Urban Decay, as Seen Through Youth Football: New at Reason

'The Warriors of Liberty City'From its opening moments, it’s clear that The Warriors of Liberty City is not your standard-issue football documentary. The players halt their practice when a phalanx of police helicopters passes slowly over the field, drowning out everything until it’s gone. “Something going on in the city,” shrugs one of the spectators. “Probably somebody got shot. … In Liberty City, man, this is every day. It’s how we live.”

Liberty City is about four square miles at the hard-bitten center of Miami. You might remember it as ground zero of a deadly 1980 race riot, touched by the acquittal of a group of cops who beat a black motorcyclist to death for leading them on a high-speed chase. (Final cost: 18 lives, $100 million in damage.) Or you may recall it as one of the rancid urban battlegrounds in the Grand Theft Auto video games.

But in addition to the junkies, muggers, hookers, gang-bangers and punks who populate the Grand Theft Auto games—who, to be sure, are real enough—Liberty City is home to maybe 30,000 people or so just trying to get by, picking their way through the detritus of a mad level of urban dysfunction that’s largely not of their making. Television critic Glenn Garvin takes a look at a documentary series about those families.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2QvyZ72
via IFTTT

San Fran Fed Appoints First Openly Gay Woman As New President

Since John Williams officially took the reins at the New York Fed in June, investors have been waiting for the central bank to announce his successor. And on Friday afternoon, that wait came to an end: The Fed announced that Director of Research Mary Daly will take over the San Francisco Fed – a seat once held by former Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen – making Daly the first openly gay female president of one of the 12 district banks in the Fed’s 100-year-history.

As the Fed pushes for more diversity in its upper ranks, Daly will become one of only three women occupying a senior role.

Daly

Daly, who ran one of the most widely respected research departments among the 12 district banks, will officially take over on Oct. 1 after serving as an executive vice president since late 2017. Her appointment was approved by the Fed board of governors in Washington following an exhaustive search that included interviews with more than 230 candidates – a third of whom were minorities, and a third of whom were women, according to Bloomberg. She first joined the SF Fed in 1996, and has a PhD in economics from Syracuse University.

Crucially, Kansas City Fed President Esther George will cast San Francisco’s rate-hike vote next week (George has been filling in for Williams as his official alternate). Daly will cast her first vote at the Fed’s November meeting. However, the SF Fed has a reputation for being dovish, and Daly is widely expected to adhere to that view.

“I am truly honored to have been given this opportunity,” Daly said in a statement. “I believe very strongly in the Federal Reserve’s mission and in the important role we play in helping to create strong, stable economic conditions in all corners of the country that allow individuals and businesses to prosper.”

The appointment carries additional weight because Daly will occupy a seat once held by former Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, who ran the San Francisco Fed between 2004 and 2010. The San Fran Fed has a reputation for being dovish, and few expect Daly to deviate much from this approach.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ng4fZE Tyler Durden

Argentine Peso Closes At Record Low As IMF Withholds $3 Billion Bailout Tranche

The bad news for Argentina keeps coming.

Shortly after a late selloff pushed the Argentina Peso to a new all time low on a closing basis, Reuters reported that a $3 billion tranche from the IMF that was supposed to be disbursed to Argentina this month under the country’s bailout deal was  postponed while the government hammers out the terms of the standby agreement, the largest in IMF history.

The payment “has been halted until new terms are reached,” said the Reuters source.

With the peso crashing earlier in the year amid fears of a collapsing economy and capital flight, President Macri signed a $50 billion deal with the IMF in June, but he went back to the Fund to renegotiate terms in order to speed up cash disbursements under the agreement. The discussions between Buenos Aires and and the IMF have been ongoing, with the IMF reportedly warning Argentina not to use the funds from the agreement to support the peso.

It is unclear of Argentina has remained in compliance with the request: earlier on Friday the central bank auctioned $200 million in reserves in a bid to stabilize the peso.

Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg, Argentina faces a bleak future no matter what happens: the most likely outcome for the troubled economy is a deep recession followed by political upheaval.

That’s because countries that have seen their currency decline by more than 40% in a year have typically suffered economic contractions of more than 6% the year after. Argentina’s peso is down 53% in the past 12 months.

