Liberty Notes

Kevin L. Jamison

16 August 2006

It is a good day for Liberty.

It is one year and four months until Hillary Clinton starts her presidential campaign.

On 16 May, 2006 the First Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision in McCloskey v Mueller. The McCloskey estate sued Mr. Mueller in his capacity as Director of the FBI because the FBI did not arrest a certain Gary Lee Sampson. Mr. Sampson wanted to be arrested and had gone as far as to call the FBI and tell them that he was wanted for armed robbery and wanted to surrender. The agent taking the call either hung up or was cut off and no one was sent to collect Mr. Sampson. After waiting several hours for agents to come for him, Mr. Sampson grew discouraged and went on a killing spree; including Mr. McCloskey. The McCloskey estate sued and the suit was of course dismissed. There is no right to protection from criminals, even criminals who try to surrender. The court upheld the ruling saying “Because there is no principled way that the frontiers of tort law can be expanded to encompass the theory of liability that the (plaintiffs) have premised on these horrific facts . . .” This is the sort of thinking we want from judges, no matter how horrific the facts, they cannot change the law to suit their notion of fairness. This is true even in a case out of Massachusetts where authorities arbitrarily deny the right to carry firearms for self-defense, and then deny any responsibility for not protecting the public.

It occurs to me that if birds infected with Bird Flu eat mosquitoes infected with West Nile Virus, it could create a super flu. Of course, if the super flu could be treated with Viagra we would be well prepared for the epidemic, although we cannot count on such a coincidence. I asked my sister the Doctor what the chances were of such a super flu. She thought that I was imagining things, but I think it to be as good a conspiracy as any other I have heard recently.

With much ceremony, Kansas City has broken ground for a new Police Academy and police station. The area selected is semi-rural. Because it is semi-rural, the roads are narrow, hilly, winding, and without shoulders. After work has begun the City council was informed that the roads were narrow, hilly, winding, and without shoulders; a great deal of money is required to bring them up standards to carry the anticipated traffic. The council is outraged and blames consultants and commissions for not telling them that the roads were narrow, hilly, winding, and without shoulders. Of course when they went out to the cite for the groundbreaking, they might have looked out of their car windows, but paying attention is not what our City council does best.

Congress has passed a law forbidding the use of federal money to confiscate guns in emergency. Louisiana passed a similar state law. Despite these legal restrictions the New Orleans police chief says that in the next emergency, and there is always another emergency, he will order the theft of his citizen’s guns. There is never an end.

Missouri’s license to carry is now recognized in 26 states, two more states are anticipated to join this list very soon, Wyoming and South Carolina are considered to be probable additions. This will make Missouri’s license the most widely accepted license in the country. Individual Missourians are credited with contacting the Attorney Generals of various other states to promote recognition. Missouri’s Attorney General Jay Nixon put one of his assistants in charge of promoting recognition after 22 states already recognized our license, and after he announced his race for governor. He has never concealed his opposition to License To Carry, but we can expect that to change. The governor’s race is not until 2008, but both sides are starting their campaign.

There is some evidence that including coffee and peanuts in one’s diet will ward off diabetes. I have no idea of how valid these studies might be, but I have seen my father’s diabetes needles and will take any chance to avoid having needles of my own. Fortunately I enjoy a strong cup of coffee and unsalted peanuts. I shall never be without a handful of peanuts and a slice of coffee.

Israel gave up the Gaza strip without conditions, for this they got Hamas, rocket attacks and kidnappings. They retaliated and THEN there were international demands for a cease-fire. Appeasing aggressive ideologies never works. We cannot compromise with anti-gun fanatics, it only encourages them.

I see that the “Brady” Campaign (to steal our guns) is claiming victory. They boast that 12 states did not pass Castle doctrine laws, and they claim this to be a great victory. Of course 15 states did pass Castle doctrine laws, the 12 states Brady boasts about will submit these laws again. One is tempted to laugh. However, 17 years ago we were in this position. Seventeen years ago the NRA bragged about delaying or compromising bad legislation. Today we have the initiative. However (again) an election is less than 90 days away. The political composition could change and with it our ability to take the initiative. It will take all our efforts to keep our political power and keep our initiative.

Dana Buckman entered the AutoZone in Rochester NY in July 2005, brandished a gun, and demanded money. He was disarmed by employees and apparently not in a nice way. He has sued for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We will have occasion to mention this lawsuit to our legislature after the elections.

About 1997 Thomas P. McBride, an attorney in St. Joseph Missouri, confronted a group of men who were creating a disturbance on his property. In the course of the confrontation he wounded two of them and was charged with six counts of assault. The jury found him guilty of one. He received a suspended imposition of sentence, but there was more to come. The two persons sued him, and I understand that he was hammered in the civil case. The Bar Association filed ethics complaints because he had been found guilty, and the Supreme Court, which hears these matters, gave him a reprimand. It is not a just world, but we continue to make adjustments. There should be some newspaper articles on the case, but I have not found them yet.

