Vacation Time

This space is taking a break: off to the Monterrey Peninsula.
Next post July 26, 2010.

California, by the Numbers

This is what comes from electing a RINO!

by Bill Whalen, July 15, 2010

The big buzz today (ok, not a big surprise, but a pretty big thud nonetheless) is the big thumbs-down that is the latest Field Poll – a pox on all their political houses, if you will.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s approval rating? A personal-worst 22% (and a 70% disapproval rating). 

The State Legislature’s approval rating? 16% — sadly, that’s up 3 points (the last time the Legislature cracked the 20% barrier was two summers ago).

The public’s faith in California? 79% say the state’s on the “wrong track” (about the same as in 2003 and 1994, both of which were good years for conservatives in California).

Two of these numbers are easy to understand. The state’s stuck with double-digit unemployment and an economic rebound will occur slower than in other states. That, in part, explains the wrong-track number.

Meanwhile, the state budget process once again has gone into overtime and lawmakers seemed more interested in trivial matters, like securing Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch, than more vexing woes like schools and roads.

But Arnold’s tanking numbers? That’s a little more complicated.

I did a little digging into Schwarzenegger’s Field history. It turns out that this governor, despite his celebrity status and unique path to office, is little difference from his gray (in name and style) predecessor.

Let’s start with Arnold’s numbers, beginning with the 2003 recall race. In early August and September 2003, when the thought of a Governor Schwarzenegger is a shaky concept, his numbers show the uncertainty: a 43-40 approve/disapprove in August; a 46-48 split in late September. But right before the recall when it’s becoming clear that Schwarzenegger will win, his numbers surf the wave: 52-41 favorable/unfavorable a week before the vote.

In his honeymoon phase, Schwarzenegger get the benefit of the doubt: 56% approve, only 26% disapprove (btw, the Legislature at this time is the opposite: 26% approve; 56% disapprove). That number tops out at 65% by May 2004. But give voters a chance to bail on Arnold and they do just that. Come September 2005, Schwarzenegger was leading a special election that the electorate didn’t want. His ratings reflect that: 36% approve; 52% disapprove.

Schwarzenegger’s numbers eventually recover — by March 2007, on the heels of a landslide re-election his approval rating is back up to 60%. But the governor’s surfing a bigger wave: the same Field Poll shows that, for the first time during Arnold’s time in office, a majority of Californians believe the state’s on the right track. flash forward to July 2010: only 13% of Californians think the state’s going in the right direction; only 22% approve of their governor.

The funny thing is we’ve seen this movie before — starring . . . Gray Davis.

Check out this chart, from the Sacramento Bee, comparing approval ratings of recent California governors. Davis’ high-water mark is 62% approval in February 2000 — the same year Californians’ “right track” sentiments averaged 58%. In other words, he too surfed the wave. Davis, like Schwarzenegger, bottomed out at 22% in August 2003. The “right track” then: only 16%.

How Schwarzenegger ended up with the same poll numbers as Davis should spark a lot of interesting talk not only about how he ran his administration, but how he handled his celebrity status.

Was it inevitable that, as a second-term governor in a slow economy, Arnold one day would be held in the same contempt as a less-flashy career politician like Davis?

Does this support the idea that a celebrity should only enter politics if they plan to take the James K. Polk approach: one term and out?

For a California governor it’s a cautionary tale: surf the wave and get out of the water . . . before the undertow gets you.

Republican Address

Martin Garrick takes on the tax and spend Democrats in the Statehouse. We’ll need to see a positive vision and some real solutions by Republicans if we ever hope to end the reign of terror by California Democrats.

Don’t Delay It, Terminate It!

Just because the lefties want to destroy California’s economy in favor a universal poverty, it doesn’t mean they’re always wrong! Prop 18 us another boondoggle public works project that does nothing that’s really needed.

by: aghosh  at Calitics, July 10, 2010

If nothing else, Governor Schwarzenegger has given us the gift of the endless parody. Even before he was the Governator, we enjoyed snickering at his larger than life caricature. His performance as Governor, however, has been far from funny. Ratcheting up a $19 Billion deficit while pushing public safety professionals out of their jobs, laying off teachers, slashing health and social services, and kicking family farmers where it hurts most has been a real tear-jerker.

To curb the tears with laughter, Food & Water Watch has compiled a simultaneously funny and sad montage of Arnold’s most memorable film moments to accentuate the devastating consequences that the $11 Billion Water Bond would have on California.  