As Argentina’s government struggles to restore investor confidence, foreign financing has dried up and borrowing costs have soared, stalling investment and undercutting what was already a fragile economy. The only question is how big the recession will be. Moody’s is forecasting a 2 percent decline in each of the next two years, while Fitch Ratings sees a 2.5 percent recession this year, with further contractions possible.

“The currency selloff has already had a big negative impact on confidence,” said Todd Martinez, an analyst at Fitch in New York. “It means higher inflation going forward, which erodes real wages and pensions and will weigh on consumption.”

The onus is now on president Macri to decide how he will handle the growing crisis, although as Bloomberg puts it, he “faces a damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t set of decisions as the economic troubles mount.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MwinZM Tyler Durden

Trump’s Obamacare Sabotage Has Resulted In…No Change to the Uninsured Rate

For the past year and a half, Democrats have repeatedly warned that President Donald Trump is trying to sabotage Obamacare.

The administration has made a number of changes to the administration of the health law, including slashing most of its advertising and promotions budget, cutting funds for enrollment assistance, and stopping the payment of subsidies to insurance companies. (The law calls for the subsidies but they were not authorized by Congress and were ruled illegal by a court.) These changes, Obamacare’s boosters charge, amount to a sustained effort to undermine the health law and its goal of providing insurance coverage to Americans.

This week, the Census Bureau released new data on changes to the uninsured rate under Trump. They represent the first official numbers for the full year of 2017, and they show the impact of Trump’s changes to the program.

Trump’s efforts to sabotage Obamacare resulted in…no change to the overall uninsured rate, which remained at 8.8 percent, the same as in 2016. In fact, there were 2.3 million more people insured in 2017 than in 2016. (The percentage of uninsured stayed the same because of population growth.)

The Census figures, of course, account for all types of insurance coverage, not just those covered through Obamacare’s exchanges or Medicaid expansion. But enrollment through the exchanges dropped only slightly during the 2017 open enrollment period, even after a significant reduction in the advertising budget. (“It’s not collapse. It’s incredible stability,” the head of California’s state-run insurance exchange said earlier this year when those figures were released.)

The new numbers show minor changes to overall mix of insurance types: In 2017, a slightly larger percentage of Americans were insured through their employers than in 2016, and a slightly smaller percentage were insured through Medicaid, probably as a result of increased employment and the general strength of the economy. The percentage of individuals covered by Medicare, meanwhile, has increased.

It is possible, of course, that had the Trump administration not altered the operation of the health law, the uninsured rate would be even lower. And the rate could still rise over time. Trump could take further actions in the future that would affect Obamacare enrollment, or overall health coverage numbers.

But while health policy conterfactuals may be interesting to entertain, they do not change the reality that Trump’s supposed sabotage appears to have led to several million more people with insurance, and no statistically significant change to the overall percentage of Americans with coverage.

At the same time, after years of substantial increases, premium hikes in Obamacare’s exchanges for the coming year appear, on average, to be relatively modest (although some individual plans may still see big hikes).

President Trump and the Republican party have certainly demonstrated a hostility toward Obamacare, and a general indifference to the particulars of health policy. There is little question that Trump has not managed the program the way a Democratic president would, or the way the health law’s supporters would like. One can reasonably take issue with some of the specific choices his administration has made.

But the primary goal of the law was to facilitate health insurance coverage for Americans, and the best evidence we have is that Trump’s actions, whether or not they were intended to undermine the law, have had remarkably little effect on the overall rate of insurance coverage. If this is sabotage, it does not appear to be working very well.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2MwgEUi
via IFTTT

The Education Department’s New Title IX Rules Have Been Revealed. Here’s What They Say.

BDUnder new rules pertaining to Title IX, the federal statute that forbids sex discrimination in education, the Education Department will clarify that school officials must adopt procedures that protect students from harassment while still guaranteeing due process rights for the accused.

That’s according to a draft of the proposed rules obtained by Reason. Previously, I reported on some aspects of the new rules after speaking with an Education Department official. I have now read the full proposal: a 120-page document that is “intended to promote the purpose of Title IX by requiring recipients to address sexual harassment, assisting and protecting victims of sexual harassment and ensuring that due process protections are in place for individuals accused of sexual harassment.”