I have just argued a case in the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri. The appellant had pled guilty to burglary some quarter century ago. He received a suspended imposition of sentence, which all defendants are told makes the conviction a closed record just like a not guilty verdict. Frequently they are told that it makes the matter disappear “as if it never happened”. After a blameless subsequent life, he applied for a permit to acquire a handgun. He was denied because the statute prohibits permits to persons who had pled guilty or were found guilty. It is irritating that under current law if he had gone all the way through trial, the suspended imposition of sentence would have cut off a finding of guilt, and he could buy handguns. I argued that this was an unconstitutional distinction not intended by the statute. The federal authorities do not consider a Missouri suspended imposition of sentence to be a conviction for the purpose of buying guns; Kansas, on the other hand, does. It appears that Kansas considers the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution to be a mere suggestion. I do not expect to have a ruling for at least a month. I will post the ruling on my web site www.KLJamisonLaw.com and www.WMSA.net.

Naomie Harris, an actress in the new “Miami Vice” movie, whispers “there is something exhilarating about firing a gun”. This is interesting, not that it is exhilarating, we know that, and not that a new shooter would find it exhilarating, we have seen that. The interesting thing is that she felt constrained to whisper the revelation as if it was a forbidden pleasure; it very nearly has been.

Clay County has filed charges of assault in the first degree, essentially attempted murder, against Glen Randall. Mr. Randall is accused of stabbing another man. In an interview with detectives Mr. Randall stated that it was self-defense and that he wished that he had killed the man. This did not go over well. This is why we have a right to remain silent. People say things under stress that they would not say otherwise. A certain movie star claims that alcohol has the same effect. There is something to what he says; alcohol is famous for loosening the tongue and never, it seems, in a good way. Medication is sometimes found to have the same effect. In the 1930’s German doctors used a new anesthetic on women in childbirth, the conversation would then run something like: “Frau Schmidt, you have a son”. The lady would dreamily reply, “Hans will be so pleased” “But Frau Schmidt, your husband’s name is Fritz!” “I know.” The Germans thought they were on to something and the anesthetic became known as “truth serum”. It was not a truth serum; it only reduced the inhibitions against speech, and the resulting speech was not necessarily true it could be a jumble of released inhibitions from the inner recesses of the mind. This is why conversations with medical personnel are privileged. However, this is a privilege I have seen violated if it helped the prosecution case. Remaining silent is always best.

I have conducted some research on history of the Permit To Acquire law (PTA). We had been told that it dates from 1919; it actually dates from 1921. I thumbed through some brittle old statute books and the journal of the Missouri senate and house for 1921 and found that it was introduced in January of that year and sailed through both houses. The journals do not give the motivation for the bill; we have assumed that the race riots of 1919 had a great deal to do with it. The initial law, and up to 1981, required the sheriff to determine if the applicant had such moral value that he would not be a threat to the public. The reports are that this was accomplished by determining if the applicant was white. In the next session of the legislature, we shall try to abolish this law. But first we must get some people re-elected.

In an old magazine I saw a review of The Plot to Seize the White House by Jules Archer. The author claims that in 1933 retired Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler was approached by wealthy industrialists to lead a plot to seize control of the US government; fascism is prominently mentioned. Looking at used book web sites I find the few copies going for hundreds of dollars. The text is available at www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm. I have not read the text, but the premise is curious. There were various factions trying to take advantage of the Depression to seize control. However, I question why wealthy industrialists would approach General Butler for such a project. The General was twice awarded the Medal of Honor and had an excellent reputation among veterans. On the other hand, he was most famous for stating, “War is a racket” and condemning the various little wars where he earned his medals as enforcing the interests of wealthy industrialists. He hated the guys the author claims tried to recruit him and was famous for hating them. Nothing is impossible and perhaps these interests thought that they could manipulate him. The theory illustrates the need for the Second Amendment. There is always the possibility that someone will try to seize control on one excuse or another and encounter Unintended Consequences.

There is a new web site for the shooting community; www.Handgunlaw.us. It provides an excellent summary of the different LTC laws of the various states, reciprocity, and associated topics.

Once I had glasses which allowed me to see far away. Then I had bi-focals, which allowed me to see near and far. Now I have tri-focals which allow me to see near, far, and medium. In a few more years I will have quad-focals, which I am told do not exist yet, but I see a pattern.

I recently saw two opposing parties present their cases on a TV program. The issue was over using profiling to screen airline passengers. This is a contentious issue and has certain legal and practical problems. I remember the scene in The Battle of Algiers dress their (female) bomb carriers as French women, who are not searched by security. There was a reason the Special Forces school required us to watch this movie. What struck me about the brief TV debate was the tactics employed by the anti-profile speaker. She claimed that the Supreme Court released the Japanese-Americans interned during WW II, likening profiling to this Constitutional tragedy, and when the profiling advocate began to speak she spoke over him accusing him of racial and religious intolerance. She was wrong and she was rude. The Supreme Court did NOT release the Japanese internees; all first year law students read the Koramatsu case where the Court deferred to the government’s security concerns. I don’t know if she was lying, she may have merely been wrong. We frequently see these tactics in our own debates. Anti-gun people who believe that facts must be on their side imagine statistics, events, and law and present them as common knowledge. I have seen them lie in the belief that they are lying in a good cause. They frequently interrupt our advocates, relying on our manners to avoid being called liars, rude, and unfair. We need to be prepared for these tactics.

We shall overcome.