Via one of the Volokhs (they all look the same, ya know), comes this:

Officers executing a warrant to search for cocaine in respondent Banks’s apartment knocked and announced their authority. The question is whether their 15-to-20- second wait before a forcible entry satisfied the Fourth Amendment and 18 U. S. C. §3109. We hold that it did.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

15 to 20 seconds? I’m sitting at home in my Spiderman Underoos and want to put something nice on for the people knocking at my door. Think I can do it in 15 to 20 seconds? I think maybe the reasonableness of 15 to 20 seconds is a bit off.

18 U. S. C. §3109:

The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

Doesn’t seem anyone could refuse admittance in 15 to 20 seconds either.

Rep. Smith was the target of a bribe. Bigwig, in addition to giving a ton of contact info, tells us what we should be asking Mr. Smith:

“Representative Smith, you stated that you were told that business interests would give your son’s campaign $100,000 in return for your positive vote on the Medicare prescription bill. Essentially, you were an eyewitness to a federal crime, a violation of the United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, ‘Bribery of public officials and witnesses.’ When do you plan on revealing the name of the person or persons who offered you the bribe to law enforcement officials?”

Well, Smith wants his son to play ball so I doubt he’ll reveal such a thing. Or maybe he was making it all up. Another useless politician. Smith: You are not a victim of the problem, you are part of the problem.

Aaron Skeen pleads guilty to avoid death penalty.

Barry Bozeman’s response to being suspended from the Ecosystem for using multiple sitemeters on multiple blogs was to, wait for it, start another blog or two.

Oh my. The hilarity continues.

Big fat update: Via Rich, Barry Bozeman admitted his plan long ago:

Currently you will see that League of Liberals records a large number of visits Most of that is because I have placed an L o L site meter on Rush Limbaughtomy and Mahablog has placed one there as well. Our visits accumulate to L o L.

…

I am mildly concerned about the “ethics” involved in this BUT I have come down on the side of using it because my desire to counter the overwhelming advantage of Conservative Right Wing Bloggers who have larger numbers and a greater pool of priviledged ‘time on their hands computers at their command’ people to draw from. Since what I do is publlc – anyone who looks can see it – I figure it is “fair” in the war for attention in cyberspace. How’s that for a rationalization?.

For a rationalization, it is sad. If you’re ideas don’t sell themselves, then you have to cheat.

Jeff has the latest.

If you ever need reminding why socializing a molosser type dog is important, remember what they are capable of:

But Kevin (the other one) sums it up nicely.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear Silveira v. Lockyer. Hat tip to one of the Volokh’s, who has the scoop.

Update: Via Kevin, comes this article:

The Supreme Court disappointed gun rights groups Monday, refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

The court has never said if the right to “keep and bear arms” applies to individuals.

Wrong. It has said that many times. Continuing . . .

Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

The Bush administration has a history of paying only lip service to gun rights. Bush is as much a friend to gun owners as Clinton was to homosexuals.

And because it happens so much:

The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

You forgot a couple of commas there guys.

Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision.

The Supreme Court continues to avoid issues. It truly has been neutered.

The high court’s last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns.

No it didn’t uphold that. It said that sawn off shotguns had not been proven to relate to the efficacy of a militia.

Kevin has more:

Gun control groups will doubtlessly tout this as “proof” that there’s no individual right to arms, neglecting the fact that that same reasoning would “prove” that there is one, based on SCOTUS’s denial of cert. on U.S. v. Emerson.

So does Clayton Cramer:

Actually, NRA was in opposition to this case going to the Supreme Court. It wasn’t the perfect case, because it involved several different questions:

1. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right?

2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate this right against the states?

3. Are assault weapons included among the protected arms?

Any consistent reading of the evidence–including some of the cases that 9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt cited in his nonsensical decision–would answer #3 with YES. Indeed, the Aymette case that Reinhardt relied upon found that only weapons suited to military duty were constitutionally protected for individual ownership. There are many other problems with Reinhardt’s decision.

Supreme Court justices, however, are not required to be honest or consistent, and I suspect that the prospect of striking down California’s useless assault weapon ban would have caused the the Supreme Court to look for some way to uphold California’s assault weapon ban, leading to at least a NO on #2, and perhaps a NO on #1.

Matt writes (scroll down to WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?):

Here’s an interesting article about how a man in Alaska was convicted of jury tampering for attempting to inform prospective jurors about jury nullification.

I assume that one reason many lawyers (including judges) don’t like jury nullification is that it takes the law out of the hands of the “professionals.”

Funny how the system keeps fighting jury nullifications. What are they afraid of?

Guess what! Gun laws do not reduce violent crime. The CDC said that too.

#8 is hosted by RTB’s own Bill Hobbs.

FoxNews:

More than 100 prisoners will be released from U.S. custody at the detainment camp in Guantanamo Bay (search), Cuba, and more will follow, military officials said.

It wasn’t clear if the men and boys to be transferred from Guantanamo would face further detention or prosecution in their own countries. The first of two new transfers is scheduled for the end of December, and the other in January, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The official did not say where the prisoners would be sent and a military spokeswoman declined Sunday to provide details about future transfers from the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

They’ve figured out who Bubba is. Yahoo News:

What’s in a name? If you’re the former Raymond Allen Gray Jr., only one word — Bubba.

The 39-year-old Springfield native legally changed his name last month to reflect his childhood nickname. His new first name? Bubba. His new middle name? Bubba. One guess what his new last name is.

“I kind of like to laugh and joke, and it’s something silly to kind of poke fun with,” Bubba Bubba Bubba said.

The name change won’t be hard to get used to because he has long been known as “Bubba” or “Bubby” Gray, he said.

“My dad called me Buddy, and it got switched to Bubby. Some of the kids couldn’t pronounce Buddy too well, so they said Bubby, and it just stuck,” he said.

The Daily Times reports that the County reported its highest legal bill ever and is thinking about hiring a legal position.

The increased costs wouldn’t have to do with consultation on that God resolution nonsense, would they?

A growing number of women in Tennessee are carrying concealed handguns. Good. Neat facts:

Most states have found that the number of approved permits eventually settles at a level equal to 2 percent to 5 percent of the population. There are just over 137,000 valid handgun permits in Tennessee, which is about 2.5 percent of the population.

Congress, without debate, unanimously passed a ban on plastic guns.