The new rules make one thing abundantly clear: Those who claimed this move by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos represented some kind of attack on women were wildly off-base. You would have to actively prefer that Title IX adjudication be unfair for accused students in order to find significant fault with what the Education Department is about to do. And yet representatives of Know Your IX, an activist group that serves alleged victims of campus sexual assault, claimed that, having read the rules, they believe “they’re worse than we could have imagined.”

“These draft rules put the safety of students at risk,” the group declared on Twitter.

This is an absurd mischaracterization of the document, which you can read for yourself here.

In summary, the new rules offer a workable definition of sexual harassment, explain the circumstances in which school officials are obligated to respond to accusations, and establish “procedural safeguard” to protect both the accuser and the accused.

The rules are explicit about the problems with the previous guidance, which was improperly issued without notice or public comment and is thus “sub-regulatory” in nature, meaning institutions can’t be sure they actually have to follow it. With these new rules, DeVos is following proper procedure and actually asking stakeholders to give their opinion. (The copy of the rules I saw, for instance, had initially been sent to the Department of Health and Human Services for feedback.)

Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual conduct that is so severe and pervasive that it effectively denies the victim the right to an equal education. But it is also defined as sexual assault, and as quid-pro-quo harassment, in which something is offered in exchange for sexual favors. Previous guidance “exceeded the text of the statute by requiring institutions to respond to conduct less severe than that proscribed by Title IX,” the new rules state. The new rules also make clear that universities are only obliged to investigate possible Title IX infringements that are actually reported to a relevant administrator.

One of the most praiseworthy aspects of the proposal is the mandate to train Title IX adjudicators using unbiased materials that do not “rely on sex stereotypes and instead must promote impartial investigations.” Title IX officials must also make training materials available for accused students to peruse, which means that underlying bias could be made more evident.

The new rules also state that universities may terminate the adjudication process if, having learned of an allegation, it is determined that “the conduct alleged by the complainant would not constitute sexual harassment.” This could probably be stronger: Perhaps officials should be specifically directed not to continue investigating if no actual sexual harassment claim consistent with the definition outlined above has been stated.

During adjudication, both parties must have equal opportunity to present evidence, propose witnesses, and consult advisors of their choice. However, the universities may establish restrictions “regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings,” as long as these restrictions are equitable. This strikes me as an area that could use further improvement, given the Sixth Circuit’s recent finding that a representative of the accused should be able to question the accuser if the university thinks direct cross-examination would too traumatizing. It’s not clear to me if the Education Department is saying that universities should be able to block representatives from doing so.

Indeed, the cross-examination aspect of the new rules is very interesting, and establishes an important right: The complainant and respondent must be afforded equal opportunity to pose questions to each other and to witnesses. But universities are not obligated to hold hearing at all; if the school uses an adjudication model that does not involve a hearing, then an effective substitute for due process will suffice. Universities “must permit each party to provide written questions for the investigator to ask the other party and witnesses.” KC Johnson is concerned that this might actually prompt victims’ rights activists to pressure colleges to abolish hearings entirely.

The new rules depart from previous guidance relating to the burden of proof: Schools are no longer obliged to use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and may instead use a clear-and-convincing standard. But it is doubtful that many will do so.

The new rules also give universities more flexibility when it comes to appeals. The Obama administration’s 2011 Title IX guidance required universities to permit both parties to appeal verdicts. This requirement would no longer be in place, and schools would be free to allow appeals for just the accused, for both parties, or for no one.

Those are just some highlights; there are many more details in the document. Its authors note that if implemented, these new rules would save about $300 or $400 million in compliance costs over the next 10 years. But the real benefit here isn’t financial in nature: It’s that students accused of sexual misconduct will no longer face adjudicatory policies that are stacked against them from the outset.

