Buffalo to seize guns days after owners' deaths

FILE 2012: Buffalo police confiscated nine illegal handguns in connection with a gun trafficking operation that stretched from the Decatur, Georgia area to Buffalo. The city has been focused on reducing the number of illegal guns on the street.(Buffalo Police Department)

A plan by police in Buffalo, N.Y., to begin confiscating the firearms of legal gun owners within days of their deaths is drawing fire from Second Amendment advocates.

The plan is legal under a longstanding, but rarely enforced state law, but gun rights advocates say, with apologies to onetime NRA spokesman Charlton Heston, it is tantamount to prying firearms - some of which may have substantial monetary or sentimental value - from the cold, dead hands of law-abiding citizens.

"They're quick to say they're going to take the guns," said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. "But they don't tell you the law doesn't apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one's] pistol or apply to keep it."

King said enforcing the state law is the latest example of authorities targeting law-abiding gun owners, while doing little to secure the streets.

- Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association

Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so "they don't end up in the wrong hands." The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said.

Derrenda said guns pose a threat if their owner is no longer alive to safeguard them, especially if a recently-deceased gun owner's home is burglarized.

"At times they lay out there and the family is not aware of them and they end up just out on the street," he said, according to WGRZ.com.

The state law says that if the permit holder dies, the estate has 15 days to dispose of the guns or turn them in to authorities, who can hold the weapons up to two years. LoHud.com reported that violation of the law by survivors is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine.

Read the original post:

Buffalo to seize guns days after owners' deaths

Take a look at the

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously rejected a Republican political consultant's efforts to keep his redistricting records private, promising to give the public its first glimpse of documents that helped lead to the state's congressional districts being thrown out this summer.

While different justices signed onto two separate opinions about the case, both found that Pat Bainter and his consulting firm, Data Targeting, Inc., waited too long to claim that releasing some of the documents would violate his First Amendment rights.

The documents were requested by voting-rights organizations challenging the state's congressional districts.

Writing for five members of the court, Justice Barbara Pariente used unusually harsh language to paint Bainter's efforts as part of a months-long stalling tactic as the battle over the congressional map played out in a Leon County court.

"We simply do not countenance and will not tolerate actions during litigation that are not forthright and that are designed to delay and obfuscate the discovery process," Pariente wrote.

In the opinion, the court ruled that Bainter tried for months to keep the documents shielded without saying that releasing them would violate his First Amendment rights. Bainter only made that claim after a Leon County judge held Bainter and the company in contempt, Pariente wrote.

"By responding to the deposition questions and acknowledging discussions with other political consultants without ever revealing the true nature of those communications or asserting a First Amendment privilege, in conjunction with the failure to timely assert this qualified privilege after the deposition testimony and months of additional hearings, we conclude that Bainter waived his ability to later claim that the documents revealing these communications were privileged on that basis," Pariente wrote.

Joining Pariente in the opinion were Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry. In a separate opinion, Justices Ricky Polston and Charles Canady supported the outcome. It was a rare, unified decision from a court that has often splintered on redistricting opinions.

The voting-rights groups, which include the League of Women Voters of Florida, argued that the Republican-dominated Legislature drew congressional districts that violated the anti-gerrymandering "Fair Districts" constitutional requirements, approved by voters in 2010.

See the rest here:

Take a look at the

Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!

By William Bennett Turner

William Bennett Turner teaches First Amendment courses at UC Berkeley, and is the author of 'Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains' (2011).

The biggest vote-getter on the Nov. 4 ballot in Berkeley was not the tax on sugary soda, which got 75% of the vote and national attention. Nor was it a candidate for any office. It was Proposition P, which called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. Prop P got 85% of the vote.

The proposition was, as California propositions go, remarkably simple. It asked if the United States Constitution should be amended to abolish the concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech. (Berkeleyans have rarely been bothered that their principled positions on national and international affairs have little effect; the proposition was placed on the ballot by the City Council.)

The official ballot argument in favor of Prop P (no opposing argument was submitted) overstated the Citizens United decision by claiming it gave corporations the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution as human persons. It mistakenly added that the decision specified that donating unlimited money on campaigns should be considered free speech, and asserted the court had endorsed the slogan money equals speech. The argument ended with a ringing call to abolish corporate personhood.

Citizens United is the most misunderstood decision in the 21st century. That is partly because the opinions in the case ran to 176 pages, and very few people have read them. I doubt anyone on the Berkeley City Council has read them.

As it happens, on election day I was teaching the decision in my First Amendment class at UC Berkeley. I felt obligated to tell the students some of the ways Citizens United has been mischaracterized.

First, it did not give corporations the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as natural persons. It didnt give them the right to vote, or the right to contribute directly to a candidate. Nor did it invent the concept of corporate personhood. That was done peremptorily by the court in a railroad case in 1886, without any argument, discussion or analysis. In 1978, the court ruled that political speech in an election did not lose First Amendment protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker, and that became the main theme of Citizens United. The court also protected corporate speech in at least 24 cases before Citizens United, including cases establishing bedrock free speech principles. Those included New York Times v. Sullivan (the right to criticize government without fear of being sued for libel), and the Pentagon Papers case (no prior restraints-type government censorship), both won by the Times corporation.