Unsurprisingly, the bond is unpopular with voters across the state. Seeing the writing on the wall, Schwarzenegger and his cronies — who represent the interest of corporate backers — have asked the legislature to move Prop 18 to the 2012 ballot. Why? So they can spend more money trying to hoodwink the public into believing constructing more dams, putting a down payment on a peripheral canal, and giving corporate interests more control of our water supply is in everyone’s best interest. Is this Arnold’s way of taunting us with his infamous phrase, “I’ll be back” long after he rolls his Hummer out of Sacramento? NOOOOO!

This is our chance to play Terminator and say “hasta la vista, baby” to the water bond. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Send a strong message to your legislators that the water bond should be sent to the scrap yard to be replaced by solid, equitable water policies that benefit all Californians.

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy

John Fund discusses the Democratic agenda for the lame duck Congress, including cap and trade, card-check, and pork. The Democrats and RINOs can still do lot’s of damage even if we carry the House in November.

By John Fund at WSJ Opinion Journal,
July 9, 2010

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they’re leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won’t return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal’s Charlie Cook, the Beltway’s leading political handicapper, predicted last month “the House is gone,” meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

“I’ve got lots of things I want to do” in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama’s deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. “It could be a huge deal,” he told Roll Call last month. “We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path.” By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like “card check”—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—”the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future.”

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that “to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again.” He told Mr. Press “we’re still trying to maneuver” a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that “some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending.” Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress’s “favor factory,” such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

Nancy Pelosi (A.P.)

Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks are alarmed at the potential damage, and they are demanding that everyone in Congress pledge not to take up substantive legislation in a post-election session. “Members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents, not override them like sore losers in a lame-duck session,” Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, told me.

It’s been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn’t faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate “Blue Dogs” in the House would support on the campaign trail. “We have a lot of wiggle room in conference,” a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.

Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn’t be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.

RINO Alert is Taking a Vacation!

Next new post on Friday, July 9.

California Budget Debate: Cuts and Taxes Versus Cuts Alone

By Jean Ross at Calbuzz, June 25, 2010

(Watching the Legislature get a budget to the Governor’s desk can cause crossed eyes. The breathless reporting of daily non-events is mind numbingly useless. Jean Ross from the California Budget Project at least puts some of the sausage making in perspective.)

As the state slouches toward the start of the new fiscal year, there’s been little progress toward reconciling the three vastly different spending plans offered up by the Senate and Assembly majorities and the Governor.

The Senate and Assembly plans offer a balanced mix of spending reductions and additional tax revenues, while the Governor relies on spending cuts alone. All three plans assume continued federal aid to the states, which may be dead as a newly deficit-obsessed Congress appears ready to risk throwing the nation back into recession in the near-term to avoid increasing long-term federal deficits by a fraction of one percent.

The Assembly Democrats’ “Jobs Budget” largely relied on borrowing $8.7 billion against future Beverage Recycling Fund collections, a debt that would in essence be repaid through a complicated shift of revenues between the state and local governments along with a new oil severance tax. Press reports suggest that this plan will be scaled back to $4 billion of borrowing in response to legal concerns raised by the Attorney General’s office and State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

Earlier this week, Senate Democrats released a plan that would shift financial responsibility for public safety, drug and alcohol treatment, and welfare programs from the state to county governments along with dedicated revenues. This proposal would not reduce costs in the short term, but is aimed at encouraging counties to find ways to coordinate services and invest in preventive services so as to reduce long-term costs.

How do the plans stack up?

Assembly: Uncertain Borrowing Plan The strongest selling point for the Assembly’s proposal may be the recognition that the state faces a budget problem that may well be too large to be addressed in a single year through any fiscally responsible or politically viable combination of spending reductions and revenue increases.

The plan’s initial spending target would spare many critical, but already battered programs, from the budget-cutting axe. That said, the Attorney General has raised serious concerns about the borrowing scheme at the heart of the proposal that exemplify the unintended consequences of well-meaning ballot measures that promise to put the state on the road to fiscal solvency.

Proposition 58, approved by the voters in March 2004, allowed the state to debt-finance a prior budget shortfall but either closed the door on or greatly complicated – depending on one’s reading of the law – future efforts to use debt to address a budget gap.

