WHEN ANTIBIOTICS DON’T WORK: This sounds promising. Let’s hope it pans out.

UPDATE: Link was bad before. Works now. Sorry!

“LIKE WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT:” An appropriate motto for the National Sarcasm Society.

I actually hear it in the voice of SpongeBob’s “Squidward,” but that’s probably just me.

THE JIM WEBB / PHILLIP THOMPSON GUN ARREST STORY has had the salutary effect of bringing more attention to the District of Columbia’s silly gun laws. The Washington Post headlines its story this way: You Can Bring Gun to Capitol, But Not Through D.C. and observes:

The arrest this week of Phillip Thompson, an aide to Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) who carried a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, brought to light a contradiction between the regulations governing the Capitol grounds and the laws covering District streets.

The Capitol grounds are federal property and not subject to the District’s strict gun laws, which generally prohibit firearms.

Although some people are allowed to bring guns into the Capitol, they cannot legally get them there, said Lt. Jon Shelton, the longtime head of the D.C. police department’s gun unit.

“They can’t helicopter them in,” Shelton said.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer said he would advise lawmakers to “abide by D.C. laws” when not on Capitol grounds. He said members of Congress who want guns at the Capitol should ask police to transport the weapons for them.

Jeez. Though it seems to me that this may violate the right-to-travel provisions of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. I’m not an expert here, but I doubt that the D.C. police are, either.

Meanwhile, Timothy Noah, in Slate, parses Webb’s statements and observes:

To one of the reporters present, this sounded as though Webb were saying not only that he carried a gun with him when he was in Virginia, where it’s legal, but also that he carried a gun with him when he was in D.C., where it’s not. (D.C.’s handgun ban was recently struck down by the D.C. Court of Appeals, but it remains in force while the city government seeks a review by the full D.C. Circuit.) The reporter therefore asked, “Do you, senator, feel that you are above Washington, D.C.’s gun law?” Webb replied: “I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security.” Webb then reaffirmed his belief in the Second Amendment; said he couldn’t comment on any aspect of Thompson’s case; denied, bafflingly, that he ever gave the weapon to Thompson (Did that mean he gave it to another aide who in turn gave it to Thompson?); and stated, most bafflingly of all, “I have never carried a gun in the Capitol complex.” Was Webb saying he’s carried a gun elsewhere in the District of Columbia? His office won’t answer that question.

Webb’s silence increases the suspicion that he either has broken or continues to break the D.C. law, more or less daring the local authorities to do anything about it. That could be posturing; as Dana Milbank points out in the March 28 Washington Post, nobody ever lost a vote in the state of Virginia by thumbing his nose at gun control. Legally, though, Webb’s evasiveness constitutes probable cause, entitling the next D.C. cop Webb encounters within city limits (but outside the Capitol) to frisk him. That’s probably the last thing D.C.’s new mayor, Adrian Fenty, and his new chief of police, Cathy Lanier, would like to see happen. I therefore recommend that Fenty or Lanier phone Webb and ask the senator straight out whether he intends in the future to obey D.C.’s gun laws. (Figuring out whether Webb has broken these laws in the past is the job of Thompson’s prosecutors.) If Webb answers anything other than “yes,” then Lanier should dispatch a police officer to frisk Webb at the senator’s next public appearance outside the Capitol. If Webb is carrying a handgun, that police officer should arrest him. Sounds absurd, I know. But how can the D.C. government do otherwise while on a daily basis it arrests less-well-dressed young black men for the very same offense?

There’s a solution to these absurdities — adopt a sensible gun law in Washington, D.C. The laws of neighboring Virginia — or, heck, Tennessee — would provide a good model. That would make it easy and legal for law-abiding citizens to carry guns, without having to rely on the political clout of being a U.S. Senator to avoid police harassment. After all, reliance on that sort of clout isn’t very populist.

Webb has said he’s for liberal laws on gun carriage, and, I believe, for national reciprocity laws that would make states recognize one another’s carry permits. So let’s see less talk about legislation on the subject and more action. Then we won’t have to worry about this sort of thing happening again.

On a humorous note, elsewhere in Slate Webb’s comments are parsed differently: “Coincidentally, in the new film Shooter, Ned Beatty plays a U.S. senator who says, ‘I don’t carry a gun,’ and then pulls out a Beretta 92.”

UPDATE: The gunnies weigh in! First, a humorous comment from reader George Lukes:

Ned Beatty’s character spoke the truth. He wasn’t carrying a gun, only a poorly designed gun wannabe, the Beretta 92.

Ouch! There are people who like ’em, but I’d prefer a Sig, a Glock, or a model 1911 .45. Still, it’s a gun, sort of. And reader Michael Seifert writes:

Some observations I have not seen elsewhere.

1. Isn’t part of this story irresponsibility? As a former Boy Scout Marksman, I was drilled on not only the proper shooting of a firearm, but it’s handling, transportation and storage. A loaded handgun has only two places to be. On your person under immediate control, or in a locked case. Some would argue the locked case should never contain a loaded weapon. Carrying a loaded weapon in a shopping bag, backpack or briefcase is, to me, the height of irresponsibility on the part of the owner. Once Jim Webb surrendered his personal control of the weapon, it should have been secured AND unloaded. I would like to hear him explain that!

