Tag: news

Elaine Huguenin, a
New Mexico photographer, wants
the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to a state
anti-discrimination law that compels her to shoot gay weddings even
though she finds them morally objectionable. Huguenin, who faced a
discrimination complaint after turning away a lesbian couple,
argues that the law violates her First Amendment right to freedom
of speech by forcing her to endorse a message with which she
disagrees: that gay marriages should be celebrated. In a
column about the case, New York Times legal writer
Adam Liptak claims “there are constitutional values on both sides
of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms.
Huguenin’s right to free speech.” But the Constitution guarantees
equal treatment by the government, not by private
individuals or organizations. The 14th Amendment cannot justify
requiring photographers to treat all couples equally any more than
the First Amendment can justify requiring publishers to treat all
authors equally. By erroneously suggesting that deciding Huguenin’s
case means choosing between competing “constitutional values,”
Liptak lends cover to the American Civil Liberties Union, which in
this case is arguing that Huguenin’s civil liberties should be
overridden by a principle that cannot be found in the Bill of
Rights:

I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil
Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing
free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.

Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices.
Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said,
and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”

But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than
the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said,
explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New
Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.

“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day,
it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting
up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’ “

Wouldn’t someone who posted such a sign be exercising his
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of
association? The ACLU may not like the message, but that
consideration has never stopped the organization from defending the
constitutional rights of Nazis and Klansmen. If it cannot bring
itself to stand up for Huguenin’s rights, it should at least have
the decency to sit this one out.

Scott Shackford discusses earlier stages of the case
here and
here.

Since 3D-printed guns first emerged on the scene,
clearly promising to render gun regulation more irrelevant than a
mandatory missionary-position law in a world full of blackout
curtains, scribblers phobic about things that go BANG!
have found solace in one small hope: At least it’ll cripple the
National Rifle Association! Their hopes rest on the repeated
assertion that the NRA is industry-funded, and DIY-gunmaking will
deprive nasty Merchants of Death™ of their customers, so then they
won’t prop-up their puppet astroturf organization. The NRA may or
may not lose relevance with the advance of technology, but it won’t
be because of bogus assertions that it’s a front group for the gun
industry, no matter how often the mantra is chanted.

The most recent assertion of the delusional meme comes from Rob
Enderle at TGDaily,
who wrote:

The NRA, which is pretty rabid about any form of gun control, is
silent on this issue largely because it is funded by gun
manufacturers who really don’t want people printing copies of their
product rather than buying one. 

Josh Sager at Salon engaged in the same sort of
wishful thinking at Salon:

Despite its claim to be a sportsmen’s civil rights group, the
NRA is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, whose motives and
goals don’t always overlap with those of the organization’s
membership.

And then there’s Adam L. Penenberg at PandoDaily who
wrote back in January:

Does the NRA represent the views of its 4 million members, or is
it a front for the $12 billion gun industry comprised of
manufacturers, firearms dealers, and ammunition makers, whose
interests may diverge from those of the common member? Let’s follow
the money.

The problem with all of these lazy assertions is that they’re
not true. They appear, really, to be exercises in wishful thinking
by people who can’t believe so many Americans could support and
fund a civil liberties organization with views so opposed to those
of right-thinking scribblers.

Right-thinking scribblers who don’t bother to do any
fact-checking, that is. In fact, there’s a handy place they can
investigate their thesis: The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s
FactCheck.org (not part of the right-wing conspiracy, according to
the latest memo). Way back on January 15,
FactCheck.org debunked the NRA-as-a-tool-of-the-gun-industry
nonsense:

In arguing that the NRA “represents gun manufacturers” and not
“gun owners anymore,” Sen. Christopher Murphy discounted NRA
membership dues as “less than half” of NRA funding and instead
elaborated on how the NRA makes “tens of millions of dollars off of
the purchases of guns.” He said, “They pay their salaries off of
these gun purchases.”

But gun customers voluntarily decide if they want to
contribute to NRA organizations when they purchase a gun, just as
they voluntarily decide to join the NRA and pay dues. And much of
the contributions made during gun sales is used to fund community
programs, such as gun safety, law enforcement training and hunter
education — not salaries.

