Pontiac Man Challenges City on Right to Carry Handgun

Ben Shattuck of Pontiac carries his side arm with him in open view. He carried it with him when he made a statement about Pontiac’s gun law to the city council. It certainly is his right, but not necessary.


In a Responsible Community we did not give up the right to own weapons. But, if the community has a compelling reason to restrict gun possession and use, then it has the responsibility to act in a reasonable and limited manner to protect the community. This means, with some exceptions, it can act unilaterally from any higher governmental body. It could require a permit to even carry the weapon in the open as Shattuck does, or make it illegal to carry a weapon anywhere in public.

This is where the responsible community parts with the constitution. But since we live in a community that has an excellent constitution, we must stand by its standards. That doesn’t mean that the understanding of the document can be clear at all times or that we can all agree with that understanding. We must search for middle ground.

The Second Amendment has wide interpretation across the political spectrum. One viewpoint says that individuals have the right to bear arms in a limited way because of the statement about a well regulated militia. Others believe in a more open understanding, that individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of their membership in a well regulated militia. In either extreme, it is clear that individuals have at least some right to own and bear arms. So Ben Shattuck does have the right to own firearms in his home and on his person with reasonable restrictions.

But, no right is absolute even in an open interpretation. The Constitution never meant to guarantee any right beyond the point of safety. Government, with compelling reasons, can and should restrict ownership and use of firearms. Some examples might be requiring training on use and safety, surrendering the weapon when requested by a police officer or proper holstering.

The current interpretation of the Constitution does allow Mr. Shattuck to own a weapon and carry his weapon around with him. The City of Pontiac can’t stop him from owning but it should be able to restrict its use for compelling reasons.

Who Will Decide the Truth for Voters

Sinclair Broadcasting thinks they have the responsibility to do just that.

Television Station WPGH in Pittsburgh, owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, pulled a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad this week. The station management did not return phone calls to news organizations requesting comment on the issue. Other stations in the market said they would continue to air the commercial as scheduled.

Kent Gates, a political adviser for Tim Burns, the Republican candidate who is the target of the pulled ad, says that it, "falsely claims Tim Burns supports a 23 percent national sales tax and wants to ship jobs overseas." Burns is running against Democrat Mark Critz in a special election last Tuesday, May 18, 2010, for the late John Murtha's seat. Some sources that are familiar with both the station and the Republican campaign claim that FactCheck supports the claims by the Burn’s campaign.

FactCheck also states that both sides are airing ads that are "chock full of false and misleading claims." But, of all the ads that are being aired and run in the market, only Sinclair pulled the Democratic supported commercial.

But, is the community best served by having the media determine what we see and what we don’t in a political campaign?

It is the voter that ultimately must decide what is important. To have a media outlet determine for the voter what is fact sets up the opportunity to have corporations choose what goes on the air based on a political point of view they may support. (While FactCheck, the website that Sinclair appears to have used to support their action, also said other commercials where wrong, yet, Sinclair didn’t withdraw those commercials. This indicates that the broadcaster took a position in the election.) FactCheck.org, as an example, doesn’t ask for commercials to be removed or force commercials off the air, they research the statements and provide supporting evidence for their conclusions. Voters can go to web sites like FactCheck for their own research. Additionally, it will help the voter decide who to vote for by knowing what outrageous claims are being made by candidates.

In the end, the collective intelligence of a well informed community about all sides of a political decision is better than one that is receiving filtered information. Sinclair Broadcasting didn’t serve their community in an open and fair way by refusing to air a commercial that didn’t support their own political position.

But, apparently, the voters saw through all of that. Mark Critz, the Democrat, won the election, not the candidate that Sinclair supported.

Supreme Court Rules about Life Sentence for Children

A child can’t be sentenced to life in prison without a chance for parole for crimes less than murder the Supreme Court has ruled. The court strongly asserted the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eight Amendment in the ruling.

In Florida, Terrance Graham, was 16 when he was involved in a armed robbery while out on parole. The prosecutors rightfully tossed his parole agreement and pursued charges for the armed robbery. The jury and the court found him guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison without chance for parole. He is now 22 years of age. (It is believed that Florida doesn’t have a parole system for any prisoner.)

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that few underage individuals, only 129 in all of American and 77 of those in Florida, were sentenced to life without parole. Most jurisdictions allow a prisoner to demonstrate he has reformed and should be allowed to return to society. Sense there are only 129 cases in the country that don’t allow a chance for review, the court decided it was cruel and unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy along with four other justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from them majority. They believed, as Thomas wrote, that the court was imposing “its own sense of morality and retributive justice". He believes that states should have the right to impose such sentences as supported by the voters.

