RichmondLiberty.org

The shad is a fish which migrates from freshwater to saltwater and then back again each year, stopping in Wakefield somewhere along this journey where it ends up on a plank in front of some of the biggest political names and issues in the state. This year's primo political gathering the Shad Planking is coming up on April 16, with Governors Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore (one of whom will be a senator next year) as speakers along with State Del. Bob Marshall.

The planking is held at the Wakefield Sportsmen's Club, where there will be plenty of food. Tickets can be purchased from the Wakefield Ruritan Club, P.O. Box 148, Wakefield, VA 23888. (Tickets ordered before April 1 are $18, otherwise they are $20.) You can also order them from the Virginia Diner at 1-888-VA-DINER. Info can be found at http://hrblogs.typepad.com/the_shad_plank/2008/03/southeast-virgi.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shad_Planking#2008_Event. Photos from previous years can be seen at http://www.richmondliberty.org/events/photos/20060419shad.

Posted by Robert Russo at 07:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

GA08-03-27.txt
The Governor and Guns
General Assembly special report, March 27, 2008

I have not yet compiled and sent out the overview of General Assembly actions this year; that will take a bit more time. This is a special report dealing with the Governor's actions on two gun-related bills.

Some of you may know that I voted for Governor Kaine, and urged others to do so, since I considered him to be the lesser evil of the electable candidates, in spite of his acknowledged antipathy toward privately-owned firearms. I said then that after having been caught using tax monies to subsidise one side of a policy-policy debate while he was mayor of Richmond (and I'm happy to say that I am the person who confronted him on this at City Council meeting), and being forced by public opinion to reimburse the taxpayers for that wrongful expenditure, that he had learned a lesson.

I may have been wrong in that assessment. His recent actions have been very disappointing, and call into question his honesty and his competency. There may well be a good explanation for this, but so far I have not heard one. Certainly what the Governor has said does not make any sense, nor does it comport with the facts.

Here are the facts; you can judge for yourselves.

Necessary background information:

Virginia law has never prohibited law-abiding adults from owning firearms, nor from openly carrying them in public, nor from drinking while they do so. It is illegal to hunt with a firearm while under the influence.

Under current law, the Code of Virginia, § 18.2-308, sets out restrictions on carrying deadly weapons "hidden from common observation". In general, this is illegal, but the section also provides for issuing Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs) for most law-abiding citizens under certain circumstances, and for some people to be exempt from all or part of the law.

One of the restrictions is that CHP-holders are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public while under the influence of alcohol.

Another restriction, somewhat stranger, is that a CHP-holder is not allowed to carry the weapon, concealed, into a place that's licensed to serve alcohol (except for the owner and employees). There's no such restriction if the weapon is not concealed.

The ban on carrying a concealed weapon into a place that serves alcohol has long been a burden. Before entering a restaurant that serves wine, for example, present law requires you to rearrange either the weapon or your clothing so that the weapon is visible. This is not merely a nuisance, but it scares some people, and can provoke others.

Now then, with that background, you can understand the bills.

Two virtually identical bills were introduced this year to repeal the restaurant ban. HB1544, from Delegate Gilbert, died in House Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee without ever being heard.

SB476, from Senator Hanger, on the other hand, was passed by committees on each side, and by the full House and Senate. Along the way, it was amended to require that a person carrying a concealed weapon into a place that serves alcohol would have to notify the management, and also to prohibit the person from drinking any alcohol at all (as opposed to merely not becoming "under the influence"). When the bill reached the Governor, he vetoed it.

He said that concealed weapons don't go with alcohol, and also said that he was responding to concerns from law enforcement agencies. This second point ignores the fact that the only testimony against the bll in committee hearings came from the ABC, whose spokesman said that he was "speaking for the administration" -- that is, the Governor told them to oppose the bill.

If this were the end of the story, however, I wouldn't be bothering with this note. People disagree on various issues, and we knew that he didn't like guns, so he vetoed it, OK, maybe next year there will be enough votes to override the veto, move on. "But wait . . . there's more!"

There was another bill, SB776, from Senator Hurt. It allows Commonwealth's Attorneys and assistant CAs to carry concealed weapons anywhere in the state, at any time, without needing a CHP. They're already among the people allowed to carry while on duty, and while going to or returning from work, but this would expand that privilege immensely.

I opposed the bill as written, since it didn't require them to prove their safety and competency with a weapon, as is required of ordinary citizens obtaining a CHP; I suggested merely waiving the normal $50 fee for them. That didn't happen, partly because of philosophical objections and partly because no Senator or Delegate wants to offend the Commonwealth's Attorneys in his or her district.

The bill was passed, and the Governor signed it, and it will become law on July first . . . but it seems that there's one little problem with it.

It allows CAs, and their assistants, to carry concealed weapons into places that serve alcohol, and to drink alcohol, so long as they don't get tipsy. In other words, it "mixes concealed weapons and alcohol", even more than the bill the Governor vetoed!

Worse yet, when this was brought up to the Governor, rather than just admitting that he had missed that aspect (as I did, and I'm generally pretty good at analysing these things), he just denied that it was true, in spite of the fact that the new law is very plain. He's repeated this denial several times, in spite of the plain language of the bill.

I suggest that you email him and ask why he's refusing to admit the truth. You'll need to do it through his website, listed at the end of this message.

You may also want to bring it up at one of his public meetings. I regret that I delayed sending this until most of them are past. The ones now scheduled are for:

Monday, March 31:
Town Hall: Loudoun. Governor Kaine will participate in a Town Hall meeting to discuss the budget and legislation passed during the 2008 General Assembly Session and take questions from the public.
When: 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Where: Farmwell Station Middle School – Auditorium
44281 Gloucester Parkway, Ashburn, Virginia

Thursday, April 3
YMCA Model General Assembly. Governor Kaine will deliver remarks and present the 2008 Service to Youth Awards at the opening of the 2008 YMCA Model General Assembly. The Model General Assembly program is designed to introduce high school students to the legislative process of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
When: 7:00 p.m.
Where: St. Paul's Church
815 East Grace Street, Richmond, Virginia

Now, the last item in this message: why should you believe my analysis of the bill rather than that of the Governor? After all, he's an elected leader, with a Harvard law degree, and I'm just a private citizen, and a troublemaker to boot! Well, I could say that it's because I'm honest, and he's a politician, but as Tricky Milhous said, "That would be wrong!" A simpler answer is to show you the bill itself, and let you read the language in it.

At the end of this message are URLs for present law, and for the bills I've mentioned here. For the bills, the link takes you to the "history" page, which has links to the various versions of the bill, and the amendments, and the votes, and the Governor's veto message. When looking at the text of the bills, whether HTML or PDF versions, plain text is existing law, italicized text is language that would be added, and struck-through text is existing language that would be deleted.

Interestingly enough, and of course there can't be any connection to the ruckus that's been raised recently about his actions, I discovered today that the Governor's veto messages for at least two gun bills, including SB476, have mysteriously disappeared from the Legislative Services websites. When I reported the error this morning, I was told that they'd find out what the problem was and get back to me. This hasn't yet happened. As I said, I'm sure that there cannot possibly be any connection.

