11 March 2010
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Gun Control After McDonald
[Cato at Liberty]
MAR 10, 2010 04:45P.M.
By David Rittgers
I recently appeared on the Patt Morrison Show in southern California
opposite Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in
a segment that begs the question of what gun control laws will look like if
the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment with the
McDonald v. Chicago case. The audio of the program is here, but the
issue merits a more detailed discussion than I could get into on the radio.
The litigation over the boundaries of the Second Amendment in the
District of Columbia previews the kinds of gun laws that will face court
scrutiny.
First, certain restrictions on the purchase of firearms will likely be
overturned. California maintains a “safe gun roster” of handguns that
manufacturers have successfully submitted for safety testing. Following
the Heller decision, the District adopted California’s roster. The roster is
very specific, and handgun models are certified “safe” right down to the
color. The District rejected applications to register two-tone guns,
discontinued models, and guns not on the California roster. Three
plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that this policy violated constitutional
protections against irrational administrative regulations. The District
relented, expanding its roster to include the “safe handguns” listings for
Maryland and Massachusetts.
California courts are likely to reach similar conclusions. The Calguns
Foundation has a plaintiff who wants to register a Glock handgun. The
state has certified the right-handed but not the ambidextrous version,
and the Calguns plaintiff was born without a right arm below the elbow.
This compelling case, along with others parallel to the DC plaintiffs, will
force California to open up its roster.
Second, jurisdictions will be forced to allow some form of handgun carry,
either open or concealed. Outright bans on concealed carry cited in cases
from the mid-1800’s come from a time when it was assumed that only
brigands carried handguns concealed, and it was an unquestioned right
of the people to carry arms openly wherever they went. States and
localities will not be able to delete the right to bear arms from the right to
keep and bear arms.
My colleague Tom Palmer is currently litigating this issue in the District
1
of Columbia (complaint here), and states will have to confront the plain
text of the Second Amendment and clear historical recognition of a right
to be armed outside the home.
California allows open carry as long as the handgun is unloaded, but Los
Angeles and other jurisdictions in the state refuse to issue concealed
handgun permits. California will probably opt for concealed carry when
push comes to shove. Public views have shifted to an “out of sight, out of
mind” mentality, and concealed carry is the rule in most states. A
California police officer recently put a comment up on Facebook that
proposes intimidating open carriers with violence. “Haha, we had one
guy last week try to do it! He got proned out and reminded where he was
at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!” Turds indeed.
This brings us back to the Starbucks controversy that prompted the radio
segment. Gun control proponents asked Starbucks to ban firearms from
their coffee shops, and gun rights activists asked that they continue their
current policy of following the law of the jurisdiction where each
franchise is located.
The call-ins to the radio show expressed a willingness to boycott
Starbucks if it keeps its “follow the law” policy, but that’s a rationale to
boycott gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants across the nation. If
self-defense scares you that much, the best advice is to stay home. Or
venture out and be a good victim.
Callers also expressed concerns about off-duty cops brandishing guns
while intoxicated, and this is something we should take seriously. As I’ve
said before, no magical powers accrue to a sworn officer. That’s a great
case for barring everyone from carrying and drinking in public, law
enforcement officers included. Federal law does this – the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act allows current and retired law
enforcement officers to carry concealed nationwide but requires that
they not be under the influence while doing so. The same can’t be said
for some state laws that make law enforcement officers a higher class of
citizens than everyone else. Virginia allows retired law enforcement
officers from any jurisdiction to imbibe while armed, but citizens with
concealed handgun permits must transition from concealed carry to
open carry when entering an establishment that serves alcohol for on-
premises consumption. Better to treat permit holders and officers alike,
and allow carry in restaurants but bar alcohol consumption while armed.
It’s unclear what the patchwork of gun laws across the nation will look
like in ten years, but Eugene Volokh gives a framework for analysis in
this article. Cato held an event the day before oral argument of the
McDonald case, and our brief is available here. Ilya Shapiro and Josh
Blackman discussed the application of the Privileges or Immunities
Clause in this excellent article, and provided some post-argument
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
commentary.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Hate Register? [Cato at Liberty]
MAR 10, 2010 04:23P.M.
By Jason Kuznicki
In my policy analysis “Attack of the Utility Monsters,” I wrote that one
problem with hate speech laws is that the longer they stay on the books,
the more they can encourage outrage over increasingly petty offenses.
Here’s a story from the United Kingdom I’d certainly have included if I
were writing that paper today:
A ten-year-old boy from Weston Super Mare has been put on
a school “hate register” after he allegedly made a homophobic
insult in the playground.
Peter Drury, a pupil of Ashcombe Primary School, is believed
to have called one of his friends a “gay boy,” according to his
mother.
The boy’s mum says she was called into her son’s school to be
told by head teacher that another mother had heard him
using homophobic language.
She claims she was told the incident would be registered and
his file monitored while he was at the school.
“He doesn’t even understand about the birds and the bees, so
how can he be homophobic?”
Schools are reportedly being given advice that offensive
comments made by children as young as five should be