The piece went on to point out:

The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
each operate separate fundraising programs that allow gun customers
at participating gun stores to “round up” the purchase price to the
nearest dollar as a contribution. Some customers may be asked
instead, depending on the company making the sale, to “add a buck
for shooting’s future” — much in the same way that some food stores
ask for small donations to fight cancer or hunger when customers
check out. …

The NRA Foundation’s 990 form filed with the IRS for 2010 shows it
raised nearly $23.4 million in total revenue and provided more than
2,200 in grants for community programs for hunters, competitive
shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement, and women and youth
groups, including the Boy Scouts and 4-H clubs. In all, $21.2
million went for grants — most of it (nearly $12.6 million) to the
NRA itself for “[e]ducation, training, range development, youth
programs, [and] equipment,” while the rest went to the community
programs and groups.

The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries.

The NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA, operates a
“round-up” program with fewer participating companies, although it
has been in existence for longer. Its program was the brainchild of
gun store owner Larry Potterfield, the founder and CEO of Midway
USA in Missouri. In a video on his website, Potterfield says he
started the program in 1992 and the money raised from his customers
goes into the “Endowment for the Protection of the Second
Amendment.” A few other companies have since joined the program,
but Midway customers are still the largest contributors by far. In
a Dec. 7, 2012, press release, the company said its customers have
donated $7.6 million to the NRA lobbying group since 1992. The
program has a balance of nearly $9.5 million, including
contributions from gun customers at other stores, the press release
says.

The National Rifle Association itself, independent of the
educational foundation and the lobbying group, collected almost
half of its $227 million in revenues in 2010 from membership dues
and and program fees.

Keep in mind that the organization has
five million members. The American Civil Liberties Union, by
contrast, the preeminent civil liberties organization in the
country, has around 500,000
members. That’s not to belittle the ACLU—it does excellent work
(and some things with which I strongly disagree, as does the
NRA)—but it’s not that hard to raise hundreds of millions of
dollars when you have millions of members.

The NRA does get industry contributions, but
FactCheck.org points out that it’s on the order of a million bucks
here and there. It’s a membership-driven organization, whether or
not other people like what those members support.

But all of these articles sighing hopefully over the eventual
death of the NRA have another thing in common: Recognition that 3D
printing is making the old policy arguments pointless by making the
manufacture and ownership of guns a private activity that the law
can’t touch. This is likely going to be true of all
physical objects. As TGDaily’s Enderle writes, “the more folks try
to make printing guns illegal the more creative ways 3D printer
users will likely come up with to get around or actively avoid the
law.”

He adds, “This might actually end up accelerating the move away
from traditionally purchased guns because you could do things like
custom design them…” Again, this could well be true of
manufacturing all sorts of items, turning the creation of
smaller physical objects into a DIY activity, with design and
larger, more-complex manufacturing retaining a commercial
aspect.

Why is the NRA “silent” on this issue? I’m not sure that it
is—I’ve repeatedly discussed the issue on NRA News’s Cam & Co., and they’ve

linked to my pieces on the issue along with other issues. But
do think the organization, along with almost everybody else, has
been blindsided by a fast-evolving phenomenon that’s less than a
year old. The first 3D-printed Liberator was fired in the spring of
this year.

And this fast technologicvelopment might actually cause the NRA
to fade away, at least in its political-lobbying persona. It’s
original character as an educational organization likely has a
future no matter what. After all, when an activity slips beyond the
reach of policy, there’s no reason to engage in or fund policy
debates. If laws and regulations are rendered irrelevant, there’s
no incentive to expend resources on changing them.

But then, the same can be said of the gun control
groups.

Since 3D-printed guns first emerged on the scene,
clearly promising to render gun regulation more irrelevant than a
mandatory missionary-position law in a world full of blackout
curtains, scribblers phobic about things that go BANG!
have found solace in one small hope: At least it’ll cripple the
National Rifle Association! Their hopes rest on the repeated
assertion that the NRA is industry-funded, and DIY-gunmaking will
deprive nasty Merchants of Death™ of their customers, so then they
won’t prop-up their puppet astroturf organization. The NRA may or
may not lose relevance with the advance of technology, but it won’t
be because of bogus assertions that it’s a front group for the gun
industry, no matter how often the mantra is chanted.

