Archive for June, 2009

Going Galt

June 30, 2009

Major Hat Tip to Anthony at The Liberty Sphere for this one. My only beef with this is that Ayn Rand was clearly a Libertarian not a Conservative.

Conservatives who love their country, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and human liberty have had enough.  Word came last night that a massive protest is planned in order to send Washington a message.

On July 30, conservatives are ‘going Galt,’ named after Ayn Rand’s famous character John Galt from her novel Atlas Shrugged, and thus  refuse to show up for work.  They plan to ‘call in conservative.’

From the Eastside TeaParty blog:

You knew this day was coming with a government ramming a socialist agenda down everyone’s throat.

This may be the only way to wake our leaders up and show them they better pay attention to the people, that are none too happy with the dismantling of our country.

The following just went out tonight!

On July 30th, Conservatives are “Going Galt”.

On that date, we are asking Conservatives all across the nation to “Call in Conservative”. On July 30th, Conservatives will not work, we will not buy. Instead, we will spend time with our families and friends. We will show President Obama and Congress who REALLY drives this economy. For more information on “A Day Without Conservatives , contact Judson Phillips at judson@teapartynation.com.

This is major news…a protest with teeth.  Unlike the Tea Parties, which I supported and continue to support, this particular protest goes a step further.  Conservatives will show the nation what it would be like if we simply did not work or spend our money.  This means that on that day we will not buy groceries, gasoline, snacks, patronize restaurants, or head out to Walmart or Target or any other retailer.

If this means businesses lose billions of dollars on that day, fine.  If this means that travel will be disrupted, good.  If this means communication systems are crippled, so be it.

Can you imagine the number of conservatives that work in various sectors of the economy who simply will not work on July 30?  Can you imagine that not a single conservative will spend their money at restaurants, gasoline stations, or retailers on that day?  The potential for this protest is enormous.

But government has pushed the citizens to this point.  For now, this is a peaceful but firm protest to show Washington and ‘progressives’ that they can no longer expect us to simply roll over and play dead as they ram a socialist agenda down our throats.  There are more of us than there are of them.  We can shut this country down if we so choose.

No doubt employers and business owners will threaten employees with termination if they ‘call in conservative’ on that day.  Don’t let them intimidate you.  They need conservative employees, who tend to be the most reliable and conscientious.  And, it must be stated that some will probably lose their jobs.  Thus, your participation is a matter of great sacrifice.

On the other hand, many business owners may well wish to join in the protest and simply shut down for the day.  Businesses have been hit hard in the Obama attack on free enterprise and markets…and tax policy.

However, the burning issue at hand is taking the country back from Chicago thugs, charlatans, crooks, liars, and a Congress that is run by incompetent boobs who are just as corrupt as the gang at the White House.

We are now presented with a major opportunity to make a difference and force Washington to sit up and take notice of our deep discontent.  The pivotal issue is how many conservatives are willing to join this ‘call in conservative’ day.  If you are with us, the person to contact is listed in the quotation from the Eastside Tea Party blog above.

Your country and its rule of law–The United States Constitution–need your help at this critical time.  If multi-millions of citizens participate, there is no way Washington can ignore us.  And if they do,  the next step may not be so pretty.

For more commentary, visit my blog, updated daily, at The Liberty Sphere.

Cap and Trade, a failure on all counts

June 30, 2009

The nefarious forces that are beholden to political correctness and pseudo-science this week scored a victory for the hate America first group in an overt attempt to destroy what is left of the economy. Apparently, real science, as presented by a premier wordpress blog, Wattsupwiththat, mean nothing.

“The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, has produced a stellar paper on [the cap and trade bill]… Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes ‘that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.’ But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill ‘would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. …[It] would reduce the earth’s future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.’ The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are ‘polluting’ at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here’s the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated ‘net’ job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out.” –columnist David Limbaugh

GOA Applause: NRA Past President on Sotomayor Nomination‏

June 30, 2009
Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy
Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for
all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor
to the Supreme Court. (See the article below).

GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it
is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate
from the bench.

The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a "wait and
see" approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to
wiggle through and be confirmed.