Now then, look at § 18.2-308, it's in legalese, but that's still just plain English. The only word you may not know is "curtilage", which is very freely translated as your yard around your house.

The bill has 25 subsections, A-S (Subsections H, J, and P have multiple subsections). They break down as follows:

A. Illegal to carry concealed weapons; items included; penalties.
B. Article does not apply to people in their homes.
Except for subsection J1, does not apply to certain people under certain circumstances.
C. Does not apply to certain officials while on duty & to/from work.
D. CHPs & processes
E. Disqualifications for CHPs
F. False statements; perjury.
G. Proof of competency
H. Form of CHP
H1.Military & CHPs
I. Renewals of CHPs
J. Forfeiture for convictions.
J1.CHPs & "under the influence" of alcohol
J2.CHP suspended if felony charge pending
J3.CHP & restaurants that serve alcohol
J4.CHP suspension for incompetency
K. People who don't pay for CHPs.
L. Appeals of denials
M. Definitions
N. More definitions
O. CHPs do not override laws or property rights.
P. Reciprocity with other states
P1.Non-residents
Q. Reciprocity (Maryland)
R. Reciprocity (Law Enforcement)
S. Law on deadly force

Now, currently CAs are listed under subsection C, since they are "conservators of the peace". They can carry concealed, only while on duty or ging to or from work. SB776 lists them separately, in subsection B (and also notes this in subsection C, referring to subsection B). CAs and assistant CAs are now to included in subsection B 9.

As it says at the beginning of subsection B, "Except as provided in subsection J1, this section shall not apply to:" the people listed therein, which now will include Commonwealth's Attorneys and their assistants. Note that language well . . . except for subsection J1, NO PART of the Concealed Weapon statute applies to them.

Subsection J1 says "Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. . . ." That is the ONLY part of the Concealed Carry law that will apply to Commonwealth's Attorneys.

The "restaurant ban" which the Governor seems to think is sacrosanct does not apply. That's in subsection J3, which says, "No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board . . ."

The Governor says that the bill will not allow CAs and their assistants to enter restaurants with concealed weapons, and he claims that the Attorney General backs him up on this. Regardless of what the Governor says, or the Attorney General says, or a choir of angels says, that is precisely what the bill will do. It's a basic legal principle that a law means what the words in it mean. The Governor is absolutely wrong, and if the Attorney General agrees with him then the Attorney General is wrong.

Contact the Governor, if you choose; contact your legislator, if you choose to do so. Whether or not you do either, do look at the websites referenced below, and see for yourself what's been done.

-- Roy

Websites for more information on any of the items above are here.
General Assembly website:
http://legis.state.va.us/
Legislative Information website:
http://leg1.state.va.us/
Current Virginia law on concealed weapons:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308
HB1554, Restaurant ban repeal (failed):
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=hb1554
SB476, Restaurant ban repeal (passed):
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=sb476
SB776, Commonwealth's Attorneys:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=sb776
Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine -- WEBSITE:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/
E-MAIL the Governor:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 11:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Submitted by Richmondliberty subscribers:

Keep in mind that the Cato Institute does not force
its scholars to conform with one particular viewpoint. The classical
liberal philosophy is broad and diverse enough to have diverging viewpoints on certain specifics. I'm not sure the exact goal of those who claim Cato is turning right, but I think they are misinterpreting the facts. The fact that there is a difference of opinion means that there are people actually thinking about the practical application of the philosophy, unlike many places on the left which either impose certain viewpoints on the policy people or their policy people are just not thinking and repeating the same tired old nonsense.
LH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a valid point. Every reader including myself sees some kind of bias in the person whose goal is simply to report the facts and what other people have said, so any fault is in the delivery of this product. Michael Shermer strives to be as factual and objective as he can be, despite my criticism of him. Likewise I am not anti-Cato and it would be a mistake to think the author of this response is unequivocally pro-Cato, just relating the facts.

It's not exactly a secret that Cato is cozy with the establishment and its supporters, so those who say so have no "goal" except to report what they have seen and make such allegations as specific as possible. I was aware of these opinions without much first-hand certainty until I saw Shermer's speech myself and thought "why is Cato endorsing this guy?". That's the point at which anyone should speak up and be recognized for more than generalization or harping.

I applaud the diversity in our philosophy and any institution that celebrates it, but in this particular case I did not see that diversity or anything else libertarian. The executive VP who introduced Shermer gave him the kind of rousing intro a recognition dinner gives its honoree. The questions as well came from some of Shermer's biggest fans, blatantly trying to win his approval both by citing their academic institutions and in the nature of the questions (such as "Do you think liberals will ever learn?" as an inside joke rather than challenging the speaker as a lib would). Twice I heard the words "skeptics and… whatever the opposite of a skeptic is", once from Shermer and once from a student. It was not a forum for diverse ideas, more like a club, and that seems right-wing to me.

Although "classical liberalism" is pretty much the same thing as libertarianism, people misinterpret the term to mean liberals (i.e. liberal democrats). I believe when Shermer calls himself a libertarian he simply means "a fan of liberty" (i.e. the freedom of the market to conduct itself without interference from individualists, and that is very different from libertarianism). But perhaps this is just a small part of Cato's diverse endorsements, though I know there are complaints against Cato that are far more serious than my opinion of one writer. If there is a shortage of blogs praising Cato and its good works then perhaps we need to write some.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to visit the entire lecture, but I'm curious about the statement "You can probably guess the content of this work doesn't sound very libertarian." I like to believe (perhaps wrongly?) that Libertarianism is based on reason. Reason would presumably be on the side of science. As a Libertarian and a Buddhist (a philosophy without a deity) I don't see the conflict. What am I missing?
SW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection I was trying to make is that he defames alternative philosophies when libertarianism is an alternative philosophy. "Why people believe weird things" is something elitists say about us. The man shoots down alternative views and then kicks them in the ribs, and he calls himself a libertarian.

I'm puzzled by "reason would presumably be on the side of science". Why would someone presume that? I don't consider my religion unreasonable. There are many sciences in the world. Elitism is an opponent of libertarians not because it's against any political platform but because it rejects and expels freethinkers or anyone who disagrees.

If you have responses to add to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 11:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Patrick Henry Supper Club presents:

Paul Jacob
national activist on term limits and initiative rights
http://www.freepauljacob.com

The PHSC will meet at its usual location, Eastern Buffet, 7586 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center). Dinner is at 6pm and the main event is 7pm.

Posted by Robert Russo at 12:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This year's convention will be held at the Richmond Marriott, with a free hospitality suite open to all LP members beginning 7:30 PM on Friday, and registration for the program starting at 8:30 Saturday. The speakers include LP chairman Bill Redpath, and last year's candidates George Marchenko, Arin Sime, Don Tabor and Bill Wood along with a presidential candidates forum. Details can be found at lpva.com/HTML/2008convention.htm or by contacting Jim Lark at jwl3s@virginia.edu.

