As most of you know by now, Senator Specter of Pa has switched parties. Now I do not wish to get into the merits or lack thereof, of Specter’s action, but it seems clear that Specter switched solely for the purpose of preserving his political hide.

However I have a real problem with a politican of either party running and winning as either a Republican or Democrat, then switching parties. That seems unfair to the people who supported that politican in his election. I have always felt that if you wish to change parties you should resign and stand for election under your new party label.

Your thoughts?

First, I have to admit  that despite going through college  and law school, my failure to be a frat boy deprived me of the experience of “teabagging” ,that so many press types seem intimately familiar with. Now that the reference has been explained, I think it speaks volumes of those using it. Me thinks, that not only are they intimately familiar with “teabagging” , they enjoyed it a bit too much. If this is the best those opposed to the tea parties can do, the tea partiers must be on to something.

Second, the Washington liberals who were so in favor of the minority voicing their opinions via protests, sure changed their tune in a hurry.

Third, I read this afternoon that the Alabama Supreme Court has stayed, the lower court order that the Governor’s Gambling Task Force had to return the seized “bingo” machines and cash to White Hall. Couple this with the Governor v AG fight on who can enforce the laws and this bingo mess gets as good as a soap opera.

Finally, I read that the Obama Administration is telling GM that it had better prepare for bankruptcy. Is this not what Richard Shelby said months and billions of dollars ago? When Shelby said it, he got bashed from every side. I wonder when those bashers are going to let loose at President Obama.

For those who wonder, I am neither Republican nor particularly conservative but I am plagued by this inconvenient notion of fairness and fair is fair.

Three Pittsburgh Police Officers were shot dead today by a 22 year old male who had reportedly just lost his job and was fearful of a ban by President Obama on gun ownership.

First, my prayers and condolences to the families of the three officers.

Second, neighbors reported that “hundreds” of shots were fired during the ensuing standoff. The shooters weapons, an AK-47 and several handguns.

Again it is time for the AK47 to be treated just like a fully automatic weapon.

I didn’t realize that in 2007 when the legislature voted itself a 61% pay raise ,that they included a provision that future cost of living raises would go into effect without the need for a vote. At a time when the State’s financial situation is dire, when thousands of teachers & state employees may be laid off or denied raises and programs are being slashed to the bone, the Legislature will get a 3.8% raise on Aprils Fool Day.

Somehow the date is rather fitting.

Before launching into this, let me give you a little background. When I was 2 weeks old my maternal grandfather bequeathed me one of his most prized possessions, a 12 gauge shotgun (I still have it). I own several of each of shotguns, rifles and pistols. I am a life long hunter. I have a concealed weapon permit and frequently carry. I believe every American has the right to own as many pistols, shotguns and rifles as his wife will allow. In short, I am generally against gun control except as it pertains to hitting your target.

That said however, I do agree that some limited and common sense restrictions are needed. For example, I do not think convicted felons or mentally ill individuals should be allowed to buy or own guns. I do not see a 72 hour waiting period to allow a background check as onerous and I think the waiting period should apply to gun shows.

That brings me to my real subject: assault rifles. These are weapons designed as military arms, fire a mid sized round, have large capacity magazines and a high cyclic rate (i.e. were designed to fire fully automatic). These weapons can easily defeat most “bullet proof” vests unless you insert ceramic or steel plates in the vests. Because of the weight, heat and bulkiness most police do not wear the plates unless they are SWAT operators.

The two most common assault rifles sold in America are the AR-15 (Civilian version of the M16 rifle) and various versions of the Russian AK-47. The latter seem to be the favorite of gangs and thugs everywhere because they are cheap and easy to convert to fully automatic. My law enforcement friends tell me they are facing more and more of these assault rifles every day. Police have responded by equipping officers with assault rifles of their own, however quite frankly, I do not relish the idea of a shootout between Police & thugs with both using assault rifles in crowded cities.

I do not see these as viable hunting weapons or self protection weapons (who would want to spray 30 rounds in their own house where their family is sleeping?). I recognize that some people like to target shoot with them (the same is true of fully automatic weapons).

Therefore I propose we treat these weapons the same as we do fully automatic weapons. make them illegal to own unless you obtain a special license like you must have for fully automatic weapons and prohibit dealers from selling them unless they have Class III licenses and then only to people with the appropriate license.

That would allow those people who really want to sport shoot the weapons to have them (albeit at a high price) while keeping them out of the hands of otherwise petty criminals.

What say you?

The Alabama PACT program (pre-paid college tuition) has been a hot topic on the news and internet. It sems that the investments of this program have taken a beating in the market and there is not sufficient monies to pay college tuition for all those enrolled.

Although the PACT is not a state agency, the solitications for it, from its inception until 2004, clearly implied that the “full faith and credit” of the State of Alabama was behind the program and that payment of tuition was guaranteed. This illusion concerning the obligation of the State was reinforced by the fact prominent Alabama politicans sat on the Board of Directors.

As an old lawyer, I see lawsuits acoming. Some of them will be for fraud and seek punitive damages. I also foresee some enterprising lawyers naming the Directors as defendants and seeking to hold them personally liable. Now some of those same politicians are talking about the moral obligation of the State and the need for the State (i.e. taxpayers) to guarantee the payments.

That raises a question. These Directors are potentially (I stress potentially)  personally liable and are they using their official positions to urge the State to cover that liability?