From News 4 Jax:

A representative of the Goodwill store in the 2100 block of Northwest 21st Street in Miami called police Thursday to report a somewhat unusual donation.

When officers arrived, they found dozens of weapons, including knives, swords, handguns, rifles and real-looking toy guns had been donated to the charity store.

Investigators said some of the weapons were loaded and in good condition. Others were old and rusted.

Cops collected the weapons for “safe disposal.” Into their own closets, I’m sure.

The annonymous donor should have tried the Salvation Army . . .

That’s what one lefty says in this article:

For this reason, gun control should be a feminist issue. Not only do gun control laws protect women, but current anti-gun regulation efforts are targeted specifically at laws that save women’s lives. There appears to be a lack of collaboration between feminists and advocates for sensible gun laws, despite the common interest the groups appear to share. “Many organizations that work to end violence against women acknowledge the gun problem,” says White. “Research is so overwhelming that many advocates feel strongly about this.”

And while some feminist blogs and news outlets were disturbed when NPR noted that the gun lobby was going after the Lautenberg Amendment, they did not seem worried by the fact that any increase in ownership will likely hurt women. Unlike the domestic violence groups which filed an amicus brief, feminist groups were conspicuously absent from the Heller and McDonald dockets. Despite having an interest in preventing violence against women (even a recent Planned Parenthood study showing women who seek abortions experience higher rates of domestic abuse), organizations that lead the women’s movement have remained silent on McDonald v. Chicago.

Maybe more “feminists” are realizing that playing the perpetual victim is the most un-liberating state you can be in. More and more women are taking their personal and family defense into their own hands — with a gun.

And, some of them might surprise you:

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Mariana Islands?

Trial lawyers pumped millions into Democratic coffers and now (as the Unions did) they’re about to be rewarded.

Stephen Colbert offers his guests handguns during a recent show discussing the SCOTUS decision. Video at the TV Guide link.

Probably pretty pricey but if your wife or girlfriend can pull the trigger, here’s the latest fashion statement.

From Before It’s News:

The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago’s newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court’s June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

Scroll down here at Alphecca a few posts to see what those drastic regulations are.

Well, most, although a few at KOS get it. In the National Review today, gun rights ARE civil rights.

Using the pre-emption argument. From the AP:

The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.

[…]

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

My first thought was that this is similar to where states preempt local gun laws that are tougher than the state’s. PA and Phili come to mind. However, this isn’t a case of you being subject to additonal restrictions because you’re an illegal alien; Arizona is simply enforcing a law that the federal government isn’t.

My own thought is that Holder and the DoJ should go ‘eff themselves.

America can no longer land a man on the Moon. Indeed, we now need to rely on the Russians just to ferry food up to the International Space Station. So, Obama’s vision for the future of NASA? From Powerline Blog:

. . . Charles Bolden, head of NASA, tells Al Jazeera that the “foremost” task President Obama has given him is “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” Thus, NASA’s primary mission is no longer to enhance American science and engineering or to explore space, but to boost the self-esteem of “predominantly Muslim nations.”

Great, just great. As usual from our socialist leader, nothing about building the self-asteem of America.

Mayor Dick is conceding that the handgun ban in Chicago will be struck down and is setting into place a lot of hurdles and limitations for those who might try to now exercise their right to own a handgun. Condensed from Breitbart:

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers.

Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Some of the other rules are just the standard laws everywhere — felons, etc. cannot own guns. There is (and I think this is a semi-decent aspect of the new law) a 90 day grace period for those who had illegal handguns to register them.

Penalties for violating the ordinance are severe. So, if you step out onto your porch with your handgun to confront some thug trying to break into your car, you can be fined $5000 dollars and spend 90 days in jail. That’s certainly a harsher sentence than the thug will receive.

One regulation not incorporated (that Mayor Dick had wanted) was a requirement for insurance on your handgun. The reason it was rejected was that it would discriminate against poor people who couldn’t afford the insurance premiums.

Me? I’m glad I live in Vermont where we don’t have all that bullshit regulation. Note that we also don’t have all that crime. Coincidence?