Posted by Robert Russo at 12:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

Many libertarians profess doubts about the Cato Institute, saying its message and actions are often contradictory, un-libertarian and hypocritical. One of the most common accusations is they rub noses with the very establishments we oppose. One blogger writes "Year after year, members and affiliates have maintained a marvelous high wire act, claiming superficially to be nonpartisan… And yet, as donations poured in from well-heeled private sources, a funny thing happened to the production line of scholarly documents and position papers. It veered right."* (Personally my beef is their support of academics, without which you can't even be a Cato intern.) It is the "premier" libertarian think tank, and yet many libs don't know what if anything it is doing (or if they do, what they consider libertarianism may be different from what comes from the party or even the individual).

Author Michael Shermer, economics professor and creator of Skeptic Magazine has written a book "The Mind of the Market", which he presented at a televised Cato forum in January that aired again this past Saturday. A proactive Darwinist and atheist, he has written several books denying the existence of God (which he calls "the case against intelligent design"), and ripping what he considers pseudoscience in his previous title "Why People Believe Weird Things". You can probably guess the content of this work doesn't sound very libertarian. He began his presentation with "it's good to be back in friendly waters amongst my fellow libertarians".**

Amid constant references to evolutionary theory and the lumping of all beliefs besides his own, he says in no uncertain terms that a misinterpretation of our economy results from the involvement of anyone who is not a graduate of the same school of economics as him. He opposes diversity in the sciences, citing that in the interests of fairness government typically assembles "a right-wing scientist, a left-wing scientist and a scientist who has no wings" to decide an issue to its own detriment.** He attributes economic failure in part to "the resentment of wealth that people have, the mistrust of corporations" etc., as sort of a primeval instinct we have carried since before those things existed, a fear of what we don't understand rather than actual reasons (i.e. corporate corruption). Individualism is presented as the belief that we are "cutthroat, greedy" Machiavellians refusing to be "pro-social and cooperative" as biology meant us to be, attributing this to "the selfish gene".**

Last week's article from DownsizeDC.org purports that the real reason for our economic problems is the existence of programs "designed to encourage, or even compel, financial institutions to make loans to people with lower incomes", and the approval of mortgages for low-income families since the 1970's.*** This sounds like maintaining the status quo is the key to a healthy economy (only those in a higher economic bracket should buy homes, no crossing the line that divides the classes). This is probably true, which is why it is necessary for priorities other than economic stability to have a seat at the table. This includes mathematicians, humanitarians, and whoever has a stake in the economy, not necessarily a business stake or one educated in the financier's school of thought.

I will therefore challenge the claims of Shermer and every other old-school economist who preach nearly in unison that trusting the system, resigning ourselves to our economic fate is the only strategy that works. Most libertarian and anarchist solutions are dependant on the belief that the establishment is permanently corrupt and permanently entrenched. The citizen is the good guy and those who control the cookie jar (i.e. mortgage companies) are the bad guys. This is a one-sided view, it is not a "custodial" solution but that of a minority in rebellion, trusting that our opposition can take a beating. So let's answer the question of how we would balance the whole equation if we had that responsibility.

What caused this reaction is economics being a lopsided business, whoever has the most money is in control regardless of how good or bad things are. Whether most people can buy a mortgage or secure a loan is dependent on the generosity of those who can afford to supply them. If threatened they just stop passing these opportunities down, so all professional economists advise placating them. To keep things balanced instead of just throwing a wrench, this imbalance has to end. It's like trying to keep an elephant and a mouse in the same cage, the greater the disproportion the more we are simply working to serve one side. A market where both parties are equal encourages fairness, a disproportionate one breeds jealousy, contempt and revolution.

In a fair market you have to consider both sides, but corporations and other super-entities abuse this. Banks for example have their own interests to consider. The entire practice of storing personal finance is controlled by a group that has a sense of self. What we do with our money should be our own business, but in case of dispute has to be protected at the risk of their reaction. Economy is supposed to serve us until we barely notice it, not the other way around. Saying the market has a "mind" humanizes it, as does saying it's us that is hurting it and we should be more responsible (or worse, mind our own business). Financial authority can't be it's own person or the meager citizen wouldn't stand a chance. One blogger calls this "A delusion that Adam Smith warned against. The notion that ownership of capital is the prime correlate with wise market capitalism. A very different concept, fundamentally, than saying that markets are themselves wise at allocating, rewarding or promoting innovative goods and services."*

Some goals are one-sided and just can't come with a reaction, like justice, or an emergency expense that has to be paid regardless of cost. There are myriad situations that aren't suited for a two-party market where both sides are subjective. An impartial third party is needed as a backboard so financial objectives can be taken without making ripples in the market. (Not necessarily a government agency, just a prideless public service which does its job with no stake in the outcome.) For anyone who dreams of buying a home at a fraction of cost, seeking revenge on an abusive creditor, reclaiming a home that was once foreclosed or any miracle situation which the market would normally not allow, some kind of impartial center is required.

One reader posts "I downloaded Mr. Shermer's talk at the Cato Institute, and got about 30 minutes in before deciding that I would no longer belong to the Skeptics Society because of the pro-market babble this gentleman was spewing.".* I do not doubt Shermer's expertise in the nuances of economics, in fact its connection to human evolution sounds very credible. However I do not understand how someone can be offended by purists, creationists or pseudo-scientists just because they exist. Disbelief is as subjective and primitive as belief; it is a type of belief much like the absence of color is itself a color. The belief in only one way of doing things is one of the simplest emotional anchors, easily indoctrinated into us and defended with great emotion. Shermer strikes me as a subscriber of popular doctrine, one who excels at it, receiving the fulfillment that comes with saying popular things and giving it to others. Any number of institutions will reward such a person. A libertarian speaks from his mind and often goes unheard, which is where Cato is needed and should know the difference. This speech is available in video and audio at www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297. "The Mind of the Market" and its reviews can be read at www.michaelshermer.com/the-mind-of-the-market.

*http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/cato-hypocrisy.html
**http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297
***http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-mind-of-the-market

If you have responses to add to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From downsizedc.org:

You can watch hours and hours of news, or read columns of print in most newspapers, and come away no wiser about the causes and prospects for the current financial turmoil.

Most journalists and TV talking heads don't really understand the subject, and those that do speak and write using so much jargon that the average person must feel he or she is trying to follow a conversation in ancient Hebrew.

We're going to try to cut through the jargon, and explain the situation as best we can, in plain English.

