Casey Anthony/Double jeopardy/Dual-sovereignty doctrine

Watching the clock, revisiting Casey Anthony again

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

On my article regarding double jeopardy, a person named “Pete” left a rather long comment. The comment explores the possibility of a Federal prosecution against Casey Anthony, basically taking the dual sovereignty doctrine and running with it.

So this got me thinking about the statute of limitations with regard to both the Florida prosecution and the possibility of a Federal prosecution. Unfortunately things are bleak on both fronts.

First, as I’ve said in a previous article discussing the dual sovereignty doctrine, the Federal government is very unlikely to take up this case. And Federal exercise of the dual sovereignty doctrine is rare. But I’ll discuss this in more detail later and hopefully I’ll show why it is unlikely the Department of Justice will actually bring charges against Casey Anthony.

But even beyond that, things look bleak with the possibility of further prosecution for Casey Anthony. Let’s explore this. First, one fact needs to be established for this discussion: evidence shows that Caylee Anthony was likely killed on our around June 16, 2008. It is, as of this article, January 2013.

First, Florida is out of the picture. Due to the time limitation on prosecution and her acquittal, Casey Anthony is immune from additional prosecution under Florida jurisdiction. The maximum time limitation on all non-capital crimes is four (4) years from the alleged date of the offense, as defined at 775.25(1)(a) in the Florida law, which was reached in June or July 2012.

And as the Constitution of the United States at Article I, Section 10 forbids States from passing any ex post facto law, the statute of limitations cannot be retroactively modified to expose Casey Anthony to any additional prosecution under any applicable Florida statute.

Let us now turn to Federal law and, once again, the dual sovereignty doctrine.

Just as under Florida law, capital offenses, of which murder (18 USC § 1111) is included, carries no time limitation on prosecution (18 USC § 3281). And non-capital Federal offenses, if there are any related to Caylee’s murder, have a time limitation of five (5) years (18 USC § 3282), making Casey Anthony eligible for prosecution on any lesser felony offenses until June or July 2013.

Again, though, Federal prosecution is unlikely due to a policy within the Department of Justice called the Petite Policy [USAM 9-2.031], named after Petite v. United States, 361 US 529 (1960). Under this policy, the Department will not consider a Federal prosecution unless there is a substantial Federal interest that has not been vindicated. State prosecutions are always presumed to vindicate any Federal interest, regardless of outcome.

In other words an Assistant Attorney General of the United States must be satisfied that there is a Federal interest to be addressed by prosecuting Casey Anthony under Federal law that has not been met through her trial in the State of Florida. State prosecutions are always presumed to vindicate any Federal interest, but the consideration of five criteria may overcome that presumption:

  1. incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence
  2. court or jury nullification in clear disregard of the evidence or the law
  3. the unavailability of significant evidence, either because it was not timely discovered or known by the prosecution, or because it was kept from the trier of fact’s consideration because of an erroneous interpretation of the law
  4. the failure in a prior state prosecution to prove an element of a state offense that is not an element of the contemplated federal offense
  5. the exclusion of charges in a prior federal prosecution out of concern for fairness to other defendants, or for significant resource considerations that favored separate federal prosecutions

So currently we have a waning Federal statute of limitations on all possible charges except murder. The Petite Policy stipulates that the trial’s acquittal outcome is to be presumed to have vindicated any Federal interests except upon the determination of the above-mentioned criteria, and I don’t see any of these criteria applying at all, meaning, as I’ve said before, it is extremely unlikely that the Department of Justice will exercise dual sovereignty over Casey Anthony.

But I don’t see the debate ending here.

Despite everything I’m finding leaning against the Federal government taking up prosecution, the “Justice for Caylee” communities will likely still hold out hope, filing petitions and the like. Again I don’t see it happening. And holding out hope for something that is extremely unlikely is a waste of energy.

I think it is time that the various “justice for Caylee” communities finally give up on seeing any additional prosecution against Casey Anthony. Let Caylee rest in peace and let Casey just fall into obscurity.

