical role in whether the Justices feel a need to take up this issue now or only after they have deal with other post-Heller issues.
A few related Second Amendment posts on Skoien and related issues:
A few related Second Amendment posts on Skoien and related issues:
July 15, 2010 in Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Skoien and the many challenges of Second Amendment jurisprudence
The Seventh Circuit's Skoien en banc ruling yesterday, which via this opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook, rejects a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law criminalizing gun possession by anyone previously convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, reinforces my sense that Second Amendment jurisprudence is going to be very messy and very challenging in the months and years ahead. Here are just some of the ways the Skoien majority opinion highlights these realities:
1. Uncertainty about the standard of review: The Skoien opinion properly cites Heller to reject a "rational-basis test" for the Second Amendment, but then avoids giving any more content to the proper standard of review through this passage:
The United States concedes that some form of strong showing ("intermediate scrutiny," many opinions say) is essential, and that § 922(g)(9) is valid only if substantially related to an important governmental objective.... The concession is prudent, and we need not get more deeply into the "levels of scrutiny" quagmire, for no one doubts that the goal of § 922(g)(9), preventing armed mayhem, is an important governmental objective. Both logic and data establish a substantial relation between § 922(g)(9) and this objective.
Skoien foreshadows a "quagmire" if (and when?) Second Amendment jurisprudence has to start sorting through levels of scrutiny, and its seeks to avoid this quagmire by positing that (any and all?) gun regulations are substantially related to an important governmental objective. But given that gun regulations are always aimed at improving public safety and that the creators of such regulations surely see their restrictions as substantially related to this goal, it is unclear how much more real bite is being given to a standard of review here in Skoien.
2. Too ready justification for gun restriction: As hinted above, the real problem with Skoien may not be how it avoid a clear legal test for the Second Amendment, but how readily it concludes that such a test is satisfied by the criminal law being challenged. If preventing gun violence (i.e., "armed mayhem") is always going to qualify as an important governmental objective, and if "logic and data" of the sort set out in Skoien is adequate to justify a very broad criminal prohibition on gun possession by a large class of persons, it seem very unlikely that many (or really any) partial gun bans will be struck down. Gun control advocates always can and often do seek to make logical and statistical arguments that a specific gun ban will reduce access to guns and thus reduce the potential for gun violence.
3. Questionable analogies to the First Amendment and sex offender restrictions: The majority opinion in Skoien justifies its ruling by developing or referencing analogies to First Amendment jurisprudence and sex offender restrictions, but the analogies are suspect in many respects. As the dissent notes, there are no categories of persons who are subject to criminal prosecution just for seeking to exercise a freedom to speak. (There are categories of speech not subject to constitutional protection, but this is analgouos to arms like bazookas and bombs that I assume are categorically excluded from coverage by the Second Amendment.) Similarly questionable is the suggestion in Skoien that allowing registration and zoning rules for convicted sex offenders makes "generally proper" a categorical exclusion of certain misdemeanant from a fundamental right expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
As my comments above suggest, I am unimpressed by the constitutional method in Skoien. For this reason (and others), I also find the ultimate ruling not so convincing. But the point of this post is not merely to dicker with the outcome; rather, I principally wanted to highlight how hard it is going to be for courts to sort through all the challenging constitutional issues implicated by modern gun restrictions and the new constitutional gun rights set out in Heller and McDonald.
A few related Second Amendment posts on Skoien and related issues:
- Split en banc Seventh Circuit in Skoien upholds categorical exclusion of DV misdemeanant from Second Amendment
- Puzzling through the doctrine and dicta of McDonald on the Second Amendment's limits
- Chicago's gun control response to the McDonald ruling
- Second Amendment lawsuit already filed against new Chicago gun regulations
- Seventh Circuit gives a little life to Heller challenge to prohibition on DV misdemeanant gun possession
- Fourth Circuit (unpublished!?) opinion follows Skoien on Heller challenge to § 922(g)(9) ... just after Seventh Circuit vacates it
- Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment challenge to federal conviction for misdemeanant firearm possession
- SCOTUS undercuts constitutional gun rights in Hayes without even mentioning Heller or Second Amendment
- Given Hayes, can jurisdictions criminalize gun possession by any misdemeanant?
- The lack of originalist justification for excluding felons from the Second Amendment
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
July 14, 2010 in Second Amendment issues, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack


text:
Noggins Corner Farm Market
From crisp Annapolis Valley apples to fresh sweet corn, we have the Valley's finest selection of locally grown fruits and vegetables for you to enjoy. Our Tideview Vintage Cider revives a Nova Scotian cider tradition that goes back to the Acadian settlers. We also have a seasonal agritourism program providing a day of family fun. Join us at our interactive corn maze, family adventure area and u-pick pumpkins, apples and flowers. Come see the eagles on our historic nature trail, perfect for hiking.
Location10009 Hwy 1
Greenwich, NS, B4P 2R2 View on Google Maps
HoursGreenwich Market:
Year-round 8 am - 8 pm
Dartmouth Alderney Landing Market:
Sunday 10 am — 4 pm
Monday — Friday: 9 am — 7 pm
Saturday: 8 am — 2 pm
Halifax Seaport Farmers' Market:
Sunday 9 am — 3 pm
Monday — Friday: 10 am — 5 pm
Saturday: 7 am — 3 pm
Other LocationsDartmouth Alderney Landing Market:
2 Ochterloney St.
Dartmouth, NS, B2Y 3Z3
Halifax Seaport Farmers' Market:
1209 Marginal Rd.
Halifax, NS, B3H 4P8


text:
Find Your Slant!
Slant Shirts LLC © 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Slant Shirts LLC
PO Box 8299
Saddle Brook NJ 07663
Slant Shirts LLC is not endorsed by nor affiliated with any of the teams, companies or personalities represented on any of our designs unless it is expressly noted. Though it is not our intent, parties who happen to feel that their intellectual property has been violated in any way are asked to inform Slant Shirts LLC immediately via the link below.


text:
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
It took about 7 generations to produce a Siberian fox that was tame and fully socialized with humans. Why should it be different with Wolves? Years ago I met a wolf hybrid that was a wolf/collie mix. I had the affect of a collie and the appearance of a wolf. It was completely safe with children. Its behavior was quite different than most Wolf hybrids I have known. Wolves make good choices for domestication because of their highly social nature. They also are highly developed predators. Taking advantage of this social nature and breeding out the hostile aggressive traits would make wolves very much like domestic dogs.
Most other domestic animals come from social species. Domestic cats look very similar to English Wildcats, but descend from a different species that is social. English wildcats are solitary and very difficult to domesticate.
But with a wolf pup, achieving even close to the same fear reduction requires 24-hour contact starting before age three weeks, and even then you won't get the same attachment or lack of fear."
This sounds like the same type of behavior that the Siberian Fox breeding project bred out in about 7 generations.