Hey, would you like to know just how out of touch the liberals in our colleges are? Put down your coffee, first:

Barack Obama is among best presidents ever - George W. Bush not so much, say scholars in Siena poll.

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who - for a fifth time - rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position - two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

The education of our children is in the very best of hands.

I personally know teachers who would think such a policy is sick. There ARE some good, some great patriotic educators out there. Just not at this garbage can school:

When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old’s request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch.

And, the NEA wants American taxpayers to throw yet more money their way.

I wonder if they celebrate Independence Day?

In Chicago, educating the masses:

Emotions ran high at Chicago State University, where gun rights advocates looked to convince area African Americans that ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry guns to avoid becoming crime victims.

Community speakers advocating for concealed carry cited statistics about how women with guns are less likely to be raped, contended handgun bans are efforts to keep black people unarmed, and stressed gun ownership is a right — not a requirement.

The forum was coordinated by Illinois State Rifle Association-aligned IllinoisCarry.com after about a dozen Chatham neighborhood residents contacted the group, said IllinoisCarry.com spokeswoman Valinda Rowe. It’s the first community forum since the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned Chicago’s gun ban.

Some got it, but according to the article the audience was stacked with anti-gunners. It’s sad that those who could benefit most by the recent SCOTUS ruling are (generally) against exercising their right (natural and constitutional) to self-defense.

One town in New Hampshire believes in a strict interpretation of constitutional rights. From WMUR TV:

If you’re a town employee in Nottingham, you can now bring your gun to work.

Town selectmen voted on the new policy last week, but it’s still the subject of intense debate.

No other town in Rockingham County allows employees to carry guns at work, but Nottingham town leaders said it’s a matter of constitutional rights.

“You don’t want the employees to feel like second-class citizens,” said Town Manager Charles Brown. “All regular citizens can do that, if permitted, so why shouldn’t an employee be able to do that?”

Prior to that, only cops there could have a gun at work.

Kind of refreshing to read an item like this.

Things in my life just aren’t going well. Pretty much everything is in turmoil from health (both mine and one of the cat’s) and at work. And, I still haven’t been able to buy a new computer and in the meantime have lost my home ISP.

Oh well, what doesn’t kill us is supposed to make us stronger. If this keeps up, I’ll be like Superman!

One way or another I WILL keep Alphecca going . . . One post snuck-at-work at a time. What the hell, everyone else is texting and Facebooking.

At her confirmation hearings today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein griped about recent Supreme Court decisions (Keller, McDonald yesterday) and the growing gang violence in her state.

Kagan responded:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says she considers recent high court decisions expanding gun rights to be “settled law.”

[…]

Kagan responded [to Feinstein] that “once a court decides a case as it did, it’s binding precedent.” And she said judges must respect a precedent unless it proves unworkable or new facts emerge that would change the circumstances of a case.

Uh huh. Trying to cover her ass but I don’t necessarily believe her. I’m sure that all that has to happen is for two city mayors (from, er, DC and Chicago) to start whining about their crime rates and she will decide those “precedents” are “unworkable.”

Meanwhile, a liberal over at FireDogLake blathers:

I think I can lend my support to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, since many who vocally argue for gun rights argue that it’s what the Founding Fathers wanted and we should read the Constitution not as a historical document but a perfect framework for the problems we confront in this day and age, we should take them at their word. The Founding Fathers had muskets to defend their homes, and that’s what we should have. You know, those old-fashioned firearms you see in movies, where people had to load gunpowder and bullets before they took a shot. Then you actually had to think before you took aim. There was no such thing as handguns or automatic rifles, and I doubt the Founding Fathers had the ability to divine the future to guess what their role in our twenty-first century society would be. Therefore we should take a historical approach to gun ownership in homage to the real rights granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Oh, okay. Let’s interpret the 1st Amendment like-wise. The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned movies, TV, the Internet, iPhones, etc. Therefore, freedom of speech should apply only to newspapers. In addition, those Founding Fathers were rather prudish so forget printing anything even remotely “racy.”

Fair’s-fair.