GOA calls on all pro-gunners across America to urge NRA leadership to
join in this critical fight to protect the Constitution -- and
especially our gun rights.

-- GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy

----------------------------------------

NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor
by Sandy Froman

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee to the
U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that
contradicts the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v.
Heller.  A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her
opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has
decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her
nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle
Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to
the Supreme Court.

On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate
expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment
record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue
is "fairly scant," she has twice stated that the Second
Amendment is not
a fundamental right.  Senator Sessions also noted that in Second
Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor's analysis of
important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting "a troubling
tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of
exceptional importance."  Sotomayor's view on the Second Amendment
clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat
senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms.
But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice
Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority,
with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the
Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens.

Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had
one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been
erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the
right to bear arms hangs by a single vote.

The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second
Amendment is a "fundamental right" that applies to cities and
states,
thus preventing them from restricting gun rights.  Even the liberal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King
that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor
disagrees.

When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it
belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun
rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge
Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold
that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or
city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have
in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the
Constitution can't help you.

This position becomes all the more radical when it's revealed how she
reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against
the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA
v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't
apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case
tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the
Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor
and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single
paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case,
Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives
people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no
explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action.

Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a
case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is
no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive
analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge
Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition to the private
ownership of firearms.

America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of
these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four
million members of the National Rifle Association.

I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year
term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000
to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We
can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and
tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen
Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we
must urge them to oppose this nominee.

Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which
will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities
like it does the federal government. This case is as important as
Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever.

We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It's time to tell the
Senate, "Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor."

Piracy and the right to self defense

June 28, 2009

Just yesterday the History Channel had a program about the American flag ship that Somali pirates attacked earlier in the year, and the fine work that the U.S. Navy did in getting the ship and crew rescued. Not to sell the Navy short by any means, but a lot of what happened was as a direct result of the actions taken by the crew. Indeed, if the crew had not taken decisive action, the Navy’s job would have been much tougher.

It seems that those that are so much smarter than common people prefer appeasement. Indeed, what in recent history has appeasement accomplished? World War Two comes to mind, as does the seizing of the American Embassy in Iran.Let’s not forget our second place finish in the Southeast Asian War games when appeasement stopped the bombing. Or the Korean War and what that has led to in the aftermath, as in lunatics with nuclear weapons. Appeasing hostage takers brought us September eleventh, and the World Trade Center attacks that this nation is still reeling from.

So then what is all this about? Well, I do have my problems with the N.R.A. But this time they hit the ball right out of the park, and it went straight over the center field fence. Read on.

Friday, June 26, 2009
Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) wrapped up a meeting earlier this month, where it agreed on “revised guidance on combating piracy and armed robbery against ships.”

Among other things, the report recommends “guidance to shipmasters and crew…who may be kidnapped or held hostage for ransom, based on the current United Nations guidance on ‘surviving as a hostage.’”

As hard as it is to believe, the MSC report concludes that, “flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker. Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.”

These recommendations defy reason, given that the pirates are already heavily armed and know vessels are easy targets due to the high level of probability that seamen are unarmed.

By contrast, U.S. Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) has introduced H.R. 2984–the “United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009.” The purpose of the Act is to assist in the defense of United States-flag vessels against piracy and to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of those vessels against piracy.

Commenting on the measure, Rep. LoBiondo, the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee, said: “Our merchant marine fleet is increasingly under attack from unlawful individuals and rogue groups that seek to disrupt commerce, seize U.S. and foreign crews, and instill fear on international waters. It is only appropriate that our fleets be legally allowed to defend themselves from these violent encounters. This common-sense legislation is a necessary step in empowering U.S.-flagged vessels to protect their crews and cargo.”

SOURCE

The Sullivan Act: Some History about Gun Control

June 27, 2009

The history of gun control is riddled with racism and corruption as well as outright deception. Based in elitism of one sort or another it is a subject worthy of soap opera drama that stirs the imagination.

One of the earliest examples is New York’s  Sullivan Act. Often pointed to by various advocates of the destruction of unalienable rights as some sort of morbid example of what those that know better than you do what you and your loved ones so desperately need it too is founded in corruption. One has to believe that Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg both wish that they had written this law, and that their constant never ending attacks on liberty reflect that desire.

Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.

New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.

Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.

Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, “gun violence.”

Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”

The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.

Full Story

Heller V. D.C. anniversary

June 27, 2009


Click here to vote in this week’s poll.
Today, June 26, marks the one-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Yet despite this great victory, we can’t rest on our laurels. Those who would still deny our Second Amendment freedoms are always looking for ways to thwart our success and reverse that decision. And while the case affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government, and federal entities such as Washington, D.C., from banning handguns for self-defense, the decision did not resolve the separate question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Piracy And The Right To Self Defense: Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

capitolPending Federal Legislation Needs Your Support: There are a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress that require your attention and action.  Please review these legislative initiatives and be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. Additional contact information can be found using the “Write Your Representatives” feature at www.NRAILA.org.

Gun Banner Confirmed — And The Truth About Legislation‏

June 27, 2009
Eight Republicans Help Confirm a Hard-Core Gun Banner
-- And how to keep Senators from "spinning" their support for gun
control

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

"Too much work [was] left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote
for myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years
ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms." --
Harold Hongju Koh (2001)

Friday, June 26, 2009

Imagine that.  The Senate confirmed this week, by a vote of 62-35, a gun
banner who stays up at night thinking of ways to impose more gun control
upon American citizens.

Harold Koh is that gun grabber, and he was confirmed yesterday to be the
Legal Adviser at the State Department.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans attempted to kill the Koh nomination
with a filibuster -- until eight of them crossed the aisle to help
Democrats confirm Koh.

The back-stabbing Senators are:  Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins
(R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mel
Martinez (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Once the filibuster was thwarted, Koh's nomination passed easily.  The
vote on final passage can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/m4m2f5

Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented
that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun
control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in
positions of power.  The chief lawyer for the State Department is just
the position someone like him needs to push more gun control through
international treaties.

GOA will continue watching for any attempt by the Obama administration
to foist an international gun control treaty upon the citizens of the
U.S.

Please stay tuned.

Don't Let Your Senators Escape the Heat of the Spotlight!

If you have been watching the news, you have no doubt seen stories on
the health care debate.  This is the topic de jour on Capitol Hill, and
Congress is ramping up to vote on a bill in a few weeks.

Last week, GOA alerted you to the fact that the whole health care issue
has become a Trojan Horse for gun control, among other things.

However, there are detractors who claim that the current health care
debate will have nothing to do with guns.  For example, GOA has been
"informed" that a search of the TeddyCare bill does not turn
up the word
"guns," and that the word "database" is seen only a
few times.

Hmm, if your Senator's office gives you that as a response, then tell
them not to be so lazy and naive.

One needs to do more than type in a word search in order to analyze
legislation. The database was set up under section 3001(c)(3)(i) of the
stimulus bill.  But the Kennedy bill allows for sweeping new
regulations, which make it potentially impossible for any doctor to
refuse to enter your records under the current section 13112 exemption.

Many things you tell your doctor in the privacy of his office could
affect your right to own a firearm. And just because anti-gun zealot Ted
Kennedy doesn't notify us up front of his anti-gun intentions doesn't
mean they don't exist.

Frankly, we got this same garbage in connection with the Veterans
Disarmament Act (officially known as the NICS Improvement Act), where
the anti-gunners took away the guns of 150,000 veterans through language
which was not explicit.  Before the bill was signed into law last year,
some detractors even claimed that because the NICS bill did not mention
the word "veterans," we must have been wrong to suggest that
the bill
would disarm vets!

Well, guess what?  The disarmament which was already occurring before
President Bush signed the legislation into law last year is now
occurring with a vengeance under the Obama administration.  (In fact,
GOA members should be looking for an upcoming mailing which will give
you postcards to send in support of an important bill -- introduced by
Sen. Burr of North Carolina -- which will protect veterans from the
fangs of the Veterans Disarmament Act.)

The point is, no Senate staffer should ever give you an opinion on a
bill unless he has read the entire code that the bill will be amending.
Nor should they ignore the potential for an Obama administration to
abuse any particular piece of legislation.

