The Freedom Bulletin

Clint Cornelius, 33, was sentenced to a year in jail today. His crime? Parking his car, with guns and ammunition inside, at Mount Holyoke College.

He was initially charged in 2007 with three counts of possession of a firearm without a license, six counts of possession of a large-capacity firearm, and possession of ammunition without a license. A student had seen the guns in the car and, even though they were not hurting anyone and are supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment, decided to alert campus police. The officers then searched his car. He and his lawyer challenged the search and sought the dismissal of the charges because Cornelius,who had recently moved to Massachusetts from Georgia, should have had 60 days to obtain firearms permits, but the Supreme Judicial Court rejected these arguments.

He agreed to plead guilty to the ammunition charge, and his lawyer and the prosecutor agreed to a sentence of one year in jail. The judge said that the sentence “causes me some pain,” and I agree with him. In fact, I would go so far as to say that sentencing Cornelius to jail is an injustice. Nothing that he did was the least bit immoral or violated anyone’s rights. There was no evidence that he planned to use the guns to cause anyone harm. To investigate, prosecute, and imprison him for having guns in his car is an utter waste of law enforcement resources, causes suffering to an innocent man, and benefits no one. Clint Cornelius did nothing wrong and deserves to be free.

Today was the deadline for ballot initiatives to be filed in Massachusetts for the 2012 election. There are some interesting initiatives that are aiming to get on the ballot:

• The Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance wants to legalize medical marijuana for people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses. People would need permission from a doctor, and they could only get marijuana from treatment centers that would be regulated by the state Department of Public Health.
• The Fatherhood Coalition filed an initiative to abolish Chapter 209A, a law which allows people to get restraining orders without proof, of even an allegation, of wrongdoing. Designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, the law can also be used unjustly by people who are merely mad at their spouse or want to kick them out of the house.
• Massachusetts Citizens for Life is trying to abolish the state’s individual mandate, which requires all residents to have health insurance. I am glad to see this because, while the national individual mandate is the subject of a lot of controversy and criticism, the state one hasn’t been nearly as much.
• David Nunez, a Colorado casino developer, submitted a petition to allow three casinos in Massachusetts.
• Stand For Children wants teachers’ merit to be weighed above seniority in hiring, layoff, and transfer policies.
• Plus, there were 26 other petitions filed, for a total of 31.

To make it onto the ballot, each question must be certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley. Then, organizers must collect the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by November, as well as another 11,485 signatures by next July.

August 4 update: How did I miss this one? The Death With Dignity Act, which would allow people with terminal illnesses to obtain drugs to end their lives, is trying to get on the ballot as well. In my opinion, this would definitely be a step in the right direction.

In 2009, Massachusetts began charging people $25 to appeal traffic tickets to a clerk magistrate, and an additional $50 to appeal to a district court judge. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that these fees are constitutional, denying the appeals of Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, who challenged their tickets in Northampton.

This got me thinking about whether fees to use the court system are, in general, a good idea. In all levels of the court system, people are regularly charged money to file civil suits or to appeal decisions. Supporters of such policies say that the fees raise needed funds and deter frivolous lawsuits, while preserving access to the courts because fee waivers are available for poor people.

While the court system undoubtedly is strapped for funds, and the last thing we need is more taxes, I don’t think that fees to appeal traffic tickets (or other rulings) are a fair method. Charging money to file an appeal punishes everyone, whether their appeal is frivolous or legitimate. And while indigent people might be able to get an exemption from the fee, this is not fair to everyone else who is deemed wealthy enough to pay. Even if the majority of traffic ticket appeals are without merit, the fees are an injustice to people who do have a good reason to appeal. It is wrong to force people who are unjustly ticketed to pay money in order to overturn a fine that should not have been imposed in the first place.

Being able to access the court system is a right, not something that people should have to pay for. Although the courts need money, this is not the best way to raise it.

Here’s an interesting appellate success story for a defendant. Luis Melendez-Diaz, 32 years old and from Jamaica Plain, was convicted of cocaine trafficking in 2004 in Boston’s very own Suffolk County Superior Court. He appealed on the grounds that Massachusetts law allowed proescutors to present forensic experts’ reports as evidence without allowing him to cross-examine the experts, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2009, they overturned his conviction and sent his case back to be tried again. Today, in his retrial, he was acquitted.