* * * * *

Amendment – 2017-04-11:

The Federal government never had jurisdiction, so arguing dual sovereignty and the Petite policy was a moot point, and only one brought up by the those seeking “justice” for Caylee simply because they saw it as an alternative when it became clear Casey Anthony’s acquittal can never be vacated.

A point often missing from discussions over dual sovereignty is the Federal government’s enumerated powers. At Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Federal government will have criminal jurisdiction only with regard to the exercise of its powers.

With Master Sergeant Timothy Hennis, that dual jurisdiction is quite obvious since Hennis was in the United States Army. And whenever a member of the United States Armed Forces commits a crime under a State jurisdiction, that member is subject to disciplinary action with a State prosecution and military court martial. And he was recalled to service so the Army could exercise its jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Casey Anthony’s alleged actions, however, were never subject to Federal jurisdiction.

No proper interpretation of any of the Federal government’s powers at Article I, Section 8 or in any Amendment would allow the Department of Justice to press charges against Casey Anthony in the death of her daughter. That is the reason the Federal government never presses charges over most murders.

Only if evidence suggested she killed her daughter on Federal property would she then be subject to the Federal jurisdiction. Or if she was in the military, or an employee of the Federal government acting in her position.

As the Federal government never had jurisdiction over Casey Anthony’s alleged actions, there is no possibility of any further prosecution, and is, therefore, criminally immune.

Debt/Politics

Calculated interest

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 7 Comments

Currently one of the hot topics floating around the country is the idea of the government stepping in and purchasing all of the student loan debt that is currently outstanding and then just… forgiving it. Setting aside for the moment how many hundreds of billions of dollars that would take, not to mention the credit ruin and tax liability that would cause, putting more than two brain cells into the idea would show how bad of an idea it is.

But yet pictures such as this one permeate the discussions about this idea:

It seems that people would rather have a simple solution instead of hunkering down and tackling a problem the hard way. In the case of debt, the hard way means actually making some adjustments to your lifestyle so you can pay them off rather than complaining about how much you owe.

Let’s do some math here on this particular example.

Borrowed: $26,400
Paid to date: $32,700
Claimed outstanding: $45,276.63
Total paid at the end: ~$78,000

Across 23 years, she’s paid only $32,700, meaning she’s paid, at most, about $120 a month. And at that pay rate, given the claimed outstanding liability on the loan (I’ll presume it incorporates interest calculated across the remaining period), she will be paying on this loan for about another 30 years, meaning she’ll have paid $120 a month on this loan for about 54 years when she pays it off, and will have paid about triple what she borrowed. Her interest rate across the life of the loan is about 5%, which is not an atypical interest rate on a loan.

So she initially borrowed $26,400, and will be taking over 50 years to pay it off at an interest rate of 5% because she’s paying only $120 a month, and will pay about $78,000 across the life of the loan… Perhaps this is just me, but I think her financial priorities need to be straightened out.

If you do the math on any 30-year mortgage, you’ll find that the end total paid back to the bank is typically about 3x what was borrowed. This is why one of the key tenets of paying off debt is to pay it off quickly. You will always pay less overall if you pay off a debt faster.

And nothing stops you from paying more than your typical monthly payment on your loans. If your monthly payment is $150 a month, try to pay $175 or $200 a month and you’ll see your loan disappear a bit quicker. Make higher monthly payments or off-schedule payments when you can. For example if you spent $20 less at the grocery store because you didn’t need as much as you thought, instead of spending that cash on something else, make an extra $20 payment against your loan.

It’s doing little things like that which enabled a friend of mine to pay off a 15-year mortgage in about 4 to 5 years.

So let’s do some more math and see if there’s a way she can get out of debt a bit quicker — and you thought you’d never use all that algebra you learned in high school…

At this point in the loan, about 75% of her payments are going to interest. At this rate, no wonder it’s going to take her 30 years to pay off the rest. So if she were to double her monthly payment, she could be rid of the loan in 10 years. Even if she bumped her monthly payment to $175, she could be rid of the loan in less than 15 years.

