If they want to play that game anyways, that’s cool. They’ll still get slapped down. As I also mentioned, the number of non-smoking establishments in Spain have actually gone down. This certainly wouldn’t be happening if it were economically viable to maintain the smoke-free status, now would it? I didn’t think so.

I certainly have no problem with the editorial staff of a newspaper taking a stance on an issue, however they should at least attempt to make sound arguments. It should be pretty obvious by now, especially with all this bailout nonsense, that centrally controlled economies do not do better. Using that as an argument for further violating rights is even worse.

Ban smoking in bars, restaurants, or any other private business? Absolutely not. Jeff Robinson’s Sept. 17th letter couldn’t be more wrong when he states that Mt. Pleasant should enact anti-smoking ordnances like New York City.

He claims that due to his major being Health Fitness, he has been made “very aware” of the dangers of smoking. Good for him, but I’ve known that smoking is bad since elementary school. It’s also irrelevant to the argument. I’ve worked as a bouncer for a bar in Traverse City in the past, and I can tell you that alcohol can lead to fights. Should we ban alcohol from restaurants and bars? No.

So if smoking is bad for ones health, then why shouldn’t the government ban it from restaurants and bars? It’s quite simple, because restaurants and bars are private establishments. If one doesn’t like the fact that an establishment allows smoking inside their premises, they certainly don’t have to patronize it. Assuming a proprietor is competent, the smoking policy of an establishment will be more than aptly determined by the market. If a majority of patrons stopped going to a bar or restaurant because they allowed smoking, the owner is surely going to change the policy on it.

Thinking an establishment is public just because it invites the public is a flawed perception that unfortunately many people have. It is this perception that empowers people to advocate banning smoking in restaurants and bars despite the fact that a majority of it’s patrons have no issues that prevent their continued support of these establishments. I could have told you this even if I wasn’t a business major. However, like I mentioned, it’s a flawed perception.

The problem with the GOP is that you get people sporting the label who really aren’t for limited government. In fact, there are those so bad that they admit that they’re going to vote for a tax hike to support a zoo; something that should clearly be a concern for private enterprise. Fortunately in this above case, the effect of this citizen’s actions, should it pass, is of limited geographical scope - not that it makes it any more tolerable. However, there are those running for, or currently in, public office who run under the GOP banner and do things much worse than support a local tax hike to support a zoo. Unfortunately, one such person is the Republican candidate for President - John McCain.

You might recall that in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act became law. This piece of legislation, which had John McCain as a key sponsor, coalesced with preexisting campaign finance regulatory statutes to further violate the First Amendment rights of individuals. Regardless of what the Supreme Court of the United States decided in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, limiting the amount of money used for advocating a position is indeed a freedom of speech violation. Instead of going into detail on the caveats associated with BCRA, I’ll let George Will and Reason Magazine handle that task. Oh, I probably should mention though that BCRA prohibits minors from making contributions.

Having the GOP candidate for president only a couple of years ago spearheading legislation that severely limits free speech expounds the due diligence that party members need to exercise when selecting a candidate for office; via convention or otherwise. This diligence shouldn’t be exclusive to federal office candidate selection either - it should be applied to selecting candidates at every level down to the local level. Certainly it’s impossible to agree with a candidate 100%, but viewpoints such as those espoused by candidates like John McCain are completely incompatible with those who are true conservatives.

Originally, I was intending on writing strictly about how campaign finance laws are in complete contradiction with the First Amendment (yet again, SCOTUS be damned), similar in fashion to my previous entry about how government intervention into labor relations are immoral. However, I decided that the conservative community (bloggers and non-bloggers alike) would be better served with a piece that attempts to do a little more than editorialize. You know, maybe attempt to give a bit of helpful advice or some derivative thereof? This in turn lead to what you just read now - a warning about how extremely crucial it is to appropriately select candidates that truly stand for conservative values

This past December, I wrote a pretty lengthy piece on No-Knock warrants, and why they are not only unconstitutional, but just plain wrong.

Well, just a few days ago, there was another case of a no-knock raid that got botched all to hell.

In my previous article, I argued that no-knock warrants lend for violations of the 4^th and 5^th amendments based strictly on their very nature. This latest botched raid only further proves that point.

Some “highlights” from this raid:

• No communication with local law enforcement
• The person dropping off the package was actually a cop acting like a delivery person.
• The cops killed the family’s dogs, one of which was running away
• One of the detectives thought it was a good idea to be making personal calls while on the job. She even stated that she was excited to have her first raid made on the mayor’s house.

and here’s the doozy, kids:

• The warrant issued was a standard warrant.