For their explanation visit
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2008/mar/18/what_youre_not_being_told

Posted by Leonard Harris at 02:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

HSLDA.org posts homeschool rights violations every day to its subscribers but when you read it in the newspaper and they make jokes about it on SNL, it is an exceptional case. On February 28 a California court ruled against a family's right to homeschool, breaking from that state's long tradition of educational tolerance. If it is not overruled by the state supreme court, thousands of homeschooling families will be forced to give up their practices. Gov. Schwarzenegger opposed this immediately, saying "This outrageous ruling must be overturned, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then as elected officials, we will.".* The State Superintendent added "The California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling. Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."**

Until now home-educators have simply used a lenient interpretation of existing laws. HSLDA chairman Michael Fallis admits that the judge was correct, but that new legislation is needed and an appeal is the first step.** The case was a unique situation of a large religious/isolationist family whose homeschool was chartered through a private Christian school, an arrangement the court ruled as inadequate because the school "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education".* The president of the Pacific Justice Institute called this "an extreme position".*

The most unusual article I have seen is "Why California Turned From Most Homeschool Friendly to Most Unfriendly" by Howard Richman. The answer is the same reason homeschool rights violations occur in every county of every state. Ingrained loyalism and obsession for any one institution is accompanied by flashes of bigotry and oversight for its competitors, be it a religion, culture or business. This can strike anywhere because mainstream academia gets into everything. Every judge is a product of it, which seats strong indoctrination with feelings of loyalty and supremacy behind the bench.

Richman writes: "California used to believe in freedom of all sorts. They were not only the haven for educational freedom; they were also the haven for sexual freedom."*** He cites that Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill prohibiting bias against alternative lifestyles in textbooks, which has spawned a Christian campaign called California Exodus to pull 600,000 students out of schools. This sounds like a good start, but admittedly there are other considerations when borderline subjective religious families clash with borderline corrupt public services. People give up on academia not necessarily because they oppose lifestyle diversity but because it has failed to do its job, and everyone should take this exodus for their own reasons. Also there is the question of whether a family really is violating the rights of their children, and who is qualified to find out.

I first read this story at news.aol.com/story/_a/home-schooling-threatened-in-california/20080311091009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001. Updates can be found at www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803120.asp.

*http://news.aol.com/story/_a/home-schooling-threatened-in-california/20080311091009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
**http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803120.asp
***http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0308/0308califhomeschool.htm

Question of the Week: In a model Libertarian society, who is responsible for protecting the rights of children within the home? A. Limited government. B. The parents. C. A citizen-provided social service. D. A youth-run organization. E. As citizens they can protect themselves. Send your thoughts to russo@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 07:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/index.html

Yesterday after the House of Representatives held its first secret session in 25 years, a majority voted to challenge President Bush's position on international wiretapping, a position that has been illegal under the current law since 9/11 but would have been made legal retroactively by a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that has just been trimmed. This "retro-law" would have granted the participating telephone companies immunity from lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping.

Just off the top of my head, isn't it the President and his intelligence community who should be sued for making this decision and recruiting telephone companies to cooperate? It sounds like holding the companies responsible makes them a scapegoat for those who are immune from all laws. As far as the eternal question of anti-terrorism measures vs. privacy goes, the purpose of privacy is so our words and actions aren't used against us. If monitoring terror channels could be done in a way that guarantees this can't happen, it would be different. Perhaps a monitoring station with no recording, just a real-time watch for threats instead of datalogs and review. Or what if the calls were not monitored by a human being? But no, the intelligence agencies hired regular phone companies using their own tape-recorders.

Posted by Robert Russo at 12:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-03-13
General Assembly, Thursday, March 13th, 2008

Five days past scheduled adjournment!

So, puny citizen, you thought that GENERAL ASSEMBLY could be banished from River City by mere pre-agreed-upon schedules . . . but you failed to take into account the POWER generated by the CONFLICT between the two branches of the DUOPOLY! The REPUBOCRATS and the DEMLICANS are locked in mortal struggle, and deadlines mean NOTHING to them!

You must ENDURE, for you are a mere taxpayer!

BWA-HAA-HAH-HAH!

(Sorry, have just been reading some back issues of ASTRO CITY, and the tone seemed appropriate.) The Assembly was back in session today, as well as Tuesday the 11th. Their main business is the budget, which they THINK they'll reach agreement on today. If so, they'll leave town again until they come back on April 23rd to consider bills that the Governor has vetoed.

House went in at 4, and four minutes later went into recess.
Senate went in at 5.
They FINALLY agreed on a budget.
House adjourned at 9:22pm, Senate at 9:25pm.

They also did some other stuff -- acted on Governor's recomendations, acted on bills in which they were in disagreement, set schedule for veto session and special session. These items aren't yet consistently available on the Web, and I'll report more on them in a day or two.

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

Next significant meetings are :

April 23rd, veto session of House and Senate.

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

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
http://leg1.state.va.us/. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

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

REMINDER:
http://leg1.state.va.us/ and http://legis.state.va.us/
These are the two websites where you can access nearly anything you want to know about practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!
__________________________________________________________________

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 09:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On January 1st 2008 the United Kingdom founded its own libertarian party. This is great news for a part of the world where third parties often succeed, and the acceleration toward a police state is often greater than it is here (such as public surveillance cameras). This party appears to be a carbon copy of our own and that of Canada, a sign of our influence, rather than something that developed from their own politics, so what future it has in their system is anybody's guess.

British politics seems mired in antiquity to us, just as ours confuses them in return. Their head of state is not their head of government, their parliament is divided between a House of Lords and House of Commons (although as of 2009 the House of Lords will no longer be supreme judicial authority).* Their two major parties are the Labor Party whose platform is that of the working-class revolutions of three generations ago, and the Conservative Party which is, strictly speaking, what's left of the opposition of that movement. And yet some of the decisions which come from this body seem like generic 21st Century pragmatism toward a choiceless society.

To secure a majority these two often cajole a third party, the Liberal Democrats. So it's not that foreign a system after all, in fact our own could evolve into this form someday if we abandoned the labels our major parties have held all this time. "Republicanism" barely exists anymore so Republicans could easily gravitate into a Conservative Party, never having to adjust their platform again. This would leave the minority of self-declared liberals their own Liberal Democratic Party. As for moderates, a "working man's party" is an easy banner to flock behind, ever since the formation of unions and works like the Communist Manifesto and On the Waterfront. This view of citizenship through the workplace is the source of the pragmatic collectivist measures which can destroy liberty and the counterproductive individual. The belief that our jobs are not what makes us citizens rests with libertarians, which secures our necessary place both in this country and theirs (albeit in an even lesser minority).

The LPUK is "still developing its platform" beyond basic commitment to the libertarian ideals,** however the Libertarian Alliance has been around since 1967 and covers too many issues to list, along with libertarianuk.net which has a topical blog including the article "The Libertarian Monarchist" by Jackart. Further advancement of this movement in Britain would have global influence spawning the party in even more countries, but for now can be a window to looking into those movements we usually hear nothing about. The libertarian party of Australia was founded in 2005. The Libertarische Partij of the Netherlands split in 2003 over the practical vs. purist debate, and the Russian Libertarian Movement was a failure. In most other countries affiliated parties call themselves "liberal", which may just be semantics or the whole concept of liberalism might be lumped in. A full listing is at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_political_parties. Kudos to every nation that joins the global family of libertarianism.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_politics
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_Kingdom%29

If you have opinions to add to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 07:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at The Sisyphus Comments, a blog that deals with law enforcement issues from the perspective of a professional, the author criticizes Berkeley's ban on tasers, which the government is reconsidering:

Unfortunately, when non-criminal justice leaders attempt to assume responsibility for choosing intermediate weapons for the police department, bad things can happen. Without a range of intermediate force weapons, officers are often left with few options in their use of force continuum.