Contrary to what the activists have claimed, these rules make sensible and rather mild changes. It’s ludicrous to asset that they go too far. It’s more likely that they don’t go far enough, and that the Education Departments attempt’s to remedy due-process deficiencies on campus will fail to overcome the systemic biases of a bureaucratic system under constant pressure to always and automatically believe the victim.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2NKq3Mr
via IFTTT

In Cryptic Tweet, Elon Musk’s SpaceX Says It Has Signed Up The First Moon Tourist

Elon Musk’s Space X announced that it has signed up its first private tourist for a trip around the moon. Like many Elon Musk-associated announcements, the reveal was large on hype and light on additional details. 

Despite the announcement on Twitter, made late on September 14, no timetable or details about the mission, including the name of the first space tourist, were revealed. The mission is planning on using SpaceX’s largest rocket, called the BFR. However, according to reports, this rocket is still under development and could be held up for another year or two before even making a test flight.

The only hint provided by Musk was that the passenger may be Japanese, tweeting a Japanese flag in response to a question who the voyager may be.

SpaceX has pitched the venture as “an important step toward enabling access for everyday people who dream of traveling to space.” More details on the plan are set to be released next Monday.

Elon Musk claims that the BFR is going to be larger and more powerful than any rocket in history. The way the news was announced indicates to us that Musk wants to shine a serious public spotlight on the mission. Whether or not there is alternative reasoning for doing so (such as taking the spotlight off of Tesla) is unclear.

Early this year was the first time Musk unveiled plans for the BFR and its attached aircraft. He indicated then that he wanted to try and use them to take private passengers, as well as astronauts, deeper into space and toward the moon.

Like many statements Musk has made in the past, this latest one should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Back in 2017 Musk said that he wanted to take “space tourists” around the moon by the end of 2018. Back then, the plan was to use a human-rated version of the already existing Dragon spacecraft, on top of a 27 engine Falcon Heavy rocket (pictured above) that has cost SpaceX about $1 billion.

By the time the Falcon Heavy rocket had its first launch early in 2018, Musk had already indicated that it may not be used primarily going forward. At that point, a spokesperson for SpaceX had said that Musk’s initial timetable to send people around the moon by the end of 2018 was going to need to be pushed back “to at least mid-2019 and likely longer”. The use of the BFR rocket seems to be an indication that they have given up on past plans and are now pursuing a different direction.

Given the recent negativity surrounding Tesla and recent auto industry executive comments that Musk may be better suited to work at SpaceX, we’re wondering if this isn’t a piece of a larger plan to pivot Musk’s full time attention away from Tesla.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2OnIZ0S Tyler Durden

Read Paul Manafort’s Full “Cooperation Agreement”

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort agreed on Friday to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller.

The deal comes after a 76-page “Superseding Criminal Information” document was filed against Manafort, charging him with money laundering and obstruction (see below). Jury selection in Manafort’s second trial in US District Court in Washington was scheduled to begin on Monday. 

This could be bad for Trump, Podesta and several members of the Obama administration

Language in the plea deal has fueled speculation that Manafort’s cooperation could potentially be devastating for President Trump – however many have also pointed out that others may be directly in the special counsel’s crosshairs. 

Those people include former Manafort associates Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig – all of whom failed to register as foreign agents in connection with work outside the United States, as well as members of the Obama administration

See the filing below: 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2p7FDUx Tyler Durden

Hedge Funds Slash Their Exposure To Stocks At The Worst Possible Time

Last week we discussed why even as the stock market ramped to new all time highs, hedge funds found themselves badly underperforming the S&P, and are now not only more than 5% below their January highs, but remain red for the year near the worst levels for 2018.

What are the reasons for this stark underperformance? It appears there are two main catalysts.

First, as BofA wrote last week, many hedge funds had simply not allocated enough capital to the market’s lone group of massive outperformers, the FAANGs. The bifurcated returns were on full show in August, when the S&P 500 rose 3%, yet when Apple shares surged 20% while the rest of the FAANGs, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, climbed 6 percent. Without those five stocks, Bloomberg calculates that the S&P 500’s August gain would have been cut nearly in half to 1.8%.

Second, and more important, hedge funds appear to have lost their way in 2018. Recall that as Goldman wrote in its observations of 2Q 13F that arguably the biggest contributor to underwhelming hedge fund performance has been declining hedge fund net exposure. Net long exposure calculated based on 13-F filings and publicly-available short interest data registered 55% at the start of 3Q, slightly lower than in 2Q. Worse, data from Goldman’s Prime Services division showed that net leverage had been declining steadily during recent months while the S&P 500 recovered to within 1% of its record high. In other words, as stocks ramp, hedge funds were rapidly delevering, uncertain about the future trajectory of the S&P.