Remember how the RICO Act, originally enacted to help combat the Mafia,
was later used to crack down on legitimate banks and peaceful pro-life
protesters?  The original RICO Act never used the word
"abortion," but
that didn't stop overzealous prosecutors from going after the
non-violent protestors.

And who would have thought, when the original Brady law was passed in
1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic
tickets... or couples with marriage problems... or military vets with
nightmares from buying guns?  After all, the Brady law never mentioned
those people groups, and yet the law has been used over the past 15-plus
years to deny gun rights to those very people.

Reading legislation is not a job for the timid or the lazy.  If staffers
in your Senate offices aren't willing to read current bills IN THE LIGHT
OF EXISTING LAWS -- and to do the research necessary to compile this
information -- then politely encourage them to get another line of work.

****************************

The Infamous "Rosie" T-shirt

A photo of a man wearing a particular GOA T-shirt has been circulating
around the internet in recent months, resulting in record sales.

Check out this unique shirt, featuring a GOA logo and the message:

If guns kill people, then...

  -- pencils miss spel words.
  -- cars make people drive drunk.
  -- spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Only $15.50 at http://gunowners.org/merchandise.htm (plus shipping and
handling).

****************************
 

Obamacare leads to no where…

June 26, 2009

Amidst all the various sad stories being splashed across the Internet and airways having to do with the supposedly sad state of health care in America something  has gone by the wayside. That something is called freedom and liberty. The freedom to choose what sort of  coverage that you want, and the liberty to decide if you do,in fact, want or need any coverage at all.

Brought to you by our good friends at The Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado is a presentation addressing exactly this issue.

The New Mafia..?

June 25, 2009

Big Cowboy Hat Tip to none other than Texas Fred for this one.

Seems we have gangsters in our midst. Usually when I write about gangsters it’s referring to, oh… MS 13, or Crip’s, Blood’s and those sorts of people.

Not so this time. Our very own government is engaging in what looks an awful lot like extortion if not outright theft. Further, since said government and or it’s agents are armed with dangerous and or deadly weaponry? Well folks, that’s called robbery, first degree or armed robbery.

Well, a lot of people in this not so United States wanted change. They are getting change alright. Along with one healthy dose of corruption. Oops! I mean Chicago style politics.

Now, the youtube that follows is pretty to the point. I do not agree with it though. There are in fact many fine individuals serving in the Senate and Congress. Perfect? Nope, and I dare anyone to show me a perfect person. But at least many from places like Texas, Utah, and Wyoming are doing their level best to actually uphold the oath that they took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Not just to make a buck, or inflict their values on everyone else…

Judicial Indiscretion; Dogs running wild

June 21, 2009

Human, and by extension their pets, sometimes come into conflict with wildlife. Recently coyote attacks have been in the news quite a bit. That, however is not what today’s living with wildlife post is about. It does however tie in directly with another post having to do with hierarchy in the law.

Most states have laws about domestic canines worrying cattle or wildlife. In most situations, lethal force is authorized. I have always been fortunate in that the few times that I’ve seen things like this hazing of some sort convinced the dog (s) to find another amusement to satisfy their instincts. That certainly is not always the case though. I have a friend that left E.M.S. and became a Sheriffs Deputy in Weld County. While on patrol he came across a dog that was attempting to chew on a claf that was being born. He tried to frighten it away with his lights and siren, then with a warning shot. All to no avail. He ended up shooting the dog. That’s a legal shoot folks.

So then where am I going with this? Well, it seems that Ron Wedow witnessed a dog attacking a doe after having just killed the doe’s fawn. This was in unincorporated Douglas County, Colorado. Both the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife responded and determined that the shoot was indeed legal. It is in fact authorized by state law. Some time later though, County Animal Control came along. They decided, as a matter of policy, to charge Mister Wedow. Now he has mounting legal fees, for doing his civic duty.

This is clearly Judicial indiscretion on the part of the Douglas County District Attorney’s office. They need to flat drop the charges and even reimburse Ron Wedow for his legal expenses.

Read about this miscarriage of justice HERE.

H/T to Charlie Meyers of The Denver Post.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 180 other followers

%d bloggers like this: