February 2013

Paul Simon Institute on Guns in Illinois

ArchPundit February 19, 2013 0 Comment

Rich has the details–not too much surprising in it.

3. Do you favor or oppose banning high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets?\

Favor 62.8%

Oppose 33.3%

Other/Don’t know 3.8%

4. Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?

Favor 58.7%

Oppose 35.2%

Other/Don’t know 6.2%

5. Do you favor or oppose a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

Favor 32.7%

Oppose 61.3%

Other/Don’t know 6.0%

6. Do you favor or oppose a law that would require background checks before people – including gun dealers – could buy guns at a gun show?

Favor 92.5%

Oppose 5.5%

Other/Don’t know 2.0%

The conceal carry question is about whether it’s Constitutionally protected, not where people fall on it.  While I’d expect them to be similar results, it’s still confuses the issue.

The Institute’s commentary is bizarre

“It’s striking how much stronger the support for gun control measures is in Illinois
compared to the nation as a whole,” said David Yepsen, the director of the Institute. “But
it’s not surprising because on measurements of many social issues, the electorate in
Illinois is more left of center than the American electorate.”

In a vague question about support for stricter controls that’s true, but not so much on individual proposals. For example, Polling Report has this on national support for assault weapons ban

52 to 58 isn’t a huge difference.

62.8 to 59 isn’t a huge difference.

1.5 % difference.  Not great.

I expect better analysis from an academic unit like the Institute.  Frankly, the difference isn’t as great as I would have expected given the leftward tilt for Illinois on social issues.

Trib Covers How Firearms Get Transferred to Illinois from Indiana

ArchPundit February 19, 2013 0 Comment

The Tribune covers a bust by police arresting an individual who was buying guns in Indiana at a gun show and reselling them on the street in Chicago

“Twenty-five more in four hours,” Tanksley told his customer, who was secretly working for law enforcement and recording the conversation. “Give me $5,000 and you can put your order in then. I’ll get you whatever, give me a list.”

As Tanksley, who police say has ties to a Chicago street gang, made his sales pitch, David Lewisbey was stocking up on more weapons at a gun show 40 miles away in Crown Point, Ind., one of several trips he made across the state border and back in little more than a day, according to federal authorities. Five hours later, Lewisbey, an unlikely gun trafficker then enrolled in college, was back in Chicago as Tanksley made good on his promise and sold the informant nine more guns, authorities allege.

A federal indictment charges the two with illegally selling 43 firearms to the government informant in just under 26 hours, a volume made possible by gun shows and less restrictive state laws in Indiana, by far the No. 1 source of out-of-state guns used in crimes in Cook County. Private gun sales in Indiana don’t require background checks, a waiting period or even a record of the transaction.

Sigh

K’s Merchandise, a big-box department store on a busy commercial strip outside Fort Wayne, Ind., has been shut for sometime. But on a recent Friday, a crowd swelled inside as shoppers slowly browsed hundreds of tables under bright fluorescent lights.

RIP about 2006–I worked at K’s in Normal and Cedar Rapids in high school, college, and a little after including selling firearms there.  No other relevance, just interesting side note (at least to me).

The basic point thing about the article is that if your require a background check on every sale, then private sellers who make iffy sales can be held accountable.  Currently, in Indiana the only standard is that you don’t have reason to believe the person is ineligible.   With background checks, the good private seller also gets the security of having gone through the federal process and is less likely to be seen as a suspect when a gun sale goes bad.

Daily Dolt: Kyle McCarter

ArchPundit February 17, 2013 0 Comment

Senator McCarter is quickly becoming the loudest and dumbest member of the Illinois General Assembly–and that’s saying something.\

No.  Just no.  You see, a church that wants to still only allow marriages between different sex couples is allowed to do that. Just as when the states got rid of miscegenation laws, churches were allowed to perform marriages for people of two or more races.  So one really has to scratch his head to figure out how this is discrimination against anyone.  We allow people to be homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc, we just require the government to treat people equally and for people engaged in commerce to do the same.  If you want to be an asshole on your own, that’s perfectly fine.