Now, according to a new analysts from Morgan Stanley, the smart money has only been getting more cautious, despite having already been stung by a defensive stance on U.S. stocks.

According to Bloomberg, hedge funds’ net leverage, has continued to shrink and has fallen to the lowest level this year after a brief bounce in late August, and at 49% the ratio is down from a peak of more than 60% in March.

The growing reluctance of the “trapped” smart money to increase equity exposure demonstrates the growing skepticism about the durability of the S&P 500 against stocks markets in the rest of the world, a divergence which recently hit all time highs.

This lack of conviction in U.S. stocks may have been the main reason hedge fund managers had to watch in pain while the market rallied in July and August. During that stretch, Bloomberg notes that those with a focus on equities saw their underperformance versus the S&P 500 widen by 5%.

The poor returns also prompted Nomura to predict that the industry will have to sharply increase leverage. And yet, despite the S&P trading less than 1% below its all time highs, so far hedge funds have failed to muster the courage to do what they need to avoid a flood of redemptions at the end of the year, afraid that it is only a matter of time before the “alligator jaws” shown in the chart above, and highlighted by Jeff Gundlach in his latest Double Line investor call, will snap shut, costing those who chase the rally even more losses.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2p8EU5t Tyler Durden

Canadian Marijuana Users, Workers, Investors Will Face Lifetime Bans from Entering the U.S.

Smoking marijuana will be legal in Canada next month, but anyone who uses the drug could face a lifetime ban from entering the United States. So could anyone who works or invests in the country’s legal marijuana industry.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue to enforce a policy of absolute prohibition when Canadians try to travel to the U.S., the agency told Politico on Thursday. That means treating marijuana users like criminals and those who work in the marijuana industry like drug traffickers, even if they aren’t trying to bring any of the stuff into the states. Politico says CBP did not specify any minimum level of investment that could trigger a ban.

“Our officers are not going to be asking everyone whether they have used marijuana, but if other questions lead there—or if there is a smell coming from the car, they might ask,” Todd Owen, a CBP official, told Politico. “If you work for the industry, that is grounds for inadmissibility.”

What to do? Well, lying to a border agent is considered fraud and is also grounds for a lifetime ban. “But if an agent asks the question, I suppose they could decline to answer,” Lorne Waldman, an immigration lawyer, tells Bloomberg.

While CBP’s rules might seem straightforward, there’s actually quite a bit of vagueness. Scott Bernstein, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, tells The Toronto Star that he’s worried how far the ban on entry might extend. “That person who owns a mutual fund and maybe doesn’t even know where their money is going, are they going to be covered as well?” he asked.

Anyone subject to a lifetime ban from entering the United States can apply for a waiver, though that costs more than $500. The waivers are only granted at the discretion of CBP.

Cannabis companies are already being publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and it seems like only a matter of time before enforcing prohibition along America’s northern border creates serious problems for residents of both countries.

Consider that, after October 17, someone travelling from Canada (where marijuana is legal) to Washington State or Vermont (where marijuana is also legal) could still be stopped at the border, prohibited from entering the United States, and banned from the country for life. Take that scenario another step. What’s a resident of a border town like Blaine, Washington, or Derby Line, Vermont, going to do?

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2p8ELyX
via IFTTT

Pot Is No More Relevant to the Shooting of Philando Castile Than It Is to the Shooting of Botham Jean

When the Fox station in Dallas highlighted the marijuana found in shooting victim Botham Jean’s apartment, the tweet drew criticism from the left and the right. Especially striking was a comment from Dana Loesch, the conservative TV and radio host who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. “How is this germane to what happened?” she asked.