Senate: Shift Burden to Locals There’s a lot to like in the Senate’s “realignment” proposal. It would give counties new program responsibilities along with hard cash to pay for them. I share the sentiment of many long-time budget-watchers who argue that the 1991 shift of program responsibility and money to county governments is, perhaps, the best example of a public policy driven by the need to close a budget gap to emerge from recent decades’ chronic budget woes.

As with any complex proposal, however, the devil is in the details. We question whether some of the revenues – such as assumed savings attributable to the new federal health reform law – and some of the shift of responsibility – primarily for state-supported child care programs – is feasible, but the overall concept and structure is meritorious.

Governor: “Terrible Cuts” There’s not much to say about the Governor’s plan other than the fact that it delivered – in spades – upon the promise of “absolutely terrible cuts” that would leave California ill prepared to face an increasingly competitive and more globalized economy and would leave the state’s families adrift in the toughest labor market in decades without a safety net.

What happens next and when does it happen? Just weeks ago “Capitol insiders” predicted a quick – at least by California standards – resolution to the budget debate. However, moods seem to be shifting. The fact that California is the only state in the nation with a “double supermajority” requirement – for passage of a budget and any tax increase – is always worth repeating and greatly complicates any effort to reach agreement on a spending plan. The size of the problem and the limited options available to deal with it increase the odds of a long, hot summer of budget talks.

Jean Ross is the executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based nonprofit policy research group. A comparison of the three main budget plans is available on the organization’s website.

California Politics Sees New Winner: the North

By Jim Carlton at the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2010

(The Bay Area is the main breeding ground for California RINOs,  just look at the discussion below. Having more and more successful candidates from RINO land may or may not be good for California and the conservative movement.)

SAN FRANCISCO—A big winner in this week’s primary was Northern California, where Silicon Valley’s growing clout is driving victories by homegrown candidates and sending a signal that the region has wrested control of statewide politics.

More than half the $21 million California Attorney General Jerry Brown has raised in his bid for governor has come from the northern half of the state, one of the Democrat’s fund-raisers estimates.

In almost every big statewide race, San Francisco Bay Area candidates have been dominant this year. Both main candidates for governor, Democrat Jerry Brown and the GOP’s Meg Whitman, have their political base in the Bay Area, as does the Republican Senate nominee, the former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly Fiorina. Ms. Whitman, the former eBay Inc. chief, trounced fellow Silicon Valley billionaire Steve Poizner, while Ms. Fiorina defeated Tom Campbell, a former congressman who represented Silicon Valley.

Northern Forces Dominate State Politics…

United Press photo International

Sen. Barbara Boxer

Associated Press

Attorney General Jerry Brown

Reuters

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Behind the North’s increasing political might, political observers said, is Silicon Valley’s growing position as one of California’s major economic engines.

“I think it’s a combination of luck of the draw with the maturity of the Silicon Valley phenomenon,” said Chuck DeVore, a state assemblyman from Orange County in the South who finished third in the GOP Senate contest behind Ms. Fiorina and Mr. Campbell. “The people who made their money there 10 years ago are of an age where they are more interested in politics,” he said.

The rise in northern power is especially remarkable, political observers said, given that two-thirds of California’s nearly 40 million residents live in the Los Angeles-San Diego urban corridor.

“We call it the revenge of the 650 area code,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California and chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, referring to one of Silicon Valley’s main dialing codes.

For decades, the South has held sway over some of the state’s top political jobs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his three predecessors in the statehouse have hailed from the Southland.

…as Southern California’s Clout Fades

Associated Press

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Associated Press

Former Gov. Pete Wilson

Associated Press

Former Gov. Gray Davis

The last Northern California governor was Mr. Brown, whose second term ended in 1983 before term limits were imposed that would have barred him from running again.

Northern California produced winners Tuesday in several other statewide races. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defeated Los Angeles City Attorney Janice Hahn in the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor; he will face Republican Abel Maldonado from Santa Maria in Central California. And San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris won the Democratic primary for state attorney general against a fellow Northern Californian, former Facebook Inc. chief privacy officer Chris Kelly. Ms. Harris will compete against Republican Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley in the fall.

Another factor behind the Northern California dominance is the decline of southern political powers like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Once a shining star in the state’s Democratic Party, Mr. Villaraigosa has seen his stature wane, in part, after he admitted an extramarital affair in 2007.

And it might be that it is easier for a politician to stand out in the less-populated North, said Doug Bosco, a former congressman from Sonoma County north of San Francisco.