The most recent assertion of the delusional meme comes from Rob
Enderle at TGDaily,
who wrote:

The NRA, which is pretty rabid about any form of gun control, is
silent on this issue largely because it is funded by gun
manufacturers who really don’t want people printing copies of their
product rather than buying one. 

Josh Sager at Salon engaged in the same sort of
wishful thinking at Salon:

Despite its claim to be a sportsmen’s civil rights group, the
NRA is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, whose motives and
goals don’t always overlap with those of the organization’s
membership.

And then there’s Adam L. Penenberg at PandoDaily who
wrote back in January:

Does the NRA represent the views of its 4 million members, or is
it a front for the $12 billion gun industry comprised of
manufacturers, firearms dealers, and ammunition makers, whose
interests may diverge from those of the common member? Let’s follow
the money.

The problem with all of these lazy assertions is that they’re
not true. They appear, really, to be exercises in wishful thinking
by people who can’t believe so many Americans could support and
fund a civil liberties organization with views so opposed to those
of right-thinking scribblers.

Right-thinking scribblers who don’t bother to do any
fact-checking, that is. In fact, there’s a handy place they can
investigate their thesis: The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s
FactCheck.org (not part of the right-wing conspiracy, according to
the latest memo). Way back on January 15,
FactCheck.org debunked the NRA-as-a-tool-of-the-gun-industry
nonsense:

In arguing that the NRA “represents gun manufacturers” and not
“gun owners anymore,” Sen. Christopher Murphy discounted NRA
membership dues as “less than half” of NRA funding and instead
elaborated on how the NRA makes “tens of millions of dollars off of
the purchases of guns.” He said, “They pay their salaries off of
these gun purchases.”

But gun customers voluntarily decide if they want to
contribute to NRA organizations when they purchase a gun, just as
they voluntarily decide to join the NRA and pay dues. And much of
the contributions made during gun sales is used to fund community
programs, such as gun safety, law enforcement training and hunter
education — not salaries.

The piece went on to point out:

The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
each operate separate fundraising programs that allow gun customers
at participating gun stores to “round up” the purchase price to the
nearest dollar as a contribution. Some customers may be asked
instead, depending on the company making the sale, to “add a buck
for shooting’s future” — much in the same way that some food stores
ask for small donations to fight cancer or hunger when customers
check out. …

The NRA Foundation’s 990 form filed with the IRS for 2010 shows it
raised nearly $23.4 million in total revenue and provided more than
2,200 in grants for community programs for hunters, competitive
shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement, and women and youth
groups, including the Boy Scouts and 4-H clubs. In all, $21.2
million went for grants — most of it (nearly $12.6 million) to the
NRA itself for “[e]ducation, training, range development, youth
programs, [and] equipment,” while the rest went to the community
programs and groups.

The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries.

The NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA, operates a
“round-up” program with fewer participating companies, although it
has been in existence for longer. Its program was the brainchild of
gun store owner Larry Potterfield, the founder and CEO of Midway
USA in Missouri. In a video on his website, Potterfield says he
started the program in 1992 and the money raised from his customers
goes into the “Endowment for the Protection of the Second
Amendment.” A few other companies have since joined the program,
but Midway customers are still the largest contributors by far. In
a Dec. 7, 2012, press release, the company said its customers have
donated $7.6 million to the NRA lobbying group since 1992. The
program has a balance of nearly $9.5 million, including
contributions from gun customers at other stores, the press release
says.

The National Rifle Association itself, independent of the
educational foundation and the lobbying group, collected almost
half of its $227 million in revenues in 2010 from membership dues
and and program fees.

Keep in mind that the organization has
five million members. The American Civil Liberties Union, by
contrast, the preeminent civil liberties organization in the
country, has around 500,000
members. That’s not to belittle the ACLU—it does excellent work
(and some things with which I strongly disagree, as does the
NRA)—but it’s not that hard to raise hundreds of millions of
dollars when you have millions of members.

The NRA does get industry contributions, but
FactCheck.org points out that it’s on the order of a million bucks
here and there. It’s a membership-driven organization, whether or
not other people like what those members support.