But it’s clear that she needs to bump her monthly payment rather than demand that her loan be forgiven. This should be common sense: the only way you will get out of debt faster is to put more of your income and/or assets at your debts. There are stories of students paying off loans similar to the example discussed herein in about the same time as a car loan simply because they do the smart thing and dump their money into their debts.

In other words, they readjust their lives to making paying off their debts a top priority.

Rather than demand your student loans be forgiven or complain about how much you owe, how about instead just figuring out a better way to pay them off. Yeah it might mean you need to give up some luxuries to do it, you might need to make some sacrifices, but that’s just life.

To amend:

I came across an article a couple days ago which took another look at this presented situation and provided a more grim assessment. In that assessment, it was presumed the $45,276.63 was the current principal balance of the loan, meaning the payments she’d been making across the 23 years she was making them were not and cannot cover even the interest assessed against the principal every month.

If that is the case, she needs to do whatever she can to make some headway on that loan: put more money toward it, sell off assets, cut services so she’s freeing up her income, get another job to get more income, find better employment to get more income, anything.

Concealed carry

Reply to Sam Harris regarding CCW in public

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It can be said that Sam Harris is being lambasted for being an atheist that supports gun rights. Atheism is typically the domain of the “left”, and in some cases the hardcore “left”, but he is certainly not alone among atheists. Several other prominent atheists also support gun rights, including Seth Andrews (“The Thinking Atheist“) and Stefan Molyneux.

Harris has been doing his best to address his critics with a “FAQ on Violence“. He’s doing a great job with it too, but his response to one particular point is rather incomplete. The question to which he’s responding has to do with his apparent contradiction of supporting having guns around the house for personal protection, but not supporting carrying them out in public.

His first paragraph in response is spot on:

Where self-defense is concerned, there are important differences between being in your home (or, perhaps, your place of business) and being out in public. It takes very little to establish that you acted in self-defense inside your own home. Domestic disputes aside, we are probably talking about a situation in which a person, who very likely has a criminal history, has broken into your house. In public, however, the question of which party was the aggressor is often open to interpretation. Indeed, you might even be confused about the situation yourself and wind up using lethal force inappropriately.

This is one thing approached very carefully in a concealed carry course and in discussions regarding concealed carry. Caution is always going to be your friend. And when carrying a firearm, your motives and actions require extra scrutiny, because if you don’t give them extra scrutiny, a Court of Law most certainly will.

This becomes especially true when we’re talking about a situation where you were not involved from the outset, as Harris describes in his next paragraph:

Imagine that you are carrying a gun for your own protection. You are trained to use it, and you have resolved to draw it only in a true emergency. While out one night, you see two men kicking a downed man on the sidewalk. Hoping to save a life, you draw your weapon and order the attackers to stop (generally speaking, you are allowed to defend another person whose life appears to be in danger in the same way that you would defend yourself). These hoodlums ignore you—do they even hear you?—and they have now succeeded in kicking their victim unconscious. You worry that the next blow could prove fatal. Having no other obvious recourse, and believing that you have a duty to act in defense of innocent life, you shoot one of the men in the chest.

If you are someone walking upon this situation, your first move must be to catch the perpetrator’s attention. If words aren’t doing the job, you need to use something else, such as a flashlight. Warning shots are not an option here.

Because you’re witnessing an altercation, you can have your firearm ready to draw, but I wouldn’t walk into it with my gun out. My cell phone would certainly be out, or my flashlight, but not my gun. If you walk into this situation with your gun out, you might scare off a person who might actually have been the good guy who managed to somehow get the upper hand and subdue his attacker. Having your flashlight on him, especially at night, gives you a chance to see more clearly what is going on.

