Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
McCain is an unprincipled maverick, and a sellout to conservatism and the Constitution.
Flake is following his conscience and his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.
McCain is as egregiously wrong as he is occasionally right, but ever being right is only the half of it - the REASON one is right is equally as important, and when he's right it's by mistake, not by design.May 13, 2013
My, how "rational". How "sensible". How "logical"
Here's the reality that you ignore:
The people's common law right to arms exists independent of any written instrument (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1875). Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was added to enumerate rights of the people that could not be intruded upon by the federal government. This includes the Second Amendment, which guarantees the aforementioned people's common law right to arms. The right exists even if the Second Amendment didn't.
In 1939, the Supreme Court issued an opinion titled U.S. v. Miller. In it, the Court held that keeping and bearing a sawed-off shotgun was not protected activity under the Second Amendment, because no evidence was presented that it was "in common use" or that it "[bore] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated milita." In doing so, the Miller decision created, de facto, a two-pronged test that defines what types of arms are protected for the people's possession and lawful use. By this precedented definition, semiautomatic so-called "assault weapons" (sic) are protected because they meet both criteria of the test. Done deal. You can't unring that bell.
In 2008, the Supreme Court finally was presented with a "ripe" case affording the opportunity to address the broad meaning of the Second Amendment, and the Court held that it protected an individual right unconnected with militia service, and that the Miller test defined what arms are "protected". You can't unring that bell, either.
In 2009, the Court heard the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, and incorporated Heller's interpretation to bind the states. That's the third toll of the bell, Mr. Beane.
Now, being that you are a "logical" and "sensible" and "rational" individual, it certainly must have dawned on you that your plea to ignore this reality is not logical at all. There is no logic in undermining the First Principles of our republic that have been addressed and established in Supreme Court precedent. It is demagoguery hawked as "common sense".
No sale, Mr. Beane. Take your snake oil wagon and move on to the next town.Aug 15, 2012
The notion that 21 year old students who have qualified to carry a concealed firearm under state standards is suddenly transformed from someone who can be trusted on our streets, in our restaurants, in public in general, into an irresponsible person not to be trusted with the exercise of that same right merely because he/she steps across a property line onto a campus is illogical, unsupported by historical evidence (there are campuses in the U.S. that allow it with no problems whatsoever), and a non sequitur.
This article is an example of an opinion formed upon naked speculation, and has no basis in fact.
And, frankly, we're tired of it. Just get out of the way and let people exercise their fundamental rights without interposing your unsubstantiated bias into the equation.Mar 5, 2012
Attorney General candidates Republican Mark Brnovich and Democrat Felecia Rotellini debate at the East Valley Tribune office in Tempe on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2014.Question 2: What are your thoughts on the restriction on RU486 and should the state continue to pursue the case to the Supreme Court?