Jwill's Log

Source: boston.com
Read Article

A proposal to limit the number of guns a person can buy in Massachusetts is being mulled by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee today, sparking hope among supporters that the bill may finally come to a vote.

Proponents of the bill say it would make it difficult for gun traffickers to obtain weapons in bulk, then sell them illegally on the streets of Boston. Right now, people licensed to buy guns can buy an unlimited number of weapons. Gun control advocates said that allows for “straw purchases,” in which people who are legally able to buy guns are hired by gun traffickers to purchase weapons.

The limit would be one gun purchase a month. In the wake of recent shootings (and shootings in general), I think it would be a very good thing. Why do you need to buy more than one gun anyway? That last line about “straw purchases” is very important and I think a big reason why a bill like this should pass – these illegal gun sales are the problem. With this bill, gun traffickers would have to search for many more people to gain their stock and it would make it much more difficult to get as much money from their “trade”.

And yes, according to one of the gun control opponents quoted in the article, it does hurt people who honestly buy guns and aren’t doing anything wrong – but I’d rather have their toes stepped on just a little to curb gun trafficking and these unnecessary injuries and deaths. While the Constitution does say that you have a right to bear arms, it never said how many, and I really don’t think you need more than one or two if you have any at all.

Source: boston.com
Read Article

In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday — over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans’ rights of protection from police abuse “upside down.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn’t have to has waived his right to remain silent.

So if you’re arrested and Mirandized and then you start talking, you’ve given up the right to remain silent and the police can continue to interrogate you. My interpretation of “you have the right to remain silent” and “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” was that you could stop the interview at any time (thereby exercising your right to remain silent). Also:

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

Can you imagine the poor, innocent people who would get terrorized by this and then crack under pressure because they don’t want the police in their face anymore, admitting to something they didn’t do? True, the police should know for sure if the person they are interrogating indeed wants to invoke his or her Miranda rights. But I can imagine a lot of people being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being immensely intimidated by the notion of police officers yelling at them. I agree with Justice Sotomayor’s written dissent of the ruling:

Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.

It’s the whole “I’m gonna assume you don’t mind talking to me” mentality that this change can bring up that’s discomforting.

Source: boston.com
Read Article

Cahill — he of the fast-sinking gubernatorial campaign — couldn’t resist trying to squeeze some mileage out of Governor Deval Patrick’s meeting last weekend with about 1,000 local Muslims. The candidate issued a ludicrous statement accusing Patrick of “pandering to special interest groups” by, you know, meeting with some constituents.

“Now is the time for Governor Patrick to look radical Islamic terrorism full in the face, call it what it is, and make sure that federal law enforcement officials who are tracking the Times Square case give our local law enforcement the information they have in real time.’’

Again, Patrick’s crime here was to meet with a group of people who are not accused of anything, or suspected of anything. But in Tim Cahill’s world, it’s as if any gathering of Muslims is the moral equivalent of an Al Qaeda meeting.

No doubt here who was doing the pandering.

Globe Columnist Adrian Walker hits it on the nail. What Tim Cahill said was beyond stupid and racist and I’m not surprised it gained the ire of the religious community. I’m surely not voting for him.

*Note: To add on to the post below, a big chunk of Massachusetts just got a boil water order because of a “catastrophic” leak in an aqueduct. What would Concord do in this situation with no bottled water at the stores?*

Source: boston.com
Read Article

CONCORD — For years, Jean Hill has been reading about the environmental consequences of the countless plastic bottles filling landfills and polluting local waters. She has watched as other towns around the country have cut purchases of bottled water, which she views as a wasteful, environmentally damaging alternative to tap water.

This week, after lobbying neighbors and local officials for months, the 82-year-old activist persuaded them to take more drastic action than perhaps any other municipality in the country: At Town Meeting on Thursday, Concord residents voted to ban all sales of bottled water.

Concord just voted to make a very drastic change. It is indeed true that bottled water (and anything bottled, for that matter) can lead to environmental waste if not properly recycled, and I do also see the point that having bottled water in your home could be redundant considering that there is the tap. Such a vote, however, doesn’t look at the whole story.

Let’s say that I’m visiting the town and I really want something to drink. I head to one of their convenience stores and now, bottled water is no longer an option. I have a choice between Snapple, Vitamin Water, Gatorade, and a variety of sodas (among other things, of course), but not water. What if I’m just visiting town and I want water? I don’t want sugary drinks. What do I do then? Knock on someone’s door and ask for access to their tap? Bottled water can be wasteful to the environment, but come on, now: there are times when people want to carry bottles with them, especially while on the road. Sure, it mostly won’t bother the townsfolk that much, the people who can get water from their house before leaving. But for people who go to the store because they’re thirsty on the spot, because they want something to drink right at that moment and they didn’t plan ahead, you just took out their healthiest option. Unless, of course, you plan on having some sort of water cooler at every store. Also:

“I am sure this was a well-intentioned proposal in Concord, but I think it’s misguided, because it’s based on misinformation, misconception, and mischaracterization of a product that has a lot of benefits,’’ said Chris Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which represents the state’s supermarkets and groceries. “Bottled water is used in times of need, often in natural disasters. It’s also a healthy product.’’

What does happen when there is a natural disaster and the tap’s no longer clean?

Lastly, while Jean Hill does point to a study that says that 88% of plastic water bottles are not recycled, that doesn’t mean that you should prevent people from using it entirely. Remember one of those principles of economics? The one that says that people respond to incentives? We should instead be working more to push people to recycle, not take things away from them just because they’ve failed to do so.

Source: boston.com
Read Article

Milton High School went into lockdown this morning after a live shotgun round was found outside the building’s main entrance, police said.

The school was locked down as a precautionary measure after a parent discovered the ammunition around 9 a.m., Police Chief Richard Wells said.

I don’t know where these shotgun rounds come from. What I really want to comment on, however, is that I feel like locking down the school in situations such as these is the right course of action. If you read the comments you’ll see remarks from the sarcastic, asking if they locked down the school because a shotgun round is a choking hazard, to the straightforward “no one’s life was at risk and this was a waste of time”. I believe it’s always important to take these precautionary measures because you never know if someone actually is carrying any sort of weapons and ammunition and happened to drop one. Never. Even if the chance is ridiculously low and near statistically impossible, you never want to take that chance. Things that may only happen a small percentage of the time can still happen, and when they do, people are held just as accountable and put in harm’s way as if the occurrence was a commonality.

You always have to play it safe.