Or the suspected perpetrator could flee upon seeing you. In that situation, you handle what you’ve come upon as best as possible, starting with a 911 call to relay your location and what you have seen and know.

But it is one thing that was at least stressed in my concealed carry class: information is always going to be key. Without information you could make the kind of hasty decision that Harris portrays, and end up shooting someone who was actually the intended victim.

But the fact that you were carrying a gun in gave you the ability—and, it seemed, the duty—to intervene immediately and at a safe distance.

And this is a feeling, sense, or what have you that a CCW must fight. If you happen upon a situation like what Harris described, you have to fight the urge to use your firearm. You might feel you have a moral duty to act, but you don’t have a legal obligation to do so, and as Harris points out, sometimes exercising your moral duty can lead you to make decisions that can cost you much more:

Ordinary civilians who blunder into situations in which they use lethal force inappropriately can wind up going to prison for a long time. The much-invoked notion “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it” (or, worse, “It’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”) does not cover all the eventualities here. Carrying a weapon in public can lead even smart and well-intentioned people to behave in stupid and unethical ways.

So for the most part, Harris is relatively spot on. But where is he incomplete? He completely blows by the idea of using your firearm for self defense out in public.

As such, when it comes to self-defense, much of what Harris has said in his FAQ and in a previous article on guns (here) and another on self defense (here) applies just as well as it does to home defense. Even when you are outside and accosted by another individual, the kind that you see and just instantly know something’s not going right, escape must be your goal, and the use of your firearm a last resort. Your firearm can aid in that escape, but escape must be your goal — escape so you can summon the police.

There’s numerous discussions all over the place online about what to do in situations where you are the potential victim and you are armed, along with what to do if you discharged your firearm in self defense. But I think it was a little short-sighted of him to not even touch on self defense when out in public in his FAQ on violence. So Sam, if you happen across my article, I ask that you address the deficiency.

You might want to check the numbering of your items, as well.

Concealed carry

Congressional Democrat seeks universal "may issue" for CCW

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Currently there is no Federal standard regarding concealed carry in the United States. Each State sets their own standard, and most States are “shall issue”, meaning that there is no discretion given to the issuing agency as to whether a person should receive a permit. If they meet the legal qualifications, the issuing agency must issue the permit.

However James Moran seeks to change that.

James Moran (picture at right), Democrat for Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, has introduced a bill into the House of Representatives: the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013“. Talk about a misleading name, but the naming of the bill is part of a political game. Basically by naming the bill in this fashion, Moran has given himself and other Democrats the ability to say that anyone who doesn’t favor his bill isn’t in favor of better gun safety.

Well I guess I’m one of those people, because one provision of the bill caught my attention, and it should yours if you have a concealed carry permit issued by your State. The bill, if passed and signed into law, would add a new section to Title 18 of the United States code to set the national standard as “may issue”:

  1. In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall–
    1. establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; and
    2. require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).
  2. Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall–
    1. ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and
    2. at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce–
      1. be a legal resident of the United States;
      2. be not less than 21 years of age;
      3. demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;
      4. demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public;
      5. complete a firearm safety training course certified by the State; and
      6. not have been convicted of a crime of violence.

The part that would set the national standard at “may issue” is (b)(2)(C): “demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit”. Many anti-gun people have sought to restrict concealed carry for numerous reasons, despite the fact that concealed carry has caused an overall decrease in crime, and crime is significantly higher in States without right-to-carry laws.

For those wondering, the phrase “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” refers to carrying your weapon in a concealed manner across State lines.

Now I’m all in favor of a national minimum standard on concealed carry permits, but that national standard should not be “may issue”. This bill has the potential to override the concealed carry laws of 37 States in the US if passed into law. That’s almost enough muster to force an amendment to the Constitution to counter this, something Moran should take into consideration. Add into this the 4 States that have no-permit concealed carry, and that’s enough muster to amend the Constitution.

In short, concealed carry works to reduce crime by making the criminals a little more wary of who they’re targeting. This proposed bill by James Moran seeks to neuter concealed carry across the country by making it universally “may issue”.