During the colonial times, there were forms of punishment that if applied to today’s standards would be judged to be cruel and unusual. Lawbreakers at the time could be whipped, placed in a stockade in the town square or hanged for more than just the crime of murder, in some cases, petty theft. Many representatives that attended the Several States Convention to write a new Constitution in 1787 were concerned that if the Eight Amendment was adopted, many of the punishments that were currently used at the time would be deemed cruel if not also unusual.

To accept the current court ruling as being appropriate, there must be a way to reconcile the Eight Amendment with shifting standards. The answer is embedded in the debate that the representatives engaged in at the convention. They supported a vaguely worded amendment that would allow each generation to apply their own standards of punishment. It wasn’t because they didn’t believed they had the right answers about crime and punishment. It was with the wisdom to know that perhaps better ways could be developed that were less cruel and unusual but still provide the deterrent that is needed. This, of course, would need to be determined by each generation based on the amount of crime and the sensitivities of the public (voters) at the time.

With only 129 children held without parole, it seems that the that voters through their judges, prosecutors and legislative bodies have made their sensitivities about crime and punishment very clear.

The court ruled with a well reasoned opinion that supports the community.

(1) The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution 111 by Jonathan Elliot

End illegal immigration in five steps

We can end illegal immigration with 5 difficult but worthwhile steps. These are not solutions from the moment. These are what have be gleaned from years of research from all sides of the political spectrum. But, be careful, we will need to support these solutions with a functioning budget of people, time and money.

1) Enact a national identification program that is real and tough for everyone. Until we are sure who is here legally we can’t expect anyone to up hold the law. That means that every one that lives in the country must have documents that prove they are a legal worker or a citizen. This has received very strong opposition from all sides. There is the fear of the government intruding on our lives and a severe loss of privacy. But, that is the cost that must be paid.

2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level. If each state has different rules, employers will have a huge bureaucratic problem.

Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.

Now comes the hard part, but these solution must also be developed otherwise the first two will not work.

3) Manage the border, not control it. Let them in if they can prove who they are. After all, we let thousands if not millions in everyday so they can vacation in this wonderful country. This will mean the United States must work with other countries to insure that all parties are properly documenting everyone. If they can’t get a job because of point two, what will they do? They will spend money, see relatives and go home.

This also means that those that are already here will be able to return to their host country with the knowledge that they can return. Right now, the illegal worker doesn’t go home occasionally or at the end of the work season because they may not be able to return. So, instead they stay.

Additionally, the people who now patrol the border trying to control it, will be able to do the real work of keeping the bad guys out.

4) Provide a path to legalizations. Every generation since the turn of the last century has done this. The only way the illegal’s will come out of the shadows of black market employment is by the security of knowing that they will be able continue to live and work in America. With other measures that are enacted, they will receive pressure from their employers to turn legal. This will be in the best interest of companies to help their employees since enforcement from I.C.E. will mean heavy fines if they don’t.

5) Finally, build the economies of the host countries. People don’t leave their families, their communities and their countries unless they have to. Some do leave for wonder lust or political reasons, but for the most part people want to be successful at home, not somewhere else. People from poor countries will always want to migrate to rich countries for work. Migration will not be stopped until they feel they can provide for their families where they are.

None of this will be easy. It will cost money that some people in this country will not be willing to support. They will continue to believe that they are easier solutions, such as just through the bums out. Then, to keep them out will take a far greater investment by controlling the border then by managing it.

Success at anything doesn’t come easy. We have to invest and work hard to be successful. If we make the investment in these solutions there is no reason to believe that the pay off will not be a much better community for everyone.

-----

An Open Letter to the Tea Party-ers

Dear Tea Party-er,

This letter is not to say you are wrong. Much of what you say does have some truth in it, although not any more than the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives or all the other political groups. You do have every right to exist, express, assemble and all the other rights that are expressed and implied in the constitution. It also needs to be said that you have rights even beyond those, but are not recognized by our political system.

This letter is sent as a warning about closing into yourself so much that you lose sight of the truth and critical analyst. Many organizations have fallen to this in the past, both public and private. They even have a name for it, “Group Think.”

There are two shining examples of this in our past as a culture. One is President John Kennedy’s invasion of Cuba called the “Bay of Pigs” and Coca Cola’s huge marketing mistake in changing the formula for Coke.

In Kennedy’s example, his advisers and cabinet of very smart people concocted the idea of having refugees from Cuba invade the country and over throw the government. This would bring the United States to the rescue. The plan might have actually worked except not enough critical analyst had gone into the planning. The group, thinking they knew it all, didn’t feel they needed outside evaluation. So each member supported other members in their thinking because, after all, they know they were right. The refugees never got off the beaches and the United States watched as thousand died or were captured in the colossal failure.

