GRE David Codrea gives comment on NRA grades and endorsements

Check out David Codrea's Examiner article about the NRA grades and Endorsements.

David Writes:

Regardless, if the rating system is to make any sense at all, a candidate with an "A" should get an endorsement if their rival's grade is inferior.

David does great work covering many events, so check out his Examiner page often!

Explain your actions!

Today I am taking a look at Illinois law "Temporary questioning without arrest" and what's wrong with it.   First we will look at the law itself:

(725 ILCS 5/107‑14)(from Ch. 38, par. 107‑14)
Sec. 107‑14. Temporary questioning without arrest. 
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.
(Source: Laws 1968, p. 218.)

The first major problem I have with this is the lack of any definition to the word "reasonable".  What exactly is a "reasonable period of time"?  The second time "reasonable" shows it's unreasonable head is when an officer "reasonably infers" that someone is about to commit an offense.   This law assumes clairvoyant abilities on normal law enforcement officials.  

My BIG complaint with this law is a requirement to identify yourself, and EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS.   If you took this law literally it only reads that men have to explain their actions, as women could be interpreted as exempt from a law that requires an "explanation of his actions".  Isn't it unconstitutional to be put into a position of potential self-incrimination?  

How come no one's fixed this law?  It's obviously a problem, but why has it been around for more than 35 years without contest?  The sheer amount of time this has been on the books shows that Illinois lacks a system of checks and balances, that our cops, lawmakers, judges, and LAWYERS have all betrayed the people of Illinois which makes 3 out of 4 of those groups guilty of perjury, and they should be sentenced accordingly

What about the Oath?

Ever wonder how people can get charged with Illinois' "Aggravated Unlawful use of a weapon", a class 1 Felony for transporting arms outside of the statutes of the state if the officers took the state oath of office pledging to

"support the constitution of the United States" 

while the 2nd Amendment reads:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Check out the conservative examiner's article today for his take on it all.

Only in Illinois...

Only in Illinois can a Sheriff be found guilty of 15 counts of drug dealing and witness tampering... and up to the bitter end still b eon the payroll:

In both his opening and closing statements, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Cutchin of Carmi told the jury the entire case against Martin would be about "greed, arrogance and abuse of power." The jury rejected defense attorney John O'Gara's argument that Martin was the victim of a series of unreliable witnesses — many of them convicted felons and alleged drug dealers themselves.

Jurors also were shown a series of aerial surveillance videos taken by Illinois State Police detectives that showed Martin handing over bags of marijuana to Potts. The video also showed Martin made those transactions while in uniform and while driving his county-issued vehicle.

"The minute he was found guilty, he was stripped of being sheriff," said acting Sheriff Shannon Bradley.
"His pay stops immediately, and there will be a special county board meeting soon to elevate me to the position of sheriff."

Wow.. if the Illinois State Police had to watch a Sheriff to find out what he's doing... who's watching the Illinois State Police?