Let me repeat -

THERE WAS NO NO-KNOCK WARRANT

That’s right kids, why bother with even getting a no-knock in the first place - just get a regular one (or none at all) and kick down the door! It’s a party for the whole family! You can thank the SCOTUS for that one. In that decision, the Supreme Court decided that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply if the knock and announce provision of standard warrants aren’t adhered to. Problem is that the people who ruled in favor of that are the (in)justices that I would normally agree with (and wouldn’t expect to make a stupid ruling like this).

The problem here is that there is absolutely no recourse for these botched raids. Sure you might get a judge that would actually make use of the exclusionary rule (where the case actually goes to trial), and in this instance, Mayor Calvo is filing a complaint with the justice department. However the former doesn’t really matter if someone dies (especially an innocent) as a result; the latter is situation specific, and certainly not guaranteed to produce any results.

Now before I continue on to my personal recommendations, I would like to make light of more information I have found since the writing of my last piece regarding no-knocks. The last sentence of the previous article is as follows:

This is why any claims made to the rarity of incorrectly served no-knocks should countered with the fact that, as stated above, the mere possibility of an incorrectly served no-knock warrant violates not just Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as stated earlier, but also the Fifth Amendment as well by denying liberties without due process.

Here’s the truth of the matter folks: these botched raids aren’t as rare as the SCOTUS would like you to believe as stated in their ruling on Hudson v. Michigan. The CATO Institute has a map of botched police raids with information about each one with supporting sources. The number is HUGE.

So with all that out of the way, here are some ideas that I have to try and solve the problem of no-knock warrants:

1. In cases where citizens have the ability to elect judges (such as the Michigan State Supreme Court or local courts), vet candidates as to whether they will actually uphold the exclusionary rule in cases where no-knock raids occur when only a standard warrant is issued.
2. Vet the local judicial candidates about their views on no-knock warrants.
3. Vet sheriff candidates about their views on the use of no-knock warrants. Pressure them to make it department policy to not use no-knock warrants.
4. Press legislators to enact legislation that would assess civil and criminal penalties upon everyone involved in these raids when things go wrong, especially when innocent people die. This would include, judges/magistrates who issue warrants (gives them a good incentive to make sure the information is good, doesn’t it?), the person who gave the go ahead, and those who actually took part in the raid. Make the sentences stiff, too. Kill an innocent? Go to the clink for life, no parole.
5. Press legislators to enact legislation that would absolve those subject to a no-knock raid from any penalties that would normally be associated with raid participants getting injured or killed.
6. Stop the drug war. It’s stupid, it costs way too much money ($1 would be way too much money spent on it), and it’s the driving impetus for these no-knock warrants.

Of course I know that there are people looking at recommendations 4 and 5 while subsequently thinking I’m insane. Let me explain my rationale. With recommendation 4, the idea is that if we can’t keep the no-knocks from happening, we need to make it so that they have incentive to make sure they are absolutely damn sure that the target of their raid is legitimate.

In terms of recommendation 5 (admittedly the most controversial), we’ll start by taking a look at the case of Cory Maye. In this case, the police broke into the apartment of Cory Maye, despite the fact he wasn’t even the one listed on the warrant. Maye, unsure of who was trying to enter his home, understandably grabbed his pistol and proceeded to take a defensive posture. When the door was kicked open, Maye fired off 3 rounds. One of the rounds struck a cop just under his vest - this proved fatal for the officer. Maye was subsequently convicted of murder.

Now I know what your thinking, “The officers announced themselves Gillman. Why the hell did he shoot if he knew it was them coming through!? After all, they announced themselves!” Even if this was true, there’s a logical explanation why that shouldn’t matter: couldn’t a criminal announce themselves as law enforcement before kicking down the door? Even if a resident were to have time to safely get eyes on the intruders before making a decision, what’s to keep criminals from dressing up as law enforcement? Given the situation, there is absolutely no way to determine the legitimacy of those entering a dwelling before shots start getting fired, and I’ll be damned if a homeowner is required to suffer because of the fear of shooting a cop instead of a criminal. That is why I propose solution number 5.

Hopefully the information presented helps in seeing the severity of problems associated with no-knock raids, as well as offer some ideas on how to fix the problem of such raids.