Look, nobody wants an officer to get shot, but they equally don’t want an innocent person getting shot. The taser was originally sold to the public as a replacement for lethal force. The idea being that instead of shooting somebody who, say, had a cell phone in their hand that would be mistaken for a gun, they could tase and maintain their “officer safety” policies without killing citizens in a seemingly wanton fashion. The taser was supposed to be a silver bullet, minimizing the number of deaths resulting from split second defensive actions.

However, as time went on, tasers ended up being used in situations where lethal force would never have been used. They're being used in situations where nobody's lives are in danger, such as when people are upset or uncooperative. After all, it's much safer and easier (for the officer, at least) to simply disrupt a person's motor functions than to actually talk to them. Tell me that all those videos online of people being tased would have involved guns had tasers not been available. It would be a ridiculous assertion.

When tasers started being used as a means to punish and exact compliance instead of as a “second-to-last resort” tool, the number of people being tased went up. As the set of people being tased increased, the likelihood of a tasing affecting a pre-existing condition in the target increased. So, you started having tasing deaths over minor infractions, instead of it being an unfortunate result of trying to *prevent* a shooting.

The Berkeley policy is a little extreme: the only real policy needs to be that tasers are only used in life-threatening situations, just like guns. But that’s not the real issue here - the real issue is the “officer safety” mentality that prescribes excessive force at the slightest perception of danger. The problem is using guns, tasers, and other lethal tools in non-life-threatening situations to escalate the encounter, all in order to give officers the touchy-feely that they're safe and in control of the situation.

When officer safety is the priority, regardless of the cost to the public, then the incentives have been distorted to the point where law enforcement occurs in spite of, rather than for the benefit of, the citizens. In the end, it’s not the tools; it’s the carpenter who feels that everything’s a nail if it “gets them home at the end of the shift”. By promoting an approach that seeks to remove the risk to officers in these situations, the danger has instead been perversely offset onto citizens - the very citizens whose safety the officers are supposed to be protecting. And in the end, that’s the problem: you can’t earn the trust and gratitude of citizens if you feel like your life and security is more valuable than theirs.

Cross posted at Social Memory Complex.

Posted by Jeremy Weiland at 09:16 AM | Permalink

The reason Daylight Saving Time is still with us after WWII is the work of the powerful Retail Merchants Association. Their research then and now showed that an extra hour of daylight would produce x millions of dollars in additional sales if it remained light after five O'clock quitting time. The disastrous Christmas selling system brought on the three week earlier DST. Never mind that it kills their young customers because of the dark travel time to school and increases other dangers. The almighty dollar must reign supreme. And the bankers love it too, as their business is loans and the return usury. Contrary to general thinking Usury is the taking back of anything more than what is loaned and is forbidden in God's economy. If you look up President Jackson's definition of interest (in fight with central bank United States Bank) you will find it means something else. Reed

Posted by Robert Russo at 08:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paul.campaign/
"U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is still in the presidential race ... sort of."

"Though victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm. We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects," Paul said in the video.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Paul Brown writes:

Inspired by a story in our local weekly, I couldn't keep myself from writing a letter to the editor.

Scott Bass made at least one statement that is factually inaccurate in his article titled "Moving Target".

"Because it’s federal law that the purchaser’s name be recorded and stored in a national database, police can almost instantly identify and locate the initial buyer."

There is no national database of firearms purchasers. In a trace of a firearm the first thing that happens is the police agency contacts the manufacturer who, based on the serial number, identifies the distributor to whom it was shipped. The distributor then identifies the retailer. That retailer retained a physical copy of ATF form 4473 that records the purchaser's information at the time of sale. In that way the police agency can identify the original purchaser, but there is no national database that contains the purchaser's information.

This one is questionable:

"it’s perfectly legal for someone to buy a gun and then sell it or give it away to just about anyone, as long as the buyer didn’t purchase the gun for someone"

This statement could be true if by "just about anyone" the author means "anyone who is not a convicted felon, currently under indictment for a felony, a fugitive from justice, a drug user, subject to a restraining order, an illegal alien, has ever been adjudicated mentally defective, convicted of a charge of domestic abuse, or renounced their U.S. citizenship."

Much of the rest of the article is misleading as well.

It isn't just unregulated secondary sales that can throw off a trace. In states that require private transfers to go through a federally licensed dealer the trace would still end at the original purchaser. That individual would have to inform the tracing agent of the transfer and give him the dealer information. The agent would then need to contact the transferring dealer to get the more recent 4473. If the secondary buyer had subsequently sold the gun (remember, we're talking about an average 10-year "time-to-crime") the process would repeat.

If the gun had been stolen from the original purchaser then the trace trail would stop there. In fact, the article seems to imply that there is usually, if not always, a voluntary transfer from law-abiding owner to criminal, though perhaps without the seller knowing the buyer's status as such. Quite often guns are stolen with the express intent of either using them in crimes or selling them on the black market. Many of the ATF traces end at a police report of stolen property. Forcing private sales to be recorded would have no effect on that. Consider the fact that guns used in crimes are used by people who, by definition, are prone to ignoring laws. We already have laws against armed robbery and murder, someone willing to commit those crimes will not be stopped by a law that prevents unregulated transfer of a firearm.

The article also refers to private sellers at gun shows as dealers. If I take my car to a car show with a "for sale" sign in the window does that make me a car dealer? "Dealer" is a term usually used to describe federally-licensed firearms dealers, all of whom are required by federal law to run background checks. Claiming that used guns sold by "dealers" at gun shows are exempt from background checks is inaccurate at best.

The author touts the efficacy of the NIBIN system by pointing out that the Richmond VDFS lab scored 200 hits in 2006. According to ATF numbers, that means that the Richmond lab accounted for a little more than 5.6% of the 3,565 hits that year. In a system with 228 labs that's a pretty good record compared to their colleagues. The downside is that there were around 1,020,000 records in the NIBIN database at that time. That means that the system had a success rate of about 0.35%, not exactly stellar results.

Because the cost for the NIBIN system is widely distributed among federal, state, and local governments coming up with a grand total is virtually impossible. We do know that the ATF requests around $30 million annually specifically for NIBIN administration (on top of the existing $16 million ATF laboratory budget). By factoring in the costs to state and local governments we can easily reach over one hundred million dollars. If we conservatively assume a $100 million dollar total annual cost of the NIBIN system that means that each one of those hits cost taxpayers over $28,000. That doesn't seem like a very efficient use of tax revenue. There is also nothing to say that those 3,565 hits actually solved any crimes, only that they were able to somewhat identify that the same gun was used in more than one crime. If you read the "Success Stories" on the NIBIN website you will see that many do not report solved crimes, only linked crimes.