Now in a Republican-controlled House, I expect this bill won’t see any light beyond committee, but keep an eye on it just in case it does.

Firearms and Ammunition/Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

"Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers" – Replying to Senator McCaskill

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I first contacted Senator Claire McCaskill on January 4 (here), and she responded on January 13 (here). In response to her latest message, I sent a reply, reproduced below.

My concern with her reply to me is one that I’ve seen mentioned a lot with gun control advocates, and that is the idea that “weapons of war” don’t belong in civilian hands. One thing they either don’t realize, or they do and it’s the predicate to an all-out civilian ban on firearms, is that all pistols and rifles that exist are the result of innovations needed for war. I wanted to point that out and focus on that, because from there one can easily make the case that civilian ownership of firearms should be banned because they all started as weapons for a soldier.

Anyway, without further adieu…

* * * * *

Madam Senator,

Thank you for your reply and your time and consideration of my previous message.

You said in your previous e-mail, “Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment.”

Madam Senator, are you familiar with the 1911 handgun? The first 1911 handguns were designed for the military, presumably to be used “to kill people in war”, and they were first used in combat in the First World War. Today the 1911 is one of the most popular pistols and they exist in several variations. A weapon initially designed for soldiers is in law-abiding civilian hands. It is also still used in our military as well.

Then there is the Beretta M9, one of the current standard issue pistols of our military. The civilian variant on the M9 is the Beretta 92, which is also a service pistol in many law enforcement agencies. The Beretta 92 and M9 are almost identical, and numerous civilians own either. Again, weapons designed for the military in law-abiding civilian hands.

And other weapons originally designed for war are also currently held in law-abiding civilian hands. Pistols originally made for foreign militaries are owned by civilians both in the US and abroad. The same with numerous rifle classifications. Most pistol and rifle technology that exists today is due to a need on the battlefield, but a pistol developed for war to defend interests or advance liberty is equally capable of defending life against another civilian threat.

The point I’m trying to make is this: the original purpose of a firearm is immaterial. Civilians can and do own weapons originally made for war without those weapons posing any harm to anyone else. The weapon is not the issue, the firearm is not the issue, and never was. The firearm is only an issue to those with an agenda of wanting to see all Americans disarmed, whatever their reasons or motivations. The focus on firearms is a ruse that will not improve things in this country, because Americans are not inherently violent, and gun owners are not inherently evil.

A firearm in the hands and homes of arguably most people does not compromise anyone’s safety with exception to those who would seek to cause harm to those individuals or their families.

Today several hundred million firearms exist in civilian hands and homes, including high-powered rifles that many seek to classify as “assault weapons”. They will not be taking the lives of anyone else because their owners are law-abiding civilians who would never dream of taking another life, unless necessary to save someone else from harm or defend their home against invasion.

You may not feel that enacting laws regarding “weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people” is an infringement on a person’s rights. To that I must disagree. Most firearms are derived from technologies and innovations to firearms carried by military personnel. Further, it is a law that declares illegal what another person enjoys peacefully.

The vast majority of gun owners are not out to kill people, yet gun control laws seem to start with that premise and the premise that firearms are inherently evil.

Please bear in mind that if you vote in favor of more gun control, regardless of how reasonable you feel it may be, you will be punishing your innocent, law-abiding gun-owning constituents. If you truly support the Second Amendment, as you said in your reply to me, I hope you will not want to be doing that.

Again, thank you for your time.

Kenneth Ballard
Kansas City, Missouri

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Response from Senator McCaskill (D-MO)

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

My thanks to Senator Claire McCaskill for her time and consideration of the message I sent to her a little over a week ago. Her response is reproduced below. I am considering a response to be sent to her office as I feel again that additional laws targeting guns and their availability or the availability of certain accessories is a waste of time and effort. A recent source I found through GunFacts.info will likely be a source of whatever I send in response to her.