2. Congress members are free from arrest going to and from legislative business. Combine that with the 2nd amendment and I think the DC police would not be well advised to try to enforce what looks like a shaky law.

But the part that bugs me the most is the lack of gun owner’s responsibility.

That may be a little strong, but this was not good practice. If Webb’s too busy and distracted to take care of his gun — not implausible for a Senator — then he shouldn’t carry one. This is why busy, distracted people who can afford them hire bodyguards. Even if you possess all the skills to defend yourself, if you can’t properly implement them in your daily life you’re better off recognizing that fact. On the other hand anyone — even professional bodyguards, like the one working for Edward Kennedy who got caught with an illegal submachine gun in the Capitol — can suffer a lapse of attention.

As for the immunity claim, I don’t think it works, as the privilege against arrest extends to all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Illegal guns are a felony in the District; I’m not sure, but I think that illegally carrying a gun may qualify as a breach of the peace. I wouldn’t advise Webb to rely on that, anyway . . . .

And it’s not necessarily bad news for Webb on the political front. As Dave Hardy observes: “I thought Webb showed great potential for becoming the Right Sort of Democrat, and this tends to confirm it.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Shakey Pete wonders who the gun belongs to.

SLUMS RULED BY MILITIAS: It’s a quagmire! Pull out!

Oh, wait, it’s in Rio de Janeiro. As someone with family in Nigeria, it’s been clear to me that some — not all — of Iraq’s problems are unfortunately typical of third world countries with weak social contracts, and will likely persist regardless of how the war goes. That’s not to say that Baghdad is no worse than, say, Lagos — but in Lagos, armed criminal gangs, kidnappings, murder, etc. are shockingly common and uncontrolled. And in Nigeria’s Delta region there’s basically guerrilla war over oil already. Sadly, Iraq probably already has a better government and military than Nigeria, so that if the insurgency ended tomorrow Baghdad would probably be better than Lagos. Heck, it might be as good as Rio. But it wouldn’t be as good as even a badly-governed, gang-infested, crime-ridden American city like, say, Washington, DC.

Via The Belmont Club, which observes: “One way to recognize a failing state is to examine the extent to which its cities are subdividing into gated communities. “

HOUSE REPUBLICANS FINALLY UNITE AGAINST SPENDING: Well, the Democratic congress has already accomplished something that the Republican Congress couldn’t manage . . . .

JENNIFER RUBIN LOOKS AT PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the case in which the D.C. Circuit struck D.C.’s gun ban. She puts it in the context of a bigger picture:

Peter Ferrara of the ACRU takes a more philosophical and historical view of the potential long-range implications of the case. He remarks that if Parker is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will “be a big shot in the arm for conservatives” and will demonstrate that “we have had an impact on the courts and on changing the judiciary.” He notes that the effort to achieve recognition of an individual right of gun ownership has been an undertaking of more than fifty years of research, scholarship, and support for conservative judges. He explains that what was once considered a “radical” position — recognition of an individual right to gun ownership — has now attracted support even from liberal scholars like Laurence Tribe and has been accepted by a prominent federal appeals court. Ferrara says that conservatives should remember that these jurisprudential efforts are “not short term fights.” As for the impact on 2008, he reminds conservatives that “this is no time to be discouraged” with at least two justices who could be potentially replaced by the next president.

These battles are long-term affairs. When I teach Brown v. Board of Education, I always stress to my students the lengthy run-up to that case, in which Charles Houston, Thurgood Marshall, and other NAACP attorneys laid the ground for the ultimate win. As the gay-rights lawyers learned in Bowers v. Hardwick, trying to rush this process tends not to work.

I’VE WONDERED ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING MYSELF: “Does Iran have a network of sleeper cells inside the United States that could strike us if we bomb their nuclear facilities?”

INDEED: “Why have so many journalists been saying that Faye (Topsy) Turney ‘admitted’ the British sailors trespassed into Iranian waters? That implies that it’s true, but she’s obviously under duress. She said it. That’s all.”

REDSTATE IS SENDING TWO BLOGGERS TO IRAQ, and wants your help in funding the trip.

MORE ON BUDGET POLITICS, from the D.C. Examiner:

Something else Democrats should be more upfront about is the 30 “reserve funds” in the draft 2008 budget. A reserve fund is a sort of legislative hidden-ball trick that authorizes Congress to spend additional billions on favored programs so long as either spending elsewhere in the government is reduced or taxes are increased by an equivalent amount. For example, Section 306 of the draft 2008 budget includes a reserve fund worth an additional $15 billion in farm aid. But does anybody seriously think Congress will reduce spending somewhere else by $15 billion? Whoops, here comes another tax hike!

As we’ve asked before and will no doubt ask again, why can’t Washington politicians just tell us the truth?

Er, because if people knew what they were really doing, they’d be tarred and feathered? Just a guess . . . .