But all of these articles sighing hopefully over the eventual
death of the NRA have another thing in common: Recognition that 3D
printing is making the old policy arguments pointless by making the
manufacture and ownership of guns a private activity that the law
can’t touch. This is likely going to be true of all
physical objects. As TGDaily’s Enderle writes, “the more folks try
to make printing guns illegal the more creative ways 3D printer
users will likely come up with to get around or actively avoid the
law.”

He adds, “This might actually end up accelerating the move away
from traditionally purchased guns because you could do things like
custom design them…” Again, this could well be true of
manufacturing all sorts of items, turning the creation of
smaller physical objects into a DIY activity, with design and
larger, more-complex manufacturing retaining a commercial
aspect.

Why is the NRA “silent” on this issue? I’m not sure that it
is—I’ve repeatedly discussed the issue on NRA News’s Cam & Co., and they’ve

linked to my pieces on the issue along with other issues. But
do think the organization, along with almost everybody else, has
been blindsided by a fast-evolving phenomenon that’s less than a
year old. The first 3D-printed Liberator was fired in the spring of
this year.

And this fast technologicvelopment might actually cause the NRA
to fade away, at least in its political-lobbying persona. It’s
original character as an educational organization likely has a
future no matter what. After all, when an activity slips beyond the
reach of policy, there’s no reason to engage in or fund policy
debates. If laws and regulations are rendered irrelevant, there’s
no incentive to expend resources on changing them.

But then, the same can be said of the gun control
groups.

Yesterday George Zimmerman was
charged with aggravated assault after his girlfriend, Samantha
Scheibe, claimed he aimed a shotgun at her during a fight. Here is
part of the
911 call that Scheibe placed at 12:30 p.m. from her home in
Apopka, Florida:

Scheibe: He’s in my house breaking all my
shit because I asked him to leave. He has a freakin’ gun, breaking
all of my stuff right now. [To Zimmerman:]
 I’m doing this again? You just broke my glass
table, you broke my sunglasses, and you put your gun in my freakin’
face and told me to get the fuck out…This is not your house. No,
get out of here. 

Dispatcher: OK, where’s his weapon at?

Scheibe: He just put it down. [To Zimmerman:]
Get out of my house. Do not push me out of my house. 

Zimmerman: I didn’t push you, Sammy.

Scheibe: Will you please get out of my
house.

Zimmerman: Calm down. 

Scheibe: Are you serious right now? Are you
fucking kidding me? [To dispatcher:] He just pushed me out of my
house and locked me out.

Zimmerman denies brandishing any weapons. He claims Scheibe was
the one who flew off the handle and broke the table. He says she
became irate when he started packing his things to move out after
she informed him that she was pregnant but wanted to raise the baby
on her own. (Scheibe says she is not pregnant.) When police
arrived, about four minutes after Scheibe called 911, they found
Zimmerman calm and unarmed.

This incident is reminiscent of a fight that Zimmerman had with
his estranged wife, Shellie, in September. She initially claimed he
had threatened her and her father with a gun but later
admitted she never actually saw a weapon. The police concluded
there was insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman.

People who are already convinced that Zimmerman’s shooting of
Trayvon Martin was not justified will see these two incidents as
further evidence that Zimmerman is an aggressor who is good at
playing the victim. And if he really did threaten his ex-wife or
his girlfriend with a gun, that suggests a disposition consistent
with the conclusion that he acted more out of anger than out of
fear when he shot Martin.

Still, the prosecution
did not come close to proving that claim beyond a reasonable
doubt at Zimmerman’s trial. On the whole, the evidence indicated
that Martin started the fight and that he was on top of Zimmerman
when the shot was fired. Furthermore, Zimmerman’s injuries were
consistent with his report that Martin punched him in the face and
knocked his head against the pavement. That does not necessarily
mean Zimmerman reasonably believed shooting Martin was necessary to
prevent death or serious injury. But to win an acquittal, all the
defense had to do was make that scenario seem plausible. If it
seems a little less plausible in light of Zimmerman’s subsequent
domestic squabbles, that does not mean the jury erred. After all,
even an asshole can act in self-defense. We will never know for
sure whether Zimmerman really did, but under our system of justice
he rightly benefited from that doubt. And it should go without
saying that any crime Zimmerman might commit after his acquittal
cannot possibly make the right to stand your ground retroactively

relevant to his defense in the earlier case. 