This article seems to be trying to make a case for requiring private sales to be transferred through a licensed dealer, otherwise erroneously known as "closing the gun-show loophole". It contains many interesting statistics and quotes to that end. Unfortunately, it falls short of the mark. Several pieces of evidence are missing. It would be important to show the numbers of guns used in crimes that have an unsuccessful trace compared to numbers of guns used in crimes that are traced to an owner that had reported it stolen. Also, it would be revealing to see the relative rates of crimes where a gun was used between Virginia and a demographically similar state that requires private sales to be recorded. Without at least those two pieces of data it would be impossible to predict whether or not requiring private sales to be recorded would have any effect at all on crime rates.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 01:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The document passed out during the March 2008 Peak Oil discussion can be found via the following link:

http://www.richmondlp.com/pdfs/peakoil.pdf

If you are interested in seeing more information on peak oil and how it affects us on the Richmond Liberty website, please email Jon Walker.

Posted by Jon Walker at 11:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Wall Stree Journal Daylight Saving Time might not be as great as some have claimed.

"For decades, conventional wisdom has held that daylight-saving time, which begins March 9, reduces energy use. But a unique situation in Indiana provides evidence challenging that view: Springing forward may actually waste energy."

This study doesn't touch on the other many bad aspects of DST. Like reduced productivity and higher traffic fatalities.

Personally I've always believed that this was just government's attempt to control time. If you want to have special hours during the Summer, that is something you should negotiate without government interference.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ron Paul has officially given up is campaign for the Presidency.

According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703061.html)
Rep. Ron Paul has ended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, breaking the news in a seven-minute video posted on his campaign Web site Thursday. The Texan, who ran on a libertarian platform and saw an outpouring of financial support via the Internet, tried to soothe anxious supporters by letting them know that his "campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase." While his campaign will not formally organize events, he encouraged supporters to continue to work on behalf of a broader movement.

"I don't mind playing a key role in this revolution, but it has to be more than a Ron Paul revolution," he said. "Our job now is to plan for the next phase."

So with that said, who to support in the election now?

Paul Gessing on freeliberal.com has a suggestion.
(From http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003254.php)
"I remain part of the Ron Paul revolution. That said, of the three candidates left, I think Obama is the least evil. "

Regardless of who the members of pro-freedom movement get behind, it is imperative to follow Ron Paul's advice and continue the grass-roots activism for a more free society.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-03-08
General Assembly, Saturday, March 8th, 2008

LAST day until scheduled adjournment!

Of course, they'll be extending the session, since there's no agreement -- and no collegiality -- on the budget bills. No matter, there's very little in those negotiations in which I'm involved.

I watched the action from noon until 3:30, when the House went into a 2-hour recess. Have been keeping up via the Net since then. [Should mention here that remote monitoring is EVER so much easier now than it used to be. Clicking on a link works 24/7, whereas making a phone call only works until 4:30 pm or so.]

At 9 pm, both House and Senate are still in session, and one of the bills in this report has yet to be acted upon. Will send this out after that action, possibly after they both adjourn.

It's 9:45. They're both still in session; Senate has approved the last bill in this report. I'm going to go ahead and send this out, in spite of the fact that they may reconsider some of the votes herein. If they do so, I'll note it in the next report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
11:30 a.m. Senate convenes.
12:00 p.m. House convenes.

SB226, McDougle, SUBSTITUTE, Firearms; answering mental health questions on consent form required when purchasing.

The House version is a bit more restrictive than the Senate version.

Conference committee has proposed yet another substitute version, closer to Senate version than to House. This is identical to HB709, below.

Accepted by House, 100-0. Accepted by Senate, 40-0. Now goes to Governor.

SB562, Obenshain, Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.

Heavy mandatory minimum sentences for distribution of 1 ounce of meth, heavier ones for distribution of 10 ounces. Senate says it shouldn't go into effect unless it's paid for (estimated over quarter-million dollars). House disagrees.

Conferees recommend Senate version, requiring that there be an appropriation to pay for this before it goes into effect. This was accepted by the Senate, 39-0.

After some grumbling, and an expressed hope to get the Governor to remove the enactment clause, the Senate version is accepted by the House, 89-0. Bill now goes to Governor.

Bill is identical to HB931, below.

SB590, Howell, SUBSTITUTE, Sex Offender & Crimes Against Minors Registry

Dueling substitutes. Conferees produce another substitute (WITHOUT the weird provision that was in the Senate version), blending best parts of each version.

Accepted by House, 85-0; FINALLY accepted by Senate (between 9 and 9:40 pm). Now goes to Governor.

**********

HB34, Ingram, SUBSTITUTE, Aggravated sexual battery; person over 18 guilty of felony with child under 13.

This is the "French-kissing" bill. House version makes it a Class 6 felony (up to 5 years), Senate version makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 12 months). Both require registration as a sex offender.

Conferees recommended Senate version. Accepted by Senate, 39-0, and by House, 96-1. Now goes to Governor.

HB534, Mathieson, SUBSTITUTE, Driver's license; State Police shall electronically transmit registry data of sex offenders to DMV.

This says that registered sex offenders must review their licenses every five years, and must do so in person, getting a new photo taken each time. The photo must be shared with the State Police, and included in the database.

Bill passed House and Senate, but Governor has recommended a technical amendment. Accepted 99-0 in House, 40-0 in Senate. Now goes back to Governor.

HB567, Crockett-Stark, SUBSTITUTE, Sexual offenses; those convicted prohibited entry onto school property.

Present law bans offenders from schools and day care centers during school hours, except to vote, attend class, or pursuant to a court order. The bill extends the ban to all hours.

Senate version adds definition of day care center, and adds exceptions to attend religious services.

Conferees recommend a new substitute, without the Senate exemption, and extending the ban only during school-related/sponsored activities, as well as during school hours.

Committee substitute accepted by the House, 93-0; by Senate 40-0. Now goes to Governor.

HB709, Janis, SUBSTITUTE, Firearms; person legally incompetent, etc. prohibited from purchasing.

Same as SB226, same situation.

Conference committee has proposed yet another substitute version, printed yesterday.

House accepted conference substitute, 100-0. Senate accepted, 40-0. Now goes to Governor.

HB931, Gilbert, Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.

Same as SB562 above. Same situation.

Conferees recommend Senate version, requiring that there be an appropriation to pay for this before it goes into effect. Accepted in the Senate unanimously, and in the House 89-7. Now goes to the Governor.

HB1007, Jones DC, SUBSTITUTE, Fusion Intelligence Center; confidentiality and immunity from service of process.

The Secret Spy Center bill. Provides immunity for actions of these centers and their employees and their informants.

The Senate version is far more protective of citizens' rights than is the House version.

Conference recommends Senate version. House accepts, 100-0. Senate accepts 38-0. Now goes to Governor.

HB1171, Cosgrove, SUBSTITUTE, Alcoholic mixed beverages; grounds for suspension or revocation of license if lewd conduct allowed.

This is the ABC censorship bill. Both House and Senate have a substitute for the version that came to them. Both versions exempt most artistic performances. House version also has a long list of naughty things.