As Senator McCarter demonstrates quite nicely.

Hutchinson Out

ArchPundit February 17, 2013 0 Comment

Well that was a surprise

The day she received the backing of one of her biggest competitors, 2nd congressional candidate Robin Kelly says she’s far from starting any early celebrations.

“I take nothing for granted, I am working hard, I will have my nose to the grind until 7 p.m. Feb 26. My staff is working hard, my volunteers are working hard,” Kelly said in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday.

This is important–keep in mind Hutchinson and Halvorson had some of the same base. While I would expect some and even a majority of that support going to Robin Kelly, Halvorson will pick up some of it.  So keep at it.

The List of Personal Items

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

Seriously?

So, They Brought It on

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

Perhaps the dumbest statement by a corrupt politician ever made

Last year, Jackson vehemently denied backing any offers made to Blagojevich through Nayak or Bedi. In a radio show, he urged prosecutors to “bring it on.” 

Even though there wasn’t a case whether he tried to bribe Blagojevich, that statement when you are buying luxury items for personal use is an incredible level of stupidty.

And A Way We, Um, They Go

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

Charges filed against JJJ & wife Sandy–updates to come

Jackson, 47, a Democrat from Chicago, faces felony charges, including conspiracy, in a criminal information filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Typically, federal prosecutors use an information to charge defendants when a plea deal has been negotiated.

His wife, Sandi Jackson, was charged in an information with one count of filing false tax returns.

Jesse Jackson is accused of diverting $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use

Federal authorities allege that Jesse Jackson used campaign funds to purchase a $43,350 men’s gold-plated Rolex watch, $5,150 worth of fur capes and parkas, and $9,588 in children’s furniture. The purchases were made between 2007 and 2009, according to the criminal information, which authorities noted is not evidence of guilt.

Jackson stepped down from the House of Representatives on Nov. 21, citing both his poor health and an ongoing federal probe of his activities. In a statement then, he said he was doing his best to cooperate with federal investigators and to accept responsibility for his “mistakes.”

In a statement today, Jackson said:

“Over the course of my life I have come to realize that none of us are immune from our share of shortcomings and human frailties. Still I offer no excuses for my conduct and I fully accept my responsibility for the improper decisions and mistakes I have made. To that end I want to offer my sincerest apologies to my family, my friends and all of my supporters for my errors in judgment and while my journey is not yet complete, it is my hope that I am remembered for the things that I did right.”

Wow! The International Olympic Committee Found a New Way To Be Hated Besides, You Know, All the Corruption

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

The IOC is considering dropping wrestling–apparently both Greco-Roman and Freestyle.  For a long time, Paul Wellstone and Jim Leach, a truly moderate Republican from Iowa who is now the head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sponsored a bill to increase the number of scholarships available for wrestling as it was hit hard by Title IX.  Both were adamant supporters of Title IX, but also wanted to see wrestling flourish.  Iowa is one of the biggest wrestling states along with Nebraska and Leach had the University of Iowa in his District some of the time.  Wellstone had wrestled when younger and is even inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame.

So when I urge my readers to speak up on this, at least do it in honor of Paul Wellstone and his love of the sport.  Three current members of Congress, including David Loebsack my college adviser who replaced Leach in Congress, have introduced a resolution condemning the move and Sherrod Brown will introduce a similar resolution in the Senate

Loebsack on the decision:

“The decision by the International Olympic Committee to drop wresting is baffling.  The history of collegiate and Olympic wrestling runs through Iowa.  From Dan Gable and Tom Brands to Cael Sanderson and Jake Varner, Iowa has represented the sport with determination and the hard work it takes to succeed in life and sport.  I will continue to work with my colleagues to change this ruling on behalf of Iowa’s, and America’s, storied wrestling history,” said Congressman Dave Loebsack.