The message? Appealing one’s conviction can work, although it isn’t statistically likely. Melendez-Diaz is still in prison for a drug trafficking conviction in another county, but it does seem like constitutionally, he had a point. Congratulations to him, I guess!

Source: Boston.com

Former police chief Edward Fleury was found not guilty in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi machine gun. Fleury’s role in the death? He was the organizer of the gun show where the tragic accident took place.

Fleury was charged with involuntary manslaughter and three counts of furnishing a machine gun to a minor and was on trial the past few weeks in Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was acquitted of everything.

I think this is the right verdict. Fleury owned the firearms training company that co-sponsored the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. At the event, some children were allowed to fire machine guns under the supervision of a 15-year-old firing range officer who did not have a gun license. But Fleury did not personally give any guns to the boy, Christopher Bizilj. I’m not even sure if he personally decided that kids would be allowed to use Uzis at the show. Of course, it’s tragic that Christopher died, but it isn’t right to search for someone – anyone – to blame when it is truly not anyone’s fault. Firing a machine gun always has risks – as do basically all actions – and it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility of deaths like Christopher’s. Nor, if we want a free society, should we try to.

The two people who brought machine guns to the show are also facing manslaughter charges, but there is a chance the charges will be dropped.

Remember Aiden Quinn, the MBTA subway driver who crashed a green line train while allegedly texting? He pled guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of “gross negligence by a person in control of a common conveyance,” according to the Suffolk County D.A.’s office. He was sentenced to 2 years of probation and 100 hours of community service, although prosecutors had argued for six months in prison.

D.A. Dan Conley criticized the judge’s decision, saying,

“What kind of message does this send to others? This defendant caused $10 million in damages, sent 64 people to the hospital, and shut down the Green Line on a busy spring evening. Why? Because he was trying to send a text message while pulling 80 tons of steel and glass and human lives. The riders on the train trusted him with their safety. This wasn’t an accident. It was the foreseeable consequence of his actions and he should have been punished accordingly.”

I think that probation is a reasonable punishment for Quinn…but shortly after the crash, the MBTA decided to punish all train operators by banning them from even carrying cell phones while on the job, a policy that I think is excessive.

More from the Globe, Herald, and NECN.

Bad:

One word: Massachusetts. The other voters of my state actually thought it would be a good idea to re-elect Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary of State Bill Galvin (who ruled that it was an emergency that Massachusetts only had one senator), Attorney General Martha Coakley (who charged Alexander Pring-Wilson with first-degree murder), and all of the incumbents in Congress. They also thought it would be a good idea to elect Steve Grossman as treasurer and Suzanne Bump (a Democrat whom even the Globe didn’t endorse!) as auditor…and, I almost forgot, to defeat Question 3 and keep the sales tax at 6.25%.

Barney Frank’s victory speech. Although I completely disagree with him politically, I had some respect for Frank as a person before he made this speech. No more. Although he won, and although his opponent, Sean Bielat, was nothing but classy during the campaign, Frank said the following delightful words: “I was very much disappointed in the tenor of the campaign…At least in Massachusetts, we have repudiated unreasoning anger, vituperation, anonymous smears, and that has to be said…the collective campaigns that were run by most Republicans were beneath the dignity of a democracy, and I am delighted than they were repudiated.” He then bashed Bielat for criticizing the odd shape of the district and gave a lecture about how the district was originally gerrymandered by a Republican. You need to watch the speech to understand how incredibly obnoxious it was.

Harry Reid is keeping his seat.

Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative to legailze marijuana, failed.

Good:

Republicans took the House of Representatives! They gained 60 seats, the most since 1948. Nancy Pelosi will no longer be the Speaker of the House, and Barney Frank will no longer be the chair of the financial services committee.

Kelly Ayotte won the Senate race in New Hampshire.

Rand Paul won the Senate race in Kentucky. His dad must be so proud! I am so happy that the two of them will be serving on Capitol Hill together.

The races in Massachusetts were closer than ever before. For example, the Governor’s race was 49% to 42%. Bill Hudak, one of my favorites whom liberals call a radical “kook,” got 43% of the vote. And Question 3 to cut the sales tax got 43% of the vote, while the previous two attempts to eliminate the income tax got only in the 30s. At least all of the races were competitive, instead of Democrats being assured victory and Republicans as unlikely to win as third party candidates are in normal elections.

Question 1. Although the alcohol tax would not be my preferred one to cut if it was my choice, at least Massachusetts voters got rid of one tax.