Conferees recommend Senate version, cleaner and with fewer potential problems. Accepted in the House, 94-2. Accepted by Senate 38-0. Now goes to Governor.

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

Senate

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

House

HR20, Griffith, House of Delegates; Rules. Amends Rule 37 relating to the introduction of legislation.

This will INCREASE the number of bills each delegate is allowed to introduce during the regular session, from 10 to 15!

Adopted by the House, 80-19. Effective for next session.

HB344, Plum, SUBSTITUTE, Computer Recovery and Recycling Act; adoption and implementation of recovery plan.

Just noticed this one, thought it was worth including.
It won't take effect until July 1, 2009, but it mandates that computer manufacturers in Virginia make arrangements to recycle their equipment. This should help us all.
Senate version prevailed, and is now before the Governor.

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

Next significant meetings are

NONE SET YET
------------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
http://leg1.state.va.us/. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

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

REMINDER:
http://leg1.state.va.us/ and http://legis.state.va.us/
These are the two websites where you can access nearly anything you want to know about practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!
__________________________________________________________________

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 09:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

I was going to title this "Foreclosures: Blessing or Curse?", before I considered to most people foreclosures are unequivocally bad, even if theoretically they don't have to be. To someone who owns their own home (either in totality or with the help of a mortgage), the chance of losing it is a singular blow to a lifetime of emotional and financial wellbeing. Unlike rented property it carries the emotional/financial anchors of permanence, identity and posterity (not to mention most people save to buy only one home in their lifetime). But this is only speculation on my part because many people online never come close to buying their own home unless it is severely discounted, i.e. by a foreclosure. So it was as a financial opportunity that I first learned about foreclosures.

I would therefore say that whether foreclosures are good or bad for the economy depends on whether you are a buyer or seller, but unfortunately buying a foreclosed home may not be a reality even for those who try. Most "buyers" are actually creditors or companies scooping them up for resale, and auctions for private purchase are a secret goldmine for no one, competition driving the closing price close to retail. So this is a market in which there really are no buyers except those who can afford to buy at close to worth (or are very lucky). It is lopsided because one side controls it, unlike a true market, and now they are collecting.

So it is this whole system that only serves the creditors whether there are foreclosures or not. That system is what is bad for the economy so the solution is to reform it, not by giving credit and other incentives to pacify mortgage companies, but to crack down on those creditors putting them on an even playing field with the citizen in imitation of sale-by-owner real estate. (Libertarians often automatically oppose the idea of government regulation of private businesses, but corporations don't fit into the "citizen vs. state" contest, the libertarian model must be amended to include corporate entities which use the rights intended for citizens but wield the power of a state. The most common argument to this is "doesn't this mean my small business will be regulated too?". No.  The word "private" has been overblown, an individual businessman making his own decisions has different rights than a corporation where no individual makes those decisions.)

Foreclosure is a type of debt, and debt is a controlling, manipulative business. As long as it has existed collection of this severity was inevitable, like the debtors' prisons of centuries ago. To fix it one must graduate from the belief that establishment is good and that lending is an honest deal, to the libertarian view that establishment is corrupt and we must throw our clogs into it. Creditors aren't friends of ours giving out mortgages out of the goodness of their hearts, they are companies setting collateral aside (your house) to ensure they don't lose their investment. Whoever cares about people losing their homes must side with the citizen even if it means taking unfair advantage of mortgage companies to keep those homes, because corporate entities are not human and don't have families. They are strong establishments, that is why they can afford to give mortgages. They were meant to be taken advantage of.

The big argument to this is that as soon as the incentive to give mortgages is threatened, either by government or the citizen, creditors will stop creating these opportunities and only those who can afford to pay outright will buy homes. But demand creates business. It created these crediting businesses, which live by this sword and can also die by it. The economy can't take stagnancy, as soon as something is outlawed a black market appears, when currency is in a vacuum people print their own. ("The spice must flow" as Frank Herbert would say.)* We citizens rightly control the economy but we don't exercise this power.

We have to revive these arguments or anyone who forgets is at the mercy of whatever they are told to believe. Property used to be a right people claimed just by getting there first. One's home was where they spent their entire life. We see in old photos the dilapidation of houses that were literally outlived, one's dependency on their one piece of ground sometimes a curse. Now the concept of a home is becoming extinct, people are buying them as investments for eventual resale, not truly "living" in them which would decrease the value, maintaining them as showrooms to impress the stranger.

If foreclosures can't be stopped because it would give people unlimited credit toward a debt they will never pay back, then the least we can do is make it a healthy market so that for every citizen who loses their home another gets one. To do this we must eliminate "middle man" companies that have cornered this process and take their own cut, such as HUD and private resellers. HUD is a public service which facilitates the buying of foreclosed and other distressed properties, but there is a long eligibility process, frequent home inspections and a set rate of the purchase price. It's like taking a used car to CARMAX and watching the dealer open up his blue book, instead of going to the Trading Post or Craigslist where it's possible to trade a rustbucket for a bmw. A free market would not only give people the chance to own a house they could not normally afford, but if a homeowner is negotiating the sale of his own foreclosure it may be possible for him to get it back someday.

Gov. Kaine's bill to ward off foreclosures by giving homeowners more time was approved by the House on Thursday, updates can be found at www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/06/ap4743029.html.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_%28novel%29

Question of the Week: In your current financial situation, is the word foreclosure more likely to be a potential nightmare or opportunity? Of all the measures being proposed right now is there one that has your endorsement? Send your thoughts to russo@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 09:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-03-07
General Assembly, Friday, March 7th, 2008

ONE day until scheduled adjournment!

Assembly scheduled to adjourn Saturday, tomorrow. That looks unlikely, but we'll see. I won't be polishing off this report and sending it out until House and Senate both adjourn for the day.

For this report, instead of merely "House" and "Senate", I'm adding a "Both" section, since many bills are being acted upon by both sides.

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

Interesting software note: The email program at one college wouldn't pass this report to its recipient. It has a censorship routine, and rejected the report because it had "Adult material" -- apparently it didn't like the quotes from HB1171, the ABC censorship bill!

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

12:00 p.m. Both House and Senate convene.

Today, both House and Senate are allowed to work only upon conference reports and some joint resolutions.

SB226, McDougle, SUBSTITUTE, Firearms; answering mental health questions on consent form required when purchasing.

The House version is a bit more restrictive than the Senate version.

Conference committee has proposed yet another substitute version, printed today and to be acted upon tomorrow. This is identical to HB709, below.

SB562, Obenshain, Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.

Heavy mandatory minimum sentences for distribution of 1 ounce of meth, heavier ones for distribution of 10 ounces. Senate says it shouldn't go into effect unless it's paid for (estimated over quarter-million dollars). House disagrees.

Conferees recommend Senate version, requiring that there be an appropriation to pay for this before it goes into effect. This was accepted by the Senate, 39-0. House has not yet acted.

Bill is identical to HB931, below.

SB590, Howell, SUBSTITUTE, Sex Offender & Crimes Against Minors Registry

Dueling substitutes.