A petition calling on the White House to pressure the IOC to change the decision needs about 50,000 more signatures by March 14.  So go do it for Paul.  

Jackson May Face 46 – 57 Months in Prison

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

He’d fight, but he just doesn’t have any more fight in him….

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. could face up to 57 months in prison and could make his plea deal with federal prosecutors public as early as today in which he will allegedly admit to illegally spending as much as $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use, according to a source close to the Jackson family.

“This just stunned the Rev. Jackson,” the source said, referring to the family patriarch. “He doesn’t know what to do. This hit the family like a thunderbolt.”

Among the items purchased by campaign funds include a hat, cap and gloves once worn by Michael Jackson, a fur parka, expensive vacations and restaurant tabs.

“If Jesse had any fight in him, he could have fought this,” said another source close to Jackson Jr. said.

“He has tried to everything possible to stand up and be a man and to protect his wife…” the source said.

Because I’m sure there is a very good reason for the campaign to buy a hat, cap, and gloves once worn by Michael Jackson and a fur parka.  And who let’s this kind of self-serving bullshit hide behind anonymity? You need anonymity to say really nice things about someone your close to and help them deny the  whole thing?  Or is it just an absurd public relations move by the Jackson family?

The prosecutor would probably look down on this kind of nonsense since it tries to absolve Jackson of culpability.  There’s no reason to include it if someone close isn’t going on the record.

Bloomberg PAC Independence USA Endorses Kelly

ArchPundit February 15, 2013 0 Comment

Washington Post has it.

The super PAC started by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) is putting its weight behind former state representative Robin Kelly in Illinois’s 2nd District special election, releasing a new ad that touts her stance on gun control and criticizes two of her opponents on the issue.

“Kelly will join President Obama to take on the NRA for effective background checks and to ban deadly assault weapons,” says the narrator of the ad. It’s the first time the organization, Independence USA PAC, has mentioned Kelly in a TV ad.

The group’s newest ad comes as Obama is set to discuss guns and other issues on Friday in his hometown of Chicago, a city that has been plagued by violence. The 2nd District covers the South Side of Chicago as well suburbs to the city’s south,

The spot also goes after two of Kelly’s main competitors in the crowded Democratic field — former congresswoman Debbie Halvorson and state Sen. Toi Hutchinson — for receiving high marks from the National Rifle Association. The PAC has already spent over a million dollars on an ad campaign hitting Halvorson for her stance on guns.

“Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchinson both earned an A from the NRA. They can’t be trusted,” the narrator of the new spot says.

Every early indication was they would stay negative on Halvorson, but neutral between Hutchinson and Kelly.  I presume two things have changed–the sheer audacity of Hutchinson’s claims to have changed her mind and brag about doing something  for a couple weeks that Kelly did over 6 years ago and (again presuming) the polling came back suggesting that it wasn’t Kelly splitting the vote to give Halvorson a shot, but Hutchinson is at best in the position they thought Kelly was in early.

One thing I’ve been noticing are some complaints about why aren’t people complaining about the SuperPac aspect of Bloomberg’s efforts.  There are two reasons–one, I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament and having the industry trade association in the NRA funding campaigns has created an uneven playing field for years.  While many gun safety bills have majority support, there has not been a way of organizing a very disorganized majority compared to a well organized trade group funded by the industry.

Second, it’s not Citizen’s United that really applies here.  Bloomberg has formed his PAC, but he is reporting both donations and expenditures to the FEC.  I’d link to it, but the FEC web site sucks.  Second, it’s Baker v Carr Buckley v Valeo (fixed for stupidity) that’s more applicable.  Rich individuals have always been able to spend their own money on political issues without limits and Independence PAC has 1 Donor–Mike Bloomberg.  In other words, this isn’t a PAC as we used to think of them, this is an individual spending money on his own for his message while fully reporting that activity.  Most people think of Baker v Carr applying to self-funders only, but it also applied to individuals who wanted to run their own individual efforts to influence elections.