HOWARD KURTZ:

For months, Barack Obama got the kind of glowing media coverage that most candidates could only fantasize about.

But now that he’s a full-fledged presidential candidate, he’s starting to get nicked a bit. This was utterly predictable, and is part of the process. You don’t get to be a party’s nominee without an intensive media audit, especially if you haven’t been a national figure who has been vetted in the past.

As he notes, however, some lefty bloggers are squealing, though rather unpersuasively. I like Obama (and I remember a delightful email exchange with his campaign manager back when he was running against Alan Keyes) but his record is pretty thin, and you can expect people to look at him as closely as they can — in part because of all the hype. And that’s good. If he has any big problems, they’re sure to come out before the election. Better for the Democrats if they come out now, rather than in October of 2008.

AUSTIN BAY ON IRAN’S LATEST HOSTAGE GAMBLE: If Jimmy Carter had responded firmly to the first one, we would be facing a lot less misbehavior from Iran today.

Still, Bay observes: “But this latest hostage-taking incident smacks of desperation, not revolutionary fervor.”

MISSING IN ACTION: The “human rights community.”

Their outrage seems to be reserved for situations that benefit the enemies of civilization.

“MCCAIN STANDS IN THE GAP:” I’ve noticed a lot of people who haven’t been huge McCain fans taking a shine to him because of his strong stand on Iraq.

APPARENTLY, BLOGGER STILL SUCKS: The Insta-Wife is in the next room cursing, as Blogger just ate a post she’d put a couple of hours’ work into. Why doesn’t it have the auto-save feature that Gmail has?

ANOTHER REASON TO LIKE FRED THOMPSON: James Dobson doesn’t like him.

UPDATE: “I’m willing to overlook that.”

TAKING ON “AMERICAPHOBIA:” It’s about time someone did. . . .

DIANNE FEINSTEIN RESIGNS from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.

UPDATE: Moe Lane: “I question the timing.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: “As big as Duke Cunningham.”

Then why isn’t it getting more attention?

DANA MILBANK SAYS THAT JIM WEBB IS EXECUTING A CUT AND RUN — not over Iraq, but over the fate of his aide Phillip Thompson:

If Webb seemed to be enjoying the moment a bit too much, that’s probably because a Virginia politician has never lost an election for loving guns too much. But Phillip Thompson, who carried the weapon, derived rather less pleasure from the incident.

Thompson — a.k.a. “Lockup No. 1” — spent 28 hours in the slammer after walking into the Russell building Monday morning with a gun and two loaded magazines in his briefcase. Two hours after Webb’s performance in front of the cameras, Thompson — sandwiched between drug cases and domestic disputes — made his appearance in the foul-smelling arraignment room at D.C. Superior Court. He had a 5 o’clock shadow and a new pair of leg irons to accessorize his rumpled business suit. Ordered to stand in a box marked off with frayed duct tape, he must have been too stunned to answer when the judge asked if he understood the charges. . . .

Webb even hinted that he ignores the District law requiring handguns to be registered. Asked if he considered himself above D.C. law, he said: “I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security,” he said.

The senator was less forthcoming in his defense of Thompson. “He is going to be arraigned today,” Webb said. “I do not in any way want to prejudice his case and the situation that he’s involved in.”

Prejudice the case? But wasn’t it Webb’s gun that his aide was carrying for him?

Webb wouldn’t even acknowledge it was his gun. “I have never carried a gun in the Capitol complex, and I did not give the weapon to Phillip Thompson,” he stipulated.

Webb had kind words for his aide — “a longtime friend” and “a fine individual” — but he seemed to be trying to cut Thompson loose as he spoke of the incident.

That doesn’t seem right. If the gun was Webb’s, and it was all an accident, — and I can’t think of any other likely explanation — why doesn’t Webb make things clear? Am I missing something here?

DIVESTMENT: Will California take on the mullahs? “Today California will become the first state to decide whether or not it will continue to do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State Assembly will hear proposed legislation (AB-221) by Republican Joel Anderson of El Cajon, and Democrat Jose Solorio of Anaheim that will require state pension funds to divest from companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL makes itself even more of a joke by excluding Iran and Uzbekistan from consideration.

UPDATE: Read this post, too.

MORE ON SPACE JUNK, from the Smithsonian’s Air and Space magazine.

UPDATE: Link was wrong before. Fixed now. Sorry!

YET ANOTHER DUMB INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWSUIT: “The company that licensed the US rights to Orwell’s 1984 don’t really understand copyright, so they’re threatening the people who made the now-infamous Hillary Clinton/Apple 1984-ad mashup.”

PAJAMAS MEDIA BLOGGERS Omar and Mohammed Fadhil quoted by President Bush.

ALSO, THERE’S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN TOBACCO AND LUNG CANCER:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack gave Sen. Hillary Clinton his endorsement for her presidential campaign.

The Clinton campaign has promised Vilsack to help pay off a $400,000 campaign debt he built up during his run for the White House. . . .

The campaign said there is no connection between Vilsack’s endorsement and their commitment to help pay off his campaign debt.

Oh, well. (Via Best of the Web).