“People up north do know that [Sen.] Barbara Boxer came from here and that Dianne Feinstein was the mayor of San Francisco, whereas the Southland is a big melting pot where people’s identities get lost,” Mr. Bosco said.

The North’s political ascendancy has been accompanied by a decided northward shift in donations to statewide campaigns this year. Two-thirds of Mr. Campbell’s contributions, for example, were from Northern California, compared with the region’s normal share of donations for statewide races of about 20%, said Kristin Hueter, a Republican fund-raiser in Emeryville, Calif.

For the North, there is a clear benefit from the region’s growing influence on the political scene. “Northern California brings a different perspective to things,” said Richard Pombo, a former congressman from Tracy, Calif., who lost in his bid for the GOP nomination Tuesday in another Central Valley district. “For example, I think Northern California has a closer tie to agriculture than Southern California.”

The South could gain, as well. As the state’s less populous region, Northern California politicians will probably have to go out of their way to show they represent all Californians, which could help in addressing longstanding disputes over water and other issues, political observers said,

“It’s probably in some ways a good thing for Southern California, because whoever gets elected will have to spend time and resources in Southern California,” said Jerry Hallisey, a San Francisco attorney and fund-raiser for Mr. Brown’s campaign.

In fact, Mr. Campbell, the failed GOP Senate candidate, said he and his wife moved to the Orange County suburb of Irvine last year, in part, to learn more about Southern California in preparation for his run for office. Mr. Campbell took a leave as dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, to become visiting professor of economics and law at Chapman University in Orange County.

“It was important for me to get to know an area by living in it,” Mr. Campbell said in an interview before the election.

But his southern sojourn wasn’t enough to help Mr. Campbell in his Senate bid: He was defeated by fellow Silicon Valley VIP Ms. Fiorina by a 34-percentage-point margin.

Tea Party News

by Brian Darling at  Red State, Wednesday, June 23

Tea Party Activists are likely to have another ally in Washington this Fall — Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for Senate from Utah.  Lee will join Republican nominee from Kentucky Rand Paul and the Republican nominee from Nevada Sharron Angle as non-establishment Tea Party activist candidates for Senate.  If these candidates are sworn into office, expect the Republican establishment to sound more conservative next year.

The Senate will debate the Tax Extenders bill including an extension of unemployment benefits for another few days in search of a deal.  The House will vote on a bill regulating calling cards and another bill to provide the power to subpoena witnesses to the commission investigating the oil spill in the Gulf.  Conferees continue discussions on Financial Services Deform.   

Issues for Conservatives to watch today are the following:

• Tea Party Senators – Mike Lee can add his name to the short list of conservatives, if he wins, in the Senate next year.  Politico reports today that “the decorous and staid U.S. Senate could get a lot rowdier in 2011.”  Senate leadership may be looking over their collective shoulders, because these candidates ”owe little to the establishment—party leaders largely opposed their candidacies.”  Senators Lee, Paul and Angle can establish a Tea Party caucus in the Senate.
• DISCLOSE Act – Expect legislation infringing on the First Amendment rights of all Americans to hit the House floor this Thursday.  The Hill reports, “Democrats are hoping to wrap up work this week on the Disclose Act, a piece of legislation meant to abate the impact of a Supreme Court decision freeing up corporate and labor spending in elections.” Conservatives argue that the DISCLOSE Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech.
• Stanley McChrystal- News reports indicate that General Stanley McChrystal has been called back to Washington to meet with President Obama to answer for his comments in a Rolling Stone magazine article.  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs implied that McChrystal’s military career is at an end when he stated “everything is on the table.”  Tough talk for an Administration that is ashamed of our nation’s status as a superpower and so weak on foreign policy.  This Administration seems overly concerned about embarrassing news and not as concerned about national security.  

Open Carry- Protest or Provocation?

California law permits the open carry of unloaded firearms in public. The Legislature is promising action to change the law. Here the San Diego Union Times has provide a timely debate.

 

Pro: Open carry of weapons a form of protest

 

by Gerald T. Reaster in the San Diego Union Times, Sunday, June 20

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Proponents of openly carrying unloaded firearms in public have staged demonstrations around the state, including in San Diego County, generally notifying law enforcement in advance and cooperating with officers who check the weapons to ensure they are not loaded. They say their actions are a protest against government infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, has introduced legislation that would ban the open carry of unloaded weapons.

I took an Oath at the start of my 20-year U.S. Navy career to “Defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic” and I have never renounced that oath.