recorded and kept on record until the pupil leaves secondary
school.
Kids can be incredibly cruel, in both word and deed. But if we were to put
every child who ever said something hurtful on a “hate register,” just how
many kids would we have to register? All of them? What good would that
do us?
2
11 March 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Message to Republicans: Stop
Hiding Behind the Troops [Cato
at Liberty]
MAR 10, 2010 12:13P.M.
By Malou Innocent
In what can only be described as a cheap partisan attack masquerading
as patriotic chest-thumping, House Republicans this morning issued a
statement opposing Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich’s resolution
for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan because… [drum roll
please] the Republicans strongly support the troops in Afghanistan.
In a statement of Republican policy forwarded to GOP politicians and
their staffers, the House Republican Leadership and the House
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Republicans
write, ”Since the President’s speech, more United States Armed Forces
have been deployed to the Afghanistan theatre in support of the
implementation of our nation’s counterinsurgency strategy. Many of
them leave behind family and friends for the second, third, and fourth
time. They have been engaged in the largest offensive since the beginning
of the war there, and they have done a magnificent job. House
Republicans are mindful these troops and their families will be watching
this debate and remain committed to working towards swift and clean
action when the resources impacting their military readiness,
operational needs, and family support is debated and passed this
spring.”
The GOP has got to stop hiding behind the troops. As I mention in a
recent article, our brave servicemen and women are being deployed to
prop up a regime Washington doesn’t trust, for goals our president can’t
define. Sadly, the war not only provides a potent recruiting tool for
militants, but it’s clear that it does little to appreciably protect America.
As aptly demonstrated by the Christmas Day crotch bomber, the old
argument of “We fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” is
complete and utter hogwash.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Are We Headed for Another
Bull Market Year? [Larry
Kudlow’s Money Politic$]
MAR 10, 2010 10:55A.M.
The key question facing investors right now — on the anniversary of a
record-breaking stock surge, the best in 75 years — is whether we’re
headed for a second bull-market year.
It’s a battle royale between rising corporate profits — which are the
mother’s milk of stocks, business, and economic growth — and the high-
tax policies pouring out of Washington, aimed at capital gains,
dividends, top earners, banks, foreign earnings, and financial
transactions. It’s a miserable list of tax hikes.
Then, of course, there’s the looming specter of Obamacare, with all of its
high taxes, spending, and regulatory burdens to control almost 20
percent of our nation’s economy. My CNBC pal Jim Cramer says the
passage of Obamacare could really damage the bull market. He makes an
important point, one with which I totally agree.
Right now, it’s big government versus the free market.
So, will the profits surge, coupled with an accommodative Fed, overcome
the Washington tax surge? Will profits trump tax hikes? Is political
regime change lingering in the cards? Perhaps a defeat of Obamacare?
That would certainly bolster the free market and encourage more
investment in stocks, new businesses, and new jobs.
This is the key debate facing investors. Short term, I like stocks. Longer
term, it’s a very open and difficult debate.
On another note, I’d like to mention Cisco’s announcement of a new
high-tech innovation in the form of a powerful new router. This thing has
12 times the capacity of Cisco’s closest competitor. And get this: It could
download the entire Library of Congress in a little over one second. This
is a shining example of American ingenuity. But we should reward it, not
punish it. Likewise, we should punish failed banks, not reward them.
We also should be reducing excessive government pay and pensions,
bringing those federal (as well as state and local) workers in line with the
gigantic setbacks suffered by the beleaguered private-sector workforce.
Doing so could reduce tax burdens.
3
11 March 2010
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
A $1.1 Billion Re-Election
Campaign. For the Senate. [Cato
at Liberty]
MAR 10, 2010 10:48A.M.
By Sallie James
When Rep. Collin Peterson (D- Minn. and Chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee) pronounces that a farm program is too
generous, you know you’ve crossed a line.
But that’s what happened recently after Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark),
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman and — oh, hey, how about
that? — facing a tough re-election battle in November proposed an extra
$1.1 billion in emergency farm aid be added to a
jobs/tax/unemployment/kitchen sink bill going through the Senate this
week. These extra handouts would flow despite the fact that the 2008
farm bill contained ”reforms” (the so-called ”permanent disaster”
program) ostensibly to put an end to politically-motivated ad hoc
emergency aid of just the type that Senator Lincoln is pushing now.
For those who can stomach it, this excellent article by Dan Morgan, one
of the nation’s best agriculture journalists, contains plenty of background
information.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Fannie, Freddie, Peter, and
Barney [Cato at Liberty]
MAR 10, 2010 10:28A.M.
By Tad DeHaven
Last week, after Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said that holders of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac’s debt shouldn’t be expected to be treated the
same as holders of U.S. government debt, the U.S. Treasury took the
“unusual” step of reiterating its commitment to back Fannie and
Freddie’s debt.
If ever there was case against allowing a few hundred men and women to
micromanage the economy, this is it.
Fannie and Freddie, which are under government control, are being used
to help prop up the ailing housing market. If investors think there’s a
chance Uncle Sam won’t back the mortgage giants’ debt, mortgage
interest rates could rise and demand for housing dampen. Therefore,
Frank’s comments caused a bit of a stir. However, with the government
bailing out anything that walks or crawls, investors apparently weren’t
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 11 March 2010