text:
Soundin' Off
Bridgeport Sound Tigers
Monthly Archive for March, 2006
The kid is alright
He's only 18, but Ryan O'Marra's got a confidence that belies his years. He scored two goals tonight, and he could have had four. Four would have been a tie, but hey, what a night, anyway. Things weren't pretty in the second, but they could have been a lot better. Philly was already outshooting the […] [Read More]
It's an Erie coincidence
Two things, one of which made the story, another of which didn't… 1) Probably should have pointed it out in the story, and it just hit me that I didn't: Next year. O'Marra, being just 18 and having played only three years of major junior, can't play for Bridgeport next season (except, like now, after […] [Read More]
Oh really? No…
So I'm basically useless to you guys (told you I stunk yesterday) except for this: O'Marra's been assigned No. 20. It's also good timing in that Danbury needed Omicioli and Larocque back. Hamilton won't make the trip but could be back Saturday, so O'Marra appears to slot nicely in Omicioli's spot, at least in theory. […] [Read More]
Third place, for now
Another one of those "Whoa" Hershey games, compounded by being the worst I've been in a long while and the earliest deadlines I've ever faced outside of the holidays… Talk was it was Steve Regier who put that puck in at the end, which makes sense, the way he skated out to the neutral zone […] [Read More]
Darned Ivy Leaguers II
The legendary Tim Taylor is out at Yale after almost three decades. We'll see if this becomes BST-related… [Read More]
Darned Ivy Leaguers
So the ding on his head couldn't have been that bad: Jeff Hamilton took the whole practice, should be back Wednesday, and even did a little creative problem-solving…. Steve Regier's Olympics continued, just like last week, with slap shots from just above the goal line, this time to what would be the goalie's right. The […] [Read More]
Five out of six/five in three
This one seemed to be all about intensity. Springfield had it for 40 minutes and escaped even. Bridgeport needed it, was getting it from its goaltender and in spurts otherwise, and finally pulled it out in the last 20 minutes. And what a three games this turned out to be. This was the 12th time […] [Read More]
Capital punishment
So Dave Baseggio broke out tonight with a combination, Nos. 2 and 10 on the great hockey list of Good Things: "Good things happen when you go to the net and throw the puck at the net." Since the gamer was necessarily short tonight, a little runthrough… 1, Bridgeport, Tunik 4 (Omicioli), 11:44. Martin Sonnenberg […] [Read More]
Pronounced just like it's spelled
Bridgeport brought in centerman Pete Tsimikalis on an amateur tryout this morning. He was Oshawa's captain this year and scored 99 points. He'll fill in for Jeff Hamilton, who — it's that C word, but a mild one — skated this morning and is day-to-day. Tsimikalis (accent the "ka") is wearing No. 43. He's the […] [Read More]
Show More


text:
The new, book-length edition of Freedom in the 50 States: Index of Personal and Economic Freedom will be released on March 28 by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In the days leading up to release, I will be "teasing" a few of the novel findings and methods from the study. Here at Pileus, I've already posted a couple of teasers over the past few months, linked here:
This post will explain the logic and method behind the weighting scheme in the new edition. Every index of freedom has to use some way of weighting its variables to come up with an aggregate measure of freedom. The Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom" and Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" and "Economic Freedom of North America" essentially weight each variable equally, either within categories that are themselves weighted equally in the overall index (Fraser) or across the index as a whole (Heritage). The most commonly used international indices of democracy, Polity IV and Freedom House, and the first two editions of Freedom in the 50 States use "arbitrary" weights, that is, the researchers weight the categories according to their own judgment using general criteria.
We were unsatisfied with all of these approaches, as well as with inductive statistical alternatives known as "principal component analysis" and "factor analysis." Here is how we put the case in the book:
Because we want to score states on composite indices of freedom, we need some way of "weighting" and aggregating individual policies. One popular method for aggregating policies is "factor" or "principal component" analysis, which weights variables according to how much they contribute to the common variance—that is, how well they correlate with other variables.
Factor analysis is equivalent to letting politicians weight the variables, because correlations among variables across states will reflect the ways that lawmakers systematically prioritize certain policies. Of course, partisan politics is not always consistent with freedom (e.g., states strong on gun rights tend to be weak on gay rights). The index resulting from factor analysis would be an index of "policy ideology," not freedom.
Another approach, employed in the Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom of North America," is to weight each category equally, and then to weight variables within each category equally. Of course, this approach assumes that the variance observed within each category and each variable is equally important. In the large dataset used for the freedom index, such an assumption would be wildly implausible. We feel confident that, for instance, tax burden should be weighted more heavily than court decisions mandating that private malls or universities allow political speech.
Previous versions of this index used a subjective weighting system, based on a rough assessment of the importance of each policy in terms of the number of people affected and the value they were likely to place on their infringed freedom. We were dissatisfied with the imprecise and subjective manner in which we constructed those weights, and for this edition we have tried to use a much more objective and independent measure of the "value" of each freedom.
The new, "objective" method of weighting variables is what we call the "freedom value" approach. Here is how we describe it: (more…)