Update: Read my response to this message (here).

* * * * *

January 13, 2013

Dear Mr Ballard,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as gun control policy and gun safety.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On Friday, December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and began shooting teachers and students before taking his own life.  This horrific tragedy took the lives of 27 people, including 20 children seven years of age and younger.  As a mother, I’m horrified and stunned by the senseless violence against innocent children and teachers.

This tragedy has led to renewed and important discussions about gun control, which is often a divisive topic in our nation.  The loss of so many beautiful children in a mass shooting that involved an assault rifle with ammunition clips that held large numbers of bullets makes clear that we need to revisit the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and review permissible magazine ammunition sizes.  I am also supportive of closing the gun show loophole and making sure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns.  Finally, it is equally clear that we must reconsider the mental health services available to our citizens, knowing that each mass shooting our nation has experienced involved individuals with substantial mental health problems.  “Obamacare” will expand important mental health coverage when it is implemented in 2014.  Protecting our children and our citizens will require us to come together to find real solutions that cover a broad range of factors that have contributed to these horrific incidents.

I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.  Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment.  I believe the horror of the Newtown shootings makes clear that we must get to work protecting our communities and our children from mass slaughter, while also protecting our Second Amendment rights.  I am hopeful that the National Rifle Association, a significant voice in this discussion, will be a constructive part of this dialogue.

Even as I welcome this renewed debate, please know that I will continue to protect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to safely own and use appropriate firearms.  In the past, I have voted to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms.  I also supported an amendment to a spending bill that would prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen.  I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws.

As your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation.  In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, my prayers are with the students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary, and with their families.  All Americans are outraged at senseless and criminal gun violence no matter where they may fall in the debate on guns in American society.  A renewed national conversation has begun and we must all be a constructive and open-minded part of it.  There is middle ground here, where this nation can come together with sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens, while we continue to respect our Constitution and its Second Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

Letters to politicians/Second Amendment

Senator Blunt responds

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

My thanks to Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) for his time and consideration of the message I sent him last weekend. I received a response from him today. The reply I received seems a little like a form response. But I can’t really blame him for this as his office is probably getting buried under e-mails and letters from all over Missouri, if not the entire country. I’ve reproduced the reply below.

If you have not contacted your Senators and Representatives regarding this issue, I encourage you to do so. The only way Congress will understand that we will not allow them to punish the innocent millions of gun owners is if we actually tell them that. They need to hear from you, especially as the Obama administration is mobilizing and evaluating all of their options.

* * * * *

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the rights of gun owners.

As you may know, I am a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights. The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families.

In light of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been calls for immediate action to address gun control. I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools. Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

There are no easy answers here. I continue to believe that a weapons ban does not fix the issue. Whatever we do, it must be consistent with the Constitution.

I appreciate your thoughts and will continue to support legislation that safeguards our Second Amendment rights, encourages safe and responsible gun ownership, and keeps our homes and families safe.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

Feminism/Life/Marriage

Playing the marriage name game

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

My wife and I got officially married a little over a year ago, taking the courthouse route to the official status. In that time, because we got married at the end of the year, at my suggestion my wife put off legally changing her name. This was in part due to the fact that tax season was coming up and I didn’t want the additional hassle of trying to finagle all of the various accounts to have her name updated.

In the mean time, it was entirely her choice as to what her legal name will be. She would receive no pressure or persuasion from me because, frankly, I didn’t care what she decided to do. All I needed to know was the end result so I could make sure everything was properly updated – our bank account, her insurance policy, and so on.

So did she take mine, keep her maiden name, hyphenate? How about… none of the above. Okay not exactly “none of the above”, but a combination of the first and second.

A little known thing about the Social Security Administration is that, when you file an updated SS-5 after getting married, you can have whatever middle name you want. And that little loophole is what allowed my wife to take my surname as her legal surname but keep her maiden name at the same time, all without hyphenating.