Yesterday George Zimmerman was
charged with aggravated assault after his girlfriend, Samantha
Scheibe, claimed he aimed a shotgun at her during a fight. Here is
part of the
911 call that Scheibe placed at 12:30 p.m. from her home in
Apopka, Florida:

Scheibe: He’s in my house breaking all my
shit because I asked him to leave. He has a freakin’ gun, breaking
all of my stuff right now. [To Zimmerman:]
 I’m doing this again? You just broke my glass
table, you broke my sunglasses, and you put your gun in my freakin’
face and told me to get the fuck out…This is not your house. No,
get out of here. 

Dispatcher: OK, where’s his weapon at?

Scheibe: He just put it down. [To Zimmerman:]
Get out of my house. Do not push me out of my house. 

Zimmerman: I didn’t push you, Sammy.

Scheibe: Will you please get out of my
house.

Zimmerman: Calm down. 

Scheibe: Are you serious right now? Are you
fucking kidding me? [To dispatcher:] He just pushed me out of my
house and locked me out.

Zimmerman denies brandishing any weapons. He claims Scheibe was
the one who flew off the handle and broke the table. He says she
became irate when he started packing his things to move out after
she informed him that she was pregnant but wanted to raise the baby
on her own. (Scheibe says she is not pregnant.) When police
arrived, about four minutes after Scheibe called 911, they found
Zimmerman calm and unarmed.

This incident is reminiscent of a fight that Zimmerman had with
his estranged wife, Shellie, in September. She initially claimed he
had threatened her and her father with a gun but later
admitted she never actually saw a weapon. The police concluded
there was insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman.

People who are already convinced that Zimmerman’s shooting of
Trayvon Martin was not justified will see these two incidents as
further evidence that Zimmerman is an aggressor who is good at
playing the victim. And if he really did threaten his ex-wife or
his girlfriend with a gun, that suggests a disposition consistent
with the conclusion that he acted more out of anger than out of
fear when he shot Martin.

Still, the prosecution
did not come close to proving that claim beyond a reasonable
doubt at Zimmerman’s trial. On the whole, the evidence indicated
that Martin started the fight and that he was on top of Zimmerman
when the shot was fired. Furthermore, Zimmerman’s injuries were
consistent with his report that Martin punched him in the face and
knocked his head against the pavement. That does not necessarily
mean Zimmerman reasonably believed shooting Martin was necessary to
prevent death or serious injury. But to win an acquittal, all the
defense had to do was make that scenario seem plausible. If it
seems a little less plausible in light of Zimmerman’s subsequent
domestic squabbles, that does not mean the jury erred. After all,
even an asshole can act in self-defense. We will never know for
sure whether Zimmerman really did, but under our system of justice
he rightly benefited from that doubt. And it should go without
saying that any crime Zimmerman might commit after his acquittal
cannot possibly make the right to stand your ground retroactively

relevant to his defense in the earlier case. 

Of course he would be from
Florida! GOP Rep. Trey Randel, representing the Fort Meyers-Naples
area of Florida, was arrested in D.C. for possession of cocaine.
From
Politico:

Rep. Trey Radel, a Florida Republican elected in 2012, will be
in court Wednesday on charges that he possessed cocaine.

Radel, 37, was charged with misdemeanor possession of cocaine in
D.C. Superior Court on Tuesday.

He faces a maximum of 180 days in jail, as well as a fine of up
to $1,000. Radel has missed all four votes in the House this
week.

He gave a statement saying he “struggles with the disease of
alcoholism” and is going to seek treatment and counseling and is
sorry for letting everybody down.

If he had been caught with cocaine in Florida, it would have
been a
felony there, risking him jail time and loss of his voting
rights (not that either of those things would have probably
happened to him). The Washington Post
noted that Randel is a co-sponsor of federal legislation to
reform mandatory minimum sentences for drug violations (and is a
lover of rap music).

Read the whole story (and more of Radel’s statement)
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.