Five years ago I became painfully aware of the erosion of the rights granted to us under the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. I feel the Second Amendment is the right that guarantees all our other rights.

California is one of the 10 States that has not incorporated the U.S. Constitution and its amendments into its state constitution.

I decided unloaded open carry was the best method to address that issue, and I started an organization, www.Escondido-Open-Carry.org, in September 2009 and currently have in excess of 60 members.

Unloaded open carry is a form of grass roots political protest and is not done to compensate for any physical or mental shortcomings by participants in this movement – something that has been suggested by opponents of the movement.

Unloaded open carry is a form of protest, not some cops-and-robbers game – nor is meant to intimidate people. Unloaded open carry, in my case, was born out of concern for our constitutional rights, not out of ego.

We carry unloaded guns as a symbol of our dissatisfaction with the lawmakers in Sacramento who have restricted our Second Amendment rights. We are no different from people carrying signs protesting illegal immigration, abortion, higher taxes or whatever they feel is wrong in our society.

I cannot speak for other groups, but Escondido-Open-Carry members are well trained in firearm safety, operation, maintenance and the legalities associated with the open carry of unloaded weapons.

If the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department would issue more concealed carry permits, we would have no reason to continue our activities. I carry pepper spray for protection now.

Past court cases have shown that the police have no legal obligation to protect an individual person, only the public at large. I want the lawmakers in Sacramento to allow me the right to defend myself.

States that have adopted “shall issue” laws, requiring the issuance of concealed weapons permits to to qualified, law-abiding citizens have seen a drop in all areas of crime; this makes me wonder why California politicians don’t want a similar drop in crime in our state.

Some of the California Penal Code articles that have the most impact on the open carry of weapons relate to who is permitted to carry concealed weapons, their ages and transporting handguns in vehicles.

Law enforcement officers have procedures they must follow when confronting a person carrying a handgun openly. Under these procedures, they are allowed to inspect the gun to ensure it is unloaded; if there is no other reason to believe a crime has been committed they must release you.

The complete text of the Penal Code articles and other information can be found at our website.

 

 

Con: Open carry provokes, doesn’t protect

 

by Susan Taylor in the San Diego Union Times, Sunday, June 20, 2010

Been to your local coffee shop lately? Most likely you had some cash, your cell phone, maybe your laptop … Did you bring your gun along?

Look around. It’s quite possible that some of the other patrons are toting unloaded guns in holsters. Their ammunition clips are readily available. These people are members of what is known as the open carry movement, groups showing up in communities across the nation, including San Diego County.

Appearing at a North County mall, members of the movement insisted that their right to carry guns supersedes the safety of the public. Some say that they are serving a useful purpose; they are “protecting” those among us who remain unarmed from criminals. In fact, their presence does more to provoke than to protect. In response, several major restaurant chains and stores in Northern California have had to post signs prohibiting weapons on their premises.

Starbucks stores up and down the West Coast have been the scene of open carry gatherings. Despite public aversion to the sight of guns in the venues where we socialize with friends and children, the megachain has taken the position that their managers must allow these people to exercise their rights in those states where open carry is permitted. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has launched a petition to persuade Starbucks to bar guns, and law enforcement agencies have issued repeated warnings similar to the one from the San Mateo County sheriff on January 14 that “open carry advocates create a potentially dangerous situation.”

This movement strives to “normalize” the carrying of deadly weapons in public. Ultimately, the goal is to legalize guns – anytime, anywhere, any place – including parks, campuses, churches and work places. We can watch the world news and see how well that works out when some countries tolerate an armed citizenry. The idea of everyone carrying a gun stems from the Hollywood myth of the Wild West. Even our children in public school have more accountability. If a student pretends to wield a pencil as a weapon, the consequence is suspension or expulsion. It’s called a zero-tolerance policy. This is the least we can expect from adults in our society.

To these groups, the right to carry a gun is symbolic of a free society. They’ve made their point. What about the rights of people who want to be out in public without the threat of being caught in a crossfire? What about the rights of private business owners and their employees to operate in a safe environment? Why should law enforcement be forced to spend its time supervising these people? Furthermore, the open carry movement would like to see legislation that would allow gun permits to be issued void of the discretion of law enforcement. Instead, legislation is needed to protect the public from gun violence.

The right to own a gun comes with serious responsibilities, but people who endorse the open carry movement refuse to be realistic about the threat their agenda poses to public safety. Their recklessness doesn’t belong in today’s society.