Did you know there was a Museum of Left Wing Lunacy? Me neither. However we do now.

Also there is a Conservative Brotherhood, which bills themselves as a group of African American writers whose politics are on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Expanding the dialog beyond traditional boundaries, they seek to contribute to a greater understanding of African Americans and America itself through advocacy and commentary.

I can't remember how I found the first link but I found the second one via The Black Informant.

On April 15th I saved someone. No not on their taxes. I turned the author of this Blog onto the Republican Liberty Caucus. I did so in response to this post.

Senate Bill 374 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Bruce Patterson on April 13, 2005, to require a court to notify the Secretary of State when it issues a personal protection order prohibiting an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Under current law a court must notify the county weapons board. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 375, which would eliminate the county weapons boards and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here. 

Senate Bill 375 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on April 13, 2005, to eliminate county concealed weapon licensing boards, and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here.

Other Michigan CPL bills can be found here, here and here.

Sarah Brady's press release to the U.S. Newswire dated 4/11/2005.

"The Kansas Legislature last week passed a bill that should be called the 'No Local Rights' bill. If Senate Bill 195 becomes law, no city or town in Kansas would be able to pass its own regulations about guns, if those regulations are stricter than state law. That's a lot of nonsense, and Governor Sebelius should veto it, and the legislature should uphold her veto.

Nonsense? Exchange any other unalienable right with the right to bear arms and tell me this is nonsense. What if a city in Kansas decided that there is no explicit freedom of religion and that everyone in the city must worship at a Church of their choice each Sunday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Still think it's nonsense?

Why is it OK for local governments to regulate guns but not religion or speech? I mean why do we have a Constitution proclaiming and protecting the rights of the individual if some local politicians can remove them with a majority vote?

"Since 1860, local communities in Kansas have been regulating firearms because locally elected officials understood that different laws are necessary in different communities.

Is Mrs. Brady saying that some people in Kansas do not deserve the right to self-protection? How does one determine such a thing? Americans, are supposed to have equal protection under the law. Shouldn't we also have the right to equally protect ourselves from those outside the law?

People can feel the way they want about gun laws, but we should all agree that in a democracy, the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy."

Pet peeve alert!!! I wish that people who insist on characterizing our form of government as a democracy would, at the very least, add the word constitutional to the beginning of their sentence. This would help ensure they realize there is a difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Democracy.

Mrs. Brady is a little confused by our system of government. We are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic and the distinction is important. The founding fathers knew the danger that a majority or the mob, if you prefer, could pose to the minority. They set up a government where the individual would have equal access to everything America offers. When that access is encroached on by a third party such as the governments the individual can seek relief through the courts.

She may be right about putting such wording into the law. It may be anti-democratic if, in fact, the majority does disapprove of it. However it is not unconstitutional and that is all that should matter when it comes to such things.

By the way, I found this press release via this post from the War on Guns who follows it up today with this one.

Titled: Two-Fifths of Americans Online Have Read Political Blogs

Two-fifths of Americans who are online have read a political blog, and more than a quarter read them once a month or more, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll.

Still, 56% of the public has never read a political blog and only 7% of online adults have posted a comment, according to the poll.

Of online adults who have posted comments on a political blog, 21% have posted 10 times or more in the past year. Half have posted between two and five times and 20% have posted only once.

People who identify themselves as Liberals are mostly likely to post comments to political blogs (28%); Moderates (17%) and Republicans (17%) were least likely.

Interesting. See the rest of the results here.

Titled: Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House

In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the disastrous FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.

This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.

Redstate has more.

It is clear to me that Dr. Zen has never faced a rapist, or a gay basher. What should I do, Dr. Zen, if faced with a rapist? Give him what he wants? Sorry, but I would rather give him what he deserves - a couple of hollow point slugs carefully aimed.

Yea what she said.

James Joyner from Outside the Beltway has this concerning the repeal of the death tax.

Titled: Michiganders to face tighter border rules

Metro Detroiters might need passports to re-enter Michigan from Canada under new federal rules being phased in by 2008.

Such a regulation would represent a significant tightening of a border that has been one of the world's freest for more than two centuries.

According to Bush administration officials, new passport regulations -- designed to curtail terrorism -- would apply to Americans returning to the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama and Bermuda.

I don't know. Is this a bad thing? On one hand it seems like another worthless measure that will do nothing to prevent bad guys from getting into the country. On the other hand I do appreciate the attention that borders are receiving.

I just added another Gun Blogger to my daily read list & Blogroll. It goes by the name "The War on Guns" and can be found here.