Senate version has at least one very weird section. Present law requires registration as a sex offender for, among other things, carnal knowledge, without force, of a 13- or 14-year-old. The Senate version limits that to cases where the child not only is not forced, but actually consents, and the accused is also a minor. It actually removes the registration requirement for other cases!

Other differences, not detailed here.

In conference . . .

**********

HB34, Ingram, SUBSTITUTE, Aggravated sexual battery; person over 18 guilty of felony with child under 13.

This is the "French-kissing" bill. House version makes it a Class 6 felony (up to 5 years), Senate version makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 12 months). Both require registration as a sex offender.

In conference; conferees appointed by both sides.

HB567, Crockett-Stark, SUBSTITUTE, Sexual offenses; those convicted prohibited entry onto school property.

Present law bans offenders from schools and day care centers during school hours, except to vote, attend class, or pursuant to a court order. The bill extends the ban to all hours.

Senate version adds definition of day care center, and adds exceptions to attend religious services.

Conferees recommend a new substitute, without the Senate exemption, and extending the ban only during school-related/sponsored activities, as well as during school hours.

Committee substitute accepted by the House, 93-0; now waiting for Senate.

HB709, Janis, SUBSTITUTE, Firearms; person legally incompetent, etc. prohibited from purchasing.

Same as SB226, same situation.

Conference committee has proposed yet another substitute version, printed today and to be acted upon tomorrow. This is identical to SB226, above.

HB931, Gilbert, Methamphetamine; manufacturing, selling, giving, and distributing thereof, penalty.

Same as SB562 above. Same situation.

Conferees recommend Senate version, requiring that there be an appropriation to pay for this before it goes into effect. Accepted in the House, 89-7, and in the Senate unanimously. Now goes to the Governor.

HB1007, Jones DC, SUBSTITUTE, Fusion Intelligence Center; confidentiality and immunity from service of process.

The Secret Spy Center bill. Provides immunity for actions of these centers and their employees and their snitches.

The Senate version is far more protective of citizens' rights than is the House version. Both House and Senate are insisting on their versions. Conference Committee members appointed.

In conference . . .

HB1171, Cosgrove, SUBSTITUTE, Alcoholic mixed beverages; grounds for suspension or revocation of license if lewd conduct allowed.

This is the ABC censorship bill. Both House and Senate have a substitute for the version that came to them. Both versions exempt most artistic performances. House version also has a long list of naughty things.

Conferees recommend Senate version, cleaner and with fewer potential problems. Accepted in the House, 94-2. Waiting for Senate.

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

Senate

SB560, Obenshain, Triggerman rule; redefinition thereof.
This is the bill to expand the death penalty to some accessories, not merely the person who pulls the trigger.
The Governor vetoed the bill, but the Assembly can enact it over his veto.
Same as HB933.
Senate failed to override, 24-16, or 3 votes shy of the 2/3 majority needed to override. Bill is dead.

HB933, Gilbert, Triggerman rule; redefinition thereof.
Same as SB560, above. Same situation.
Yesterday, House overrode veto, 77-23.
Senate failed to override, 24-16, or 3 votes shy of the 2/3 majority needed to override. Bill is dead.

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

House

During the Morning Hour:

Delegate Carrico thanked the Capitol Police for allowing some members to use the range and fire off a few hundred rounds. He showed some targets, with pretty good groupings.

Delegate Gilbert reminded the members that the massacre yesterday at the school in Israel was interrupted by an armed student using his legally-carried private weapon in defense of himself and his classmates; the murderer was later killed by a soldier.

*****

HR20, Griffith, House of Delegates; Rules. Amends Rule 37 relating to the introduction of legislation.

This will INCREASE the number of bills each delegate is allowed to introduce during the regular session, from 10 to 15! Read for fifth time today.

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

Next significant meetings are Saturday:

Noon: Senate and House convene

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

DETAILS:
To see the summary, text, status, estimated cost, votes, or other details on any bill, go to:
http://leg1.state.va.us/. Click on:
“Bills & Resolutions – status of individual bills and related information”.
At the text-entry block, enter the bill and type just as I have it listed above. (Use “SB921”, not “S.B. 921”, for example.)

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

REMINDER:
http://leg1.state.va.us/ and http://legis.state.va.us/
These are the two websites where you can access nearly anything you want to know about practically anything related to the General Assembly. Use them!
__________________________________________________________________

Posted by Roy B. Scherer at 11:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

VAVV.org News Alert
Friday March 7, 2008

Dear VA voters,

We want to announce the Awsome Good News for SB. 536 and SB.35!

Yesterday, Sen. Deeds bill, SB 35 for Recounts, just passed the House of Delegates without a dissenting vote! And then, in the last vote for the session, the Senate agreed to the House ammendment to SB. 35. Link to bill-
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB35

On Wednesday, Sen. Barkers's bill, SB 536 for Certification procedures, also passed unanimously in the House!
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB536


Action to take:
Send Thank you notes to the legislators you've been writing and calling. Thank them for their work to pass these bills.

News about other election related bills-

SB 7 (Deeds) expands the definition of disability for the purpose of absentee voting from physical disbility to any kind of disability. Passed both Houses unanimously.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB7
*Identical to Del.Eisenberg's bill HB310 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+HB310

Sen. Barker's bill, SB.796, has passed the Senate. It will help extend hrs of elections during emergencies like bad weather.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB796

All bills, including Sen. Herrings bill SB. 292, still have to be signed by Governor Kaine of course and then it's official. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB292

It's time to celebrate your work to help the success of these bills and to insure that these improvements happen!

Thank you all for all your time to write letters and make phone calls to our legislators.

Our sincere thanks to you all,

VAVV.org and the Verifiable Voting Coalition of VA members.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 02:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

file GA08-03-06
General Assembly, Thursday, March 6th, 2008

TWO days until adjournment!

The General Assembly is supposed to adjourn for the regular session tomorrow, Saturday. They're working some late hours now, trying frantically to reach agreement on those relatively few items of disagreement. Of course, they're miles apart on the budget for the next two years (and trash-talking each other about it), so they'll probably end up extending this session anyway.

I won't be polishing off this report and sending it out until House and Senate both adjourn for the day.

For this report, instead of merely "House" and "Senate", I'm adding a "Both" section, since many bills are being acted upon by both sides.

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

12:00 p.m. Both House and Senate convene.

SB35, Deeds, SUBSTITUTE, Recount procedures; ensures that logic and accuracy tests are performed after programming tabulator.

Finally passed House, 99-0. Senate accepts House version, 36-0. Bill now goes to Governor.

SB506, McDougle, Arrest; resetting of bail or amending bail set.

This one slipped under my radar until now, but it's important.

Right now, when someone is arrested, and posts bond, and goes to court for the first time, the court can raise the bail if there seems to be good reason to do so. This bill allows the court to also impose special conditions, "including, but not limited to, drug and alcohol monitoring."

There's one phrase in the bill which purports to allow the court to also reduce the bail if it seems excessive, but that power is negated by the first section of the present law. [NOTE THAT I'M ONLY A