SANTA CLAUS AND GUNS

We live in a crazy world. Unquestionably.

 

I am a believer in the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms. With restrictions, of course.

 

Arizona is a less than stable state. Could be described as crazy. Immigration problems, shootings and the like.

 

Congresswoman Gabriellel Giffords comes to mind. The Congresswoman who was campaigning at a shopping center and was shot in the head. She is still recovering. Fortunately for the good.

 

Scottsdale is a suburb of Phoenix. It is an affluent suburb. A very affluent suburb.

 

Scottsdale has a gun club. It is called the Scottsdale Gun Club.

 

Last year and this year, the Scottsdale Gun Club has provided a Santa Claus for children. Children are invited to visit Santa Claus, sit on his lap, speak with him, and have their picture taken. Same as has gone on for years. With one difference. An addition. The pictures of the children and Santa Claus also contain guns. Guns like an $80,000 Garwood mini gun and an SGC's belt fed machine gun.

 

 I am not familiar with guns. I have never shot one. I do not personally know of the two type guns set forth. However, they seem to be heavy duty.

 

The event is advertised as follows: "Get your holiday pictures with Santa and his machine guns."

 

A sell out this year and last year. A no room at the inn event. Parents run to have their children's pictures taken with Santa Claus and these weapons.

 

Crazy!

 

An example of gun support which goes a step too far. In fact, too many steps too far. It is neither good for society nor for the children themselves.

 

What will be said, what will be written, 20 years from now, when one of these children shoots up a school room or shopping mall with his or her machine gun?

 

 

Mexican Flag Yes / American Flag No

Sometimes a bad decision.....

 

A federal court in California recently made what I consider a bad decision. It happens.

 

Following are the facts. See if you agree with me.

 

Live Oak High School in California has Mexican and American students. They do not get along. Violence and fights are commonplace. The scene is somewhat like a battlefield. Two opposing armies confronting each other with flags flying. Yes, the Mecians unfurl the Mexican flag and the Americans the Americans flag. Things have reached the point where many of the students wear tee shirts with their respective flag emblazoned thereon.

 

The Mexican students are either illegals or children of illegals.

 

May 5 is a Mexican holiday of note. It is called Cinco de Mayo.

 

Prior to last May 5, it was obvious to the school district that there was going to be a major conflict on Cinco de Mayo. The school district directed that the American students could not wear any American flag on their clothing nor could the American flag be carried by any of them. If a tee shirt with the American flag was worn, it had to be turned inside out.

 

No similar restrictions were placed upon the Mexican students. They could carry the Mexican flag and wear it on their clothing.

 

Certain of the American students took the case to court claiming their right to free speech had been violated.

 

More than a year later, the Court issued its decision. The law moves slowly. The ruling was against the American students' position and in favor of the Mexican position. The court said that Constitutional rights may be suppressed or otherwise contained if a disruption might reasonably occur.

 

I consider the decision a bad one. It is not fair. The school board did not apply their reasoning equally. They should have prohibited the Mexicans also from wearing or carrying the Mexican flag. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander! Suppress the rights of both sides or suppress not at all.

 

Additionally and most important, America should be for Americans first. Our courts and government too many times bend over backwards to accommodate outsiders.

 

Bad decisions happen. That is why appeal courts exist. I do not know nor couldI I ascertain whether the American students planned to appeal this decision.

CIGARETTE PACKAGE WARNINGS

The tobacco industry has won a significant court battle.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon of Washington ruled last week that the June requirement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that nine new warnings were required to be placed prominently on cigarette packages was unconstitutional.

 

Some background.

 

The issue involves what might otherwise be described as graphic cigarette labels. The graphic work mandated by the FDA included a man blowing smoke through a hole in his throat, diseased lungs, dead bodies and rotted teeth. All required to be in color. The obvious purpose to discourage cigarette smoking.

 

Congress controlled smoking till 2009. At that time, Congress gave that right to the FDA. As with any federal agency, the FDA took the responsibility seriously. In June of this year, the FDA mandated the placing of the colorful graphic images described on cigarette packages.

 

The tobacco industry went to court.

 

They won.

 

Judge Leon determined that free speech was involved. Basically, the law says a person cannot be compelled to say that which they normally would not say. Obviously the tobacco companies do not believe smoking is injurious to health. By being forced to place revolting type images on their product, tobacco companies were being forced to say that which they would not promulgate otherwise. There is legal philosophy to the effect that compelled speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

 

Ergo, Judge Leon declared the FDA mandate unconstitutional.

 

A somewhat similar argument is being made against the Obama Health Care law. That law requires people to buy insurance. They might never have purchased the insurance  otherwise. They are being compelled to do that not normally required. Note that Obama Health Care involves a different section of the Constitution. The commerce clause. However, the reasoning is the same.

 

Judge Leon decided the FDA went a step too far with its mandate.

 

The FDA said it would appeal.

 

There is a similar case that arose in Kentucky. There the judge ruled in favor of the FDA/government. An opposite decision based on similar facts. That case is pending argument in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Conflicting federal decisions in a case of significance,  generally end up before the United States Supreme Court. Expect this issue to arrive before the Supreme Court in due course.

 

This case is a perfect example of the balancing of respective rights. On the one hand, the right of the government to protect the health of its citizens. On the other, the right of a company to deliver its product to the consuming public without hindrance.

 

What does Louis think? This is a hard one. I suspect the ruling will be in favor of the tobacco industry. That compelling speech is presumptively unconstitutional affects my thinking. It is basic law taught first year law students. I see the position carrying the day for the tobacco industry.

 

Note that my conclusion is based strictly on the law. Moral and/or social considerations played no part in my thinking.

DEFECATING ON THE AMERICAN FLAG

The title is respectful to you the reader when the term defecation is used. But should be viewed it in its proper context in relating the facts at hand. Down and dirty.

We are talking about shitting on the American flag!

Disgusting! Vile! An abhorrence!

Shot the S.O.B. might be your first reaction. On calmer reflection, throw the bum out of the country!

This column is motivated by the news media picture this past week of an alleged Occupy Wall Street protester defecating on the American flag. There he was. Pants pulled down. Squatting. Doing it on the American flag.

Turns out the media jumped too quickly to report the news. Again. And in so doing, did it erroneously. The picture was taken at another protest more than four years earlier somewhere else.

Nevertheless, the erroneous news release provides an opportunity to share the law as it specifically applies to defecating on the American flag.

It is not a crime! It is Constitutionally protected! It is protected as free speech. A basic right. One each of us has.

Whether Wall Street or four years ago, each individual has the right to so express himself/herself. As disgusting and reprehensible the act may be, it does not violate the law.

What does bother me is that these malcontents who abuse our flag do not appreciate our country. Otherwise they would not act in such a repulsive fashion. It should be our country, right or wrong. If wrong, then we fix it. But don't shit on it! Just like the initial Texas flag.....Don't Tread On Me.

A final interesting consideration.  What would happen if this same act was done in Iran or Syria for example to the flag of those nations. Stoning, beheading or hanging. For sure.

People should think before they act. The outer limits are rarely required.