too concerned with Frank’s comments as the spread between Treasury FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
and Fannie bonds barely budged.
O’Reilly: No Freedom, No How
As I noted a couple weeks ago, the Treasury is in no hurry to add Fannie
and Freddie’s debt and mortgage-backed securities to the budget ($1.6 [Cato at Liberty]
trillion and $5 trillion respectively). Congress certainly isn’t interested in MAR 10, 2010 08:45A.M.
raising the debt ceiling to make room. And as Arnold Kling points out,
putting Fannie and Freddie on the government’s books would actually By David Boaz
force the government to do something about the doddering duo.
Bill O’Reilly teases an interview with John Stossel this way:
All of which points to what an unfunny joke budgeting is in Washington.
Take a look at what current OMB director Peter Orszag had to say about Should Americans be able to use their body for any purpose?
the issue when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office: John Stossel says yes and joins us to explain!

Given the steps announced by the Treasury Department and
the Federal Housing Finance Agency on September 7, it is
CBO’s view that the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac should be directly incorporated into the federal budget.
The GSEs’ revenue would be treated as federal revenue and
their expenditures as federal outlays, with appropriate
adjustments for the manner in which credit transactions (like
a mortgage guarantee) are reflected in the federal budget.
And Bill O’Reilly says no! No to legal prostitution, no to polygamy, no
even to legal markets for vitally needed organs. Check it out:
Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com
More Stossel videos on personal freedom here. Cato research on organ
markets here. And don’t forget to watch John Stossel every Thursday
night at 8 on the Fox Business Network.

Note that Orszag wrote that statement less than two years ago. And since
then, the bond between the government and the mortgage giants has
only gotten tighter. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

The same people that say Fannie and Freddie shouldn’t be on the Special Kudlow Report
government’s books are often the same people who once dismissed
concerns that the two companies were headed toward financial ruin. In Tonight... [Larry Kudlow’s
2002, Orszag co-authored a paper at Fannie’s behest that concluded that
“the probability of default by the GSEs is extremely small.” Money Politic$]
MAR 10, 2010 08:25A.M.
Another one of those persons, Congressman Frank, has his fingerprints
all over the housing meltdown. In 2003, a defiant Frank stated that
“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any
kind of financial crisis.” Frank couldn’t have been more wrong. Yet there
he remains perched on his House Committee on Financial Services
chairman’s seat, his every utterance so important that they can move
interest rates.

This evening at 7pm ET:

Karl Rove, former top adviser to President George W. Bush, will join me
on The Kudlow Report tonight. Lou Dobbs will be aboard too. Should be
interesting.

Topics will include Obama tax hikes, tea parties, Bush legacy, 9/11, U.S.
economy, etc.

Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.