At this point in our history, abolishing corporate personhood would cause all kinds of mischief. The New York Times and all other media corporations would have no First Amendment rights and could be censored at will. (Relying on the Press Clause of the First Amendment is no answer, because the court has rejected the contention that it gives whoever claims to be the press a difficult definitional question in these days of Fox News, Twitter and bloggers special speech rights not enjoyed by ordinary citizens.) Some Berkeleyans might not be unhappy if government prohibited corporate advertising, thus wiping out the Super Bowl and most media, though few would be pleased if a corporation, not being a person, could not be sued for polluting the environment.

Second, the court did not say money is speech. It simply quoted from its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo to the effect that restricting the amount of money that can be spent in a campaign restricts the quantity and nature of campaign speech. This is self-evident: it costs money to print and distribute flyers and yard signs, rent billboard space, and buy television and radio time; the less money you can spend, the less you can speak. In that sense, the court now treats money as speech, but it doesnt use the slogan simplistically equating the two.

Read this article:

Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!

Cryptocurrency Round-Up: Markets Slide as Richard Branson Backs Bitcoin's Revolutionary Potential

Branson extols virtues of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as markets slide(IBTimes UK)

The price of bitcoin has dipped back below $400 following its remarkable surge mid-week that saw its value rise as high as $454.

The drop has resonated across the cryptocurrency markets, with litecoin, dogecoin, peercoin, darkcoin and namecoin all falling by between 7% and 12% over the last 24 hours.

Invulnerable to such market movements has been cryptonite. The Superman-themed cryptocurrency rose in value by over 200% since yesterday to take its market cap up towards $100,000.

Serial entrepreneur Richard Branson has extolled the virtues of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in a new blogpost ahead of the Global Digital Currency Conversation (GDCC) in Australia this weekend.

In his post titled 'How digital currency could transform the world', Branson describes his reasons for investing in bitcoin and why he believes in its potential to bring greater levels of control, freedom and scrutiny over money.

"I have invested in Bitcoin because I believe in its potential, the capacity it has to transform global payments is very exciting," Branson said.

"It has been obvious to us all for quite some time that people aren't satisfied with the business as usual approach adopted by the major payment networks.

"Through making investments in the likes of Square and Blockchain, I hope to be a part of what could be a democratisation that helps to put more power and control back into the hands of the everyday citizen."

An identity provider that uses blockchain technology to create a decentralised identity protocol has announced a roadmap to push forward its social solution.

Go here to read the rest:

Cryptocurrency Round-Up: Markets Slide as Richard Branson Backs Bitcoin's Revolutionary Potential

Bitcoin Gives Canadian Banks a Run for Their Money: Q&A with The Bitcoin Embassy – Video


Bitcoin Gives Canadian Banks a Run for Their Money: Q A with The Bitcoin Embassy
"[Bitcoin is] a real legitimate competitor to fiat money," explains Francis Pouliot, director of public affairs of the non-profit Bitcoin Embassy in Montral. "It puts a huge competitive pressure...

By: ReasonTV

See the rest here:

Bitcoin Gives Canadian Banks a Run for Their Money: Q&A with The Bitcoin Embassy - Video

Spotlight: BitCoin, gold, and financial literacy with Valuraha – Video


Spotlight: BitCoin, gold, and financial literacy with Valuraha
See all Spotlight videos at http://goo.gl/VrfCVo Founder Betty Mutimba describes how Valuraha is making financial literacy accessible to the Kenya market. For startup specific video content,...

By: Google Developers

View original post here:

Spotlight: BitCoin, gold, and financial literacy with Valuraha - Video

The Flipside Bitcoin News #6: Ethereum Vs Counterparty movie, Changetipping, Mr Bitcoin Jedi Knight – Video


The Flipside Bitcoin News #6: Ethereum Vs Counterparty movie, Changetipping, Mr Bitcoin Jedi Knight
Tips: 1Q7VE7Auaz97FREQCUyUv1AwYTae3hY78D Episode 06: The illuminati implant tracking devices into Mr Bitcoin #39;s hands. Exclusive movie trailer for the Ethereum vs Counterparty story, called...

By: The Flipside

Read more:

The Flipside Bitcoin News #6: Ethereum Vs Counterparty movie, Changetipping, Mr Bitcoin Jedi Knight - Video

Salon Talks w/ Peter from Factom and Andrew Wagner of Bitcoin Magazine #BlockchainBloat – Video


Salon Talks w/ Peter from Factom and Andrew Wagner of Bitcoin Magazine #BlockchainBloat
This week Andrew Wagner from the Bitcoin Coop and Bitcoin Magazine will present on blockchain bloat and Also, Peter Kirby of Factom will be beaming in to address the issue and present Factom #39;s...

By: Decentral Vancouver

View post:

Salon Talks w/ Peter from Factom and Andrew Wagner of Bitcoin Magazine #BlockchainBloat - Video

The Bitcoin Group #56 – Bitcoin Price is Back, ChangeTip Viral?, Bitcoin Under Skin, CounterParty… – Video


The Bitcoin Group #56 - Bitcoin Price is Back, ChangeTip Viral?, Bitcoin Under Skin, CounterParty...
THIS WEEK: ---------------------------- Issue 1 - Bitcoin Price is Back RAOUL PAL: Bitcoin Is Worth $1000000 http://www.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11 BITCOIN PRICE RALLY...

By: World Crypto Network

Go here to read the rest:

The Bitcoin Group #56 - Bitcoin Price is Back, ChangeTip Viral?, Bitcoin Under Skin, CounterParty... - Video