To demonstrate this, I’ll say my wife’s full maiden name was Brianna Marie Dean (obviously it’s not). My surname is Ballard. My wife’s new legal name, borrowing on the example, is Brianna Marie Dean Ballard, with the full middle name on the SS-5 form being Marie Dean – two middle names, in other words.

So brides to be, consider this a viable alternative if you really want to keep your maiden name as part of your name. Now bear in mind that your various government offices might give you a little runaround because this isn’t common practice. And if your husband to be objects to you doing this, then assert that since it’s going to be your name, it is ultimately your decision in the matter. And I say to do that because it is your decision.

But I’m sure some of you are wondering why she did this. My wife is the youngest of three daughters and has no brothers. So under traditional practice, if all three were to get married, none would be keeping their maiden names. With my wife’s decision, she at least gets to hang on to that part of her identity, meaning this is actually a good idea for women who are an only child and, like my wife, women without any brothers.

Law/Second Amendment

Obama ‘limited’ on executive order power for gun control?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently news hit the airwaves from Vice President Biden that the President was considering executive orders for gun control. In reply to this Examiner.com said:

Still, there are limits on executive orders that would keep President Obama from taking many steps on gun control, and these limits would certainly prevent the kind of dictatorship the Drudge Report implicitly warns about on their website.

While true that the President is still quite limited on what he can do, in that the implied executive order power is not a legislative or lawmaking power, he can still do quite a bit of damage and create a lot of setbacks with regard to gun rights. The President is the presiding officer of the Executive Branch, and one key department with two key bureaus falls under the purview of the Executive Branch: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, both under the Department of Justice. As such the President can issue executive orders with regard to these two agencies.

What kind of executive orders?

How about an executive order that interrupts the 4473 process? I’m referring, of course, to ATF form 4473, which is the form that is filled out whenever there is a transfer (sale) of a firearm by an FFL-licensed firearms dealer to a customer. This would, in a heartbeat, halt most sales of firearms in the United States. It would, also, instantly create a giant black market supporting what would be a booming illegal firearms trade.

He could also issue an executive order directing the BATFE to not issue any new or renew any existing Federal firearms licenses, which are necessary to operate a gun shop. He could also direct the BATFE to not process any NFA applications. NFA refers to the National Firearms Act, and NFA applications are processed when we’re talking about the higher-end stuff such as suppressors and full-auto firearms (i.e. machine guns). By the way, it would be under the NFA authority that Dianne Feinstein would like all existing firearms owners to register under her proposed bill.

These three executive directives would halt legal firearms sales in the United States overnight. But with all of the firearms still sitting on store shelves, it would create one hell of a black market overnight as well. Crime in the US would surge, reversing all of the crime reduction trends this country has been seeing for the last two decades.

And all of this without outright banning firearms or calling for the seizure of firearms already in the hands of private individuals. But again the ramifications of such a move are likely enough to keep the President from seriously considering such an idea, or so I hope.

So the President still has a lot of authority and capability to do a lot of damage to Second Amendment rights in this country. Now as the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" necessarily requires the ability to acquire those arms, such an executive order would find itself challenged in Court on emergency filings in Court moves that would make Bush v. Gore look like it took a decade to adjudicate.

Letters to politicians/Term limits

Message to Representative Serrano [D-NY(15)]

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In my previous article I said that I might contact Representative Serrano regarding his recent resolution calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I decided to actually contact him. And in keeping with my practice of publicly posting messages I send to members of the House and Senate, I will reproduce my message here.

If I receive a response, I will also reproduce it publicly on my blog.

* * * * *

Mr Representative Serrano,

It is being widely reported that you have introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. I know that you have been doing this at the start of every Congress since 1997, yet I don’t believe you’ve ever released a public statement as to why you’ve done this. I also know you’re not the first to attempt this.

If you have released such a statement explaining this move, please point me to where I can find it. If you have never made such a statement with regard to why you’d like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed, I would like you to make such a statement.