Coke went through the same problem. Research that the board was certain was correct, told them that to keep in front of Pepsi and changing consumer tastes, they needed to change the flavor of the mainstay product. Oops, the arguably most loyal customers of any consumer product revolted. For many months Coca Cola had to back track and address the public relations debacle. In this case, the research was actually saying something else, but the board thought it told them to change the product because, again, they didn’t go outside the group to ask for a critical review.

So, Tea Party-ers, consider these two examples of many when deciding a course of action and who to support. Group think is a real, powerful and dangerous thing. To move forward without considering, and, in many cases, adopting outside advice on your platform and plans could be a disservice to all the people that have faith in your movement.

To not accept this advice is in itself, group think.

Sincerely,

The Responsible Community

BP Was Doing What Was Expected

When did we buy into the notion that corporations have the community’s best interest in mind?

Now before you think this is a blog post about bashing big corporations, consider this. Corporations by civil and criminal law are to make as much money as possible for their stock holders. If they don’t, CEO’s will be fired, boards replaced, investors will withdraw their money, civil suits will be filed and legal action will be taken. The western culture makes it very clear that corporations are to place making money above any fiduciary responsibility they may have to the communities they serve.

We could all take on the Wall Street bankers as a prime example of making money over serving their community, but there is a more current example buried in stories about BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It comes from an article in the New York Times entitled, “Regulator Deferred to Oil Industry on Rig Safety.” It states that the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency charged with regulating the oil industry “continue[d] to allow the industry largely to police itself, saying that the best technical experts work for industry, not for the government.”

The key phrase in the sentence above is, “work for”. The technical experts that the agency relied on were people that work for the oil industry, not the agency or an independent source. When an oil industry corporation, like any other corporation, makes a risk assessment, their decisions are based on making money. The risk of oil spills, accidents and other things do factor in based on the actual monetary cost and the cost to their public image. But, in the end, the question is how much money can be made.

The people that work for the corporation didn’t want this oil spill. They, it is reasonable to believe, did all they could to prevent it. But, the experts that work for the corporation are all directed to make plans that are cost effective. They will likely convince themselves that the plan will work. If they don’t get outside assessment of their plans, they could be involved in “group think.” It is, in the simplest of terms, a concept that the original premise is correct and that members of a deeply cohesive group will convince each other that it is correct. Regulators should not rely on the industry people to assess their own plans.

The mandate of corporations should be first and foremost to serve the community instead of making money. Yes, of course, they need to make money. But they must create jobs, provide a product or service that the community needs and protect the environment first. They should be held accountable to that mandate.

If a specific corporation can’t do that, let another one that can.

-----

Harwell and Huff

Last week was a tough week for the Detroit Community. We have lost two outstanding individuals that provided shining examples of how we should all lead our lives. Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff and Tiger Broadcaster Ernie Harwell should both be remembered in all of our hearts.

Ernie Harwell will be remembered as the voice of summer for three generations of Detroiters. He began his career when baseball, the game of summer, was also America’s past time. Fans would hang on his every word when listening to the Tiger Baseball game. But, he never placed himself between the game and the audience. He knew they were there to listen to the game not his personal life.

He also provided a great example of life outside of baseball. In great contrast to so many people who claim fame, he was a genuine soul. Like the box score on a perfect game he had No drugs, no affairs and no bad things to say about anyone. He will be dearly missed.

But, the heroism of Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff must take a place above that of Harwell’s in the community. This is not to take anything away from Harwell. It is just that he labored in the limelight of fame. In that light, he did not succumb to the corruption that often follows and is to be honored. But, Police Officer Huff labored in anonymity. His heroism wasn’t in bright lights, his was in the quiet and ill lit light of everyday life.

When the call came from neighbors that there was trouble, a Detroit dispatcher sent a car with officers that had less experience on the force then Huff. It is reported that he was on his way to help before the dispatcher sent him as back up. Huff knew that there would be trouble and the officers responding to the call were going to need help. He was willing to place his life on the line because he thought that his experience on the job would help save lives and protect the community. That was to be Huff’s last call. He died quietly without lights or glory, a true hero’s death.

As individuals living in the community, we must all take on our responsibilities without the bright lights that come with fame. Every day we make sacrifices and invest our time and labor to make our lives and the community better. At the end of each day no one is there shining a light on our lives for everyone to admire. In the dark of night we lay down and go to sleep with only the self knowledge that we have done the best we can. Officer Huff must have done the same thing every evening.

While we honor the Harwell’s of the world with bright lights, the greatest tribute we can provide for the Officer Huff’s of the world is to continue to make the sacrifices necessary to build a better world for ourselves, our families and our communities.

A sincere and deeply felt thank you to Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff.

-----