Good question. Since Jean was killed in his own home by Amber Guyger, an off-duty Dallas police officer who said she mistook his apartment for hers and him for a burglar, the fact that Guyger’s colleagues later found 10.4 grams of marijuana there has no bearing on her criminal culpability, as Joe Setyon noted earlier today. Yet Loesch seems to take a different view of marijuana’s relevance in the case of Philando Castile, the driver who was shot and killed by St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez during a 2016 traffic stop. Loesch, whose position on whether a jury was right to acquit Yanez of manslaughter is hard to pin down, has repeatedly brought up Castile’s cannabis consumption, although it’s not clear why.

Dashcam video of the incident shows that Yanez panicked after Castile, who had a concealed carry permit, calmly said, “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Yanez told him not to reach for his weapon, Castile assured him that he would not, and within a few seconds Yanez drew his gun and fired seven rounds, mortally wounding Castile. The evidence, including the testimony of Castile’s girlfriend, who was in the car at the time, indicated that Castile was trying to retrieve his driver’s license, which Yanez had asked to see.

The fact that marijuana was later found in Castile’s car is irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified, which depends on whether Yanez reasonably feared for his life. Yet while discussing the case on Twitter last year, Loesch said Castile was “in possession of a controlled substance and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal.” Although “possession of a controlled substance while armed” is a distinct offense in some states, Minnesota does not seem to be one of them. But Minnesota law, like federal law, does prohibit “an unlawful user of any controlled substance” from possessing a gun in any setting or circumstance. Loesch’s point seemed to be that, contrary to what some critics of Yanez’s acquittal have claimed, Castile’s actions were not fully consistent with the law: Even though he had a carry permit, as a cannabis consumer he was barred from owning a gun. That’s true, but it has nothing to do with the legality of Yanez’s actions.

On her radio show this week, Loesch again mentioned Castile’s marijuana, saying, “It didn’t help after, and it came out, that he had pot in the car.” Again, the pot in Castile’s car has no more bearing on the legality of Yanez’s actions than the pot in Jean’s apartment has on the legality of Guyger’s actions. Loesch also implied that Castile bore responsibility for his own death by asserting that the dashcam video shows him “grabbing [his] waistband 10 times” after Yanez told him not to. “That’s what happened in the video,” she said. “It made that already nervous, new cop even more nervous, and that’s why he pulled the trigger.” But the video does not show Castile reaching for his waistband even once, because it does not show what is happening inside the car.

The Atlantic‘s Adam Serwer, citing those comments, says “Loesch defends Castile’s shooting as justified.” I’m not sure that’s accurate, since Loesch also said, “No one’s saying that fatal force was required.” That statement is ambiguous, since it leaves open the possibility that Yanez reasonably feared Castile was about to shoot him, even though Castile had no such intent. Loesch seems determined to obscure the legal issue at the center of Yanez’s trial, and that fuzziness seems to suit the organization she represents, which has been notably reluctant to comment on the shooting.

Loesch’s perspective on Botham’s shooting is notably clearer. “The Fourth Amendment does not give an off-duty officer the right to enter your home without a warrant and use fatal force against you because they made a mistake,” she observed on her radio show. The day before on her NRA-TV show, Loesch suggested that Guyger, whose apartment is located directly below Jean’s, should have known she was in the wrong place. Loesch also suggested that Jean, if he had been armed, would have been justified in shooting Guyger. “This could have been very different if Botham Jean had been…a law-abiding gun owner and he saw somebody coming into his apartment,” she said. “If I see somebody coming into my house and I’m not expecting them and they’re walking in like they own the place, I would…act to defend myself.”

Serwer sees that statement as evidence of “the NRA’s Catch-22 for black men shot by police.” While “scolding dead people for being unarmed is standard procedure for the NRA,” he says, “the NRA’s conspicuous lack of outrage after the shootings of Philando Castile, Jason Washington, and Alton Sterling, all black men killed by police while in possession of a firearm, suggests an impossible double standard.”

It is not fair to describe Loesch’s comments about Jean as “scolding”; if anything, she was empathizing with him. But those 10.3 grams of marijuana do complicate Loesch’s position: If he was a cannabis consumer, Jean, like Castile, could not be “a law-abiding gun owner.” He was not legally allowed to own the gun that Loesch thinks might have saved his life. Depriving people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense for such trivial reasons is an issue that you might think would interest an organization whose raison d’être is defending the Second Amendment.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2xhABIP
via IFTTT