Andy9o8

Nope. Gunpowder and religion.

No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill. But it is a mistake of course http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too? Nice double standard No. Your misunderstanding is understandable (!); it's a finer point of constitutional law particular to the US. In the US, the Constitution is superior in authority to any laws passed by any legislature. That means that sometimes laws get passed that the courts declare to be void because they violate the constitution. The pro-gun side is saying that if such a law were passed, the provision that allows the sheriff to inspect a home for compliance - without the need for a judically-issued search warrant - would violate the part of the US Constitution that protects people from warrantless searches of their premises. In other words, the "enforcement" to which you refer would, itself, be unconstitutional. I'm a moderate on US gun issues, and I'm also a lawyer in the US, and I agree that such a statutory provision would be unconstitutional.

Yep. And after a few years, when the first person actually harmed by it has made it to the federal courts (and other have already been harmed, etc.) then a federal court will almost certainly hold it to be unconstitutional. It's what happens between the enactment and the striking of the law that I find to be troubling and concerning. As well as the attitude of our lawmakers that this is okay. Lawmakers' cavalier attitudes toward the Constitution have existed since it was first ratified, so that's nothing new. Re: time lag until judicial releif is obtained, I'd hold out hope that swift injunctive relief, even if temporary pending trial, might be obtained from the federal courts. I think there's a good argument that the "irreparable harm unless immediate relief granted" element is satisfied.

Correct. It's using guns as a way to sidestep the 4th Amendment. Don't you think the federal judiciary would recognize that?

No. Be a real man and a real American and buy ketchup. ... or use the more dignified term "tomato sauce" with tomato pronounced as in the Queen's English. Ketchup is not tomato sauce any more than beer is a bowl of wheat gruel.

What system of governance do you propose in the alternative? (Demerits for tired cliches. Seriously.)

To one extent I don't exactly blame him. During the 2000 primaries (for example in S. Carolina) he was defeated by a far, far less-qualified (and formerly draft-evading) George Bush by some of the meanest, filthiest campaign tactics used by any side in the history of presidential politics. He then sucked it up for 8 years displaying public loyalty toward a president whose guts he hated. Then to add insult to injury, he was again beaten in 2008 by an unknown 40-something whose experience in life and government were but a fraction of his. Has to have been galling. Guess he kinda snapped.

According to Wikipedia, the HHI is basically the same as the Bart Simpson Diversity Index. Thus speaks the breadth of my expertise in economics.

No. Be a real man and a real American and buy ketchup.

grrrrr.. those fuckers

But for the most part I don't really care much for, or about, DZ.com politics.

The issue is not the requirement of safe storage. The issue is that the rule authorizes a sheriff to enter a property and search it. Which points out, again, those pesky Constitutional issues with gun control. The Left is like a drone attacking a "suspected terrorist." It wants to take out the Second Amendment, and if the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, etc, are lost it's just "collateral damage." Although you're correct about what Constitutional issue is in play here, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same silly broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left".

Anyhow, jokes aside, McCain and Graham have missed a good opportunity to be intellectually honest, because this is a rare instance in which intellectual honesty not only will fly with the public, but won't hurt politically, either. By calling Hagel "unqualified", they're being dishonest, because of course he's qualified, probably well-qualified. But the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the "advise and consent" role on Cabinet nominations; so the Founding Fathers clearly appreciated that the confirmation process could (and likely would) be heavily influenced by politics. OK, fine; that was part of their overall formula of checks & balances. Now some opposition is just partisans opposing for the sake of opposing, but they're entitled to do that. And I have no doubt that this is at least partly motivated by McCain still stinging over being beaten by Obama in 2008, and then told to stop whining and suck it up; so this is a chance to get in a little "back-atcha" for a few days. But McCain and Graham could easily have been intellectually honest and simply said, "Ability to be competent isn't enough; Hagel is all wrong on policy, and as Senators we feel that that makes him wrong for the country in this post" - and that would have been totally within the scope of their Constitutional roles. Instead, they took the cheap sound-byte route, and in doing so cheapened their personal credibility and legacies.

Graham has such sweet little doe eyes. And McCain is a man's man. Clearly a coalition of the willing.

Where I come from, buddy, you say that to a man and you get punched in the nose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonfire#United_States

You have already lost. You just don't realize it. Only if this is your definition of victory.

Adam Ant Terry and the Pirates

...with a great big "arrow" sign saying "Help yourself; and have a go at my wife while you're at it!" Here's your sign!

It really depends on too many variable factors to give you a single certain answer.

Oh so you went to the "easy" school. I'm a Baptist brat. Nothing tougher then a Baptist school. Never been to a madrasa, have you?

Not to be a pain in the ass (ha), but some do and some don't. Many HO and/or renters' insurance policies have exclusions that specifically say that they do not cover, for example, vehicular liability, etc. (Kind of similar to the way most HO policies specifically exclude flood coverage, etc.). So the lesson on that point is to ask your insurance agent, since every policy is different.

Although in my post above I did share it.

OK, let's say you're concerned about liability insurance. There's no single correct answer to your question. The potential legal risks to you in the event of an incident may depend on a number of factors- would you be a W-2 employee, or an independent contractor? Do you own much in the way of personal assets that someone can go after? If you're married, do you live in a state where someone can, or cannot, go after property you own together with your spouse (this varies from one state to another)? Would you either work in, or do you live in, a state that permits garnishment of wages to satisfy a court judgment (some states do, some do not)? Is there "pilot's liability insurance" available to you, and if so, can you afford it? Frankly, your best source of information would be a lawyer who practices in the state where you live and/or would work. If you take advice from someone who is not a lawyer (regardless of their other experience), or even a lawyer unfamiliar with the applicable state's laws, you could find yourself harmfully led astray. (I'm a lawyer, but this is why I'm giving you questions and not answers.) Please keep this in mind when reading other responses you may get. PS - in response to something someone else has said: even if you don't have much in the way of personal assets, a court judgment can follow you around, everywhere in the country, for the rest of your life, with various consequences. You should talk to a lawyer about this, too. (It's much like seeking medical advice: go to the proper source.)

This is not an "Obama thing"; although congrats to you for not missing a good ODS opportunity. It is a "regulatory agency thing", in which regulatory agencies tend to be heavy-handed, sometimes absurdly so, in the pursuit of what they deem to be their mission. Every Fed and state regulatory agency (where most employees are career bureaucrats who work there for decades) does this, and it happens under every President or governor regardless of party. For example, you see, in your article, that EEOC ruling that Federal Judge Gonzales reamed them out about (the one about the EEOC's decision being "an insult to honest Hispanics".)? Well, although the author's phrasing tends to camouflage it to the casual reader - leaving the misapprehension that it was recent - that EEOC ruling occurred in 1989, when Bush-I was President, immediately preceded by 8 years of Reagan's presidency. ---------------------------- Don't you see when you're being played? The angle of the article - which, naturally, is making its way through the usual right-wing blogosphere (Google it) - is obvious - playing right into conservative white people's fears, because the impression they'll take away will be: "Obama (that Commie Negro) is so dangerous; look how HE is helping black and hispanic criminals make us real Americans unsafe". That it comes from the WSJ is no surprise.