AFP (Breitbard.com) | US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from “collapse.”

“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision “to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”

Bush’s comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.

“I am sorry we’re having to do it,” Bush said. Bush said….<<<Read the Full Story>>>

Of course, things look entirely different to members of “free-market advocacy groups,” as they like to be called. One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment and anti-regulation views are embodied in her best-selling novels “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” Indeed, Greenspan himself was a friend of Rand’s, and a devotee of her extreme free-market philosophy…[Read Full Article]

Gennady Zyuganov told the party’s annual congress the Communists should make maximum use of the growing public discontent caused by the economic downturn to try to restore their political strength.

“The wind of history is blowing in our sails again … At this time of crisis the world of imperialism is starting to die. We are standing on the threshold of political and social shifts,” Zyuganov said in a 2-hour speech opening the congress.

Russia’s Communists ruled the Soviet Union for eight decades and remained a major opposition force for several years after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991.

But the party has since lost much of its authority and many analysts say it is too weak to seriously challenge for power.

The Russian authorities are trying to minimise the impact of the financial crisis by promising billions of dollars of state aid. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has pledged higher social payments to the needy and lower taxes for business.

“The authorities are clearly not coping with managing the country … A mass social protest is brewing and it is hard to predict now when and in what shape it will explode,” Zyuganov said.>>>>Read the Full Article

The staunch leftist said the world financial crisis had forced his U.S. counterpart to recognize flaws in the economic system that he had been pointing out for years.

“I am sounding like Bush, more or less. What a novelty!” Chavez said, after quoting from Bush’s warning that the United States was in the middle of a serious financial crisis that could push the economy into a long-term recession.

He then serenaded startled journalists before settling back into more familiar criticism of the “imperialist” regime he said had brought the current crisis upon itself.

“The president of the United States has finally recognized there is a crisis…that they are the ones who are responsible for the collapse that is happening the in world at the moment, the financial tsunami,” he told a news conference in Beijing.

“Socialism is the only route to the salvation of the world.”

Outspoken Chavez says Venezuela’s socialist economic system, based around state-owned national champions, has protected it from the worst of the turmoil now roiling global markets.

The self-proclaimed Maoist was in China to boost oil sales and secure extra cash for development programs in China.

Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

With its low price focus, Wal-Mart may appear to help the U.S. economy. But, the reality is that with its poor wages and benefits, massive China sourcing and tax avoidance, Wal-Mart makes its workers and the communities where it operates poorer.

How is it possible for a company that hands out millions of paychecks every year to be “making its workers and the communities where it operates poorer”? No matter how small the paycheck and benefits are, can you actually become poorer by getting paid? Would even a 10-cent paycheck not make you 10 cents richer than you were before? If you could magically wave your hand and make the Wal-Mart disappear from your neighborhood, would people suddenly start becoming wealthier? Maybe the writer believes that unemployment benefits and other government programs are the key to wealth.

Think about what even a small raise for Wal-Mart’s 1 million+ workers would mean nationally, or what it would mean to your city or town if everyone at your local Wal-Mart got a raise.

What a great idea! Here, the writer, from the perspective of someone outside the relationship between Wal-Mart and its workers, proposes changing the terms of employment for the good of the community. He doesn’t bother to ask how to accomplish it, nor does he consider any consequences other than the presumed benefit to the people as a whole. In this mentality, it is assumed that the costs of such an idea will simply be borne by the wealthy, who have enough already and can afford to give more to everyone else. Presuming a beneficial outcome for “the people” is supposedly justification enough. Readers of Atlas Shrugged will immediately recognize this philosophy, and the consequences of imposing it on the producers of value by force.

As our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company, Wal-Mart is a singular American institution. It occupies a unique position in our world by virtue of its size, reach and responsibility for the livelihoods of millions of workers and the needs of billions of consumers. And with such overwhelming influence comes certain moral responsibilities. It is the acceptance or rejection of those responsibilities that determines greatness.

There is both praise and damnation in this statement, acknowledging Wal-Mart’s success while simultaneously using that status as tool of condemnation. These words embody the very morality of the modern socialist mentality. It is a sentiment that views profit as guilt, a burden to be relieved by giving it to others. It is the claim that the degree of one’s success is the degree of one’s indebtedness to others – that it is an indication not of the value one has created, but of a debt owed to society by virtue of its ability to do so. Here, greatness is measured by obedience to “certain moral responsibilities”, which are unnamed, undefinable, and subject to no standard other than the self-loathing of the moocher. No recognition is made of the effort required to succeed, only demands made of the fruits of those efforts – as if such fruits were simply a matter of luck and required better allocation.

Ironically, if a person were to win the lottery, few would claim that the prize should be redistributed to all those who weren’t lucky enough to win (despite the fact that those winnings were created from the pockets of all those who participated freely). But when the prize is earned through value creation and free exchange (from the pockets of the customers of Wal-Mart), many call for the profits to be more “fairly spread”. Such a mentality rewards gambling and penalizes effort, and breeds the idea that the lottery is a fair game where no one wins at the expense of others, while mercantile exchange is a dirty business.

Wal-Mart has rejected those responsibilities and because of that choice, the money spent there does nothing of what it could to strengthen our economy. Higher salaries, quality affordable healthcare and paying what they owe like any good American, are just three things Wal-Mart can do tomorrow that will make them a company worthy of our money.

By ignoring the debate about whether government handouts (taken from the taxpayers or from the printing presses) are even capable of “strengthening our economy”, and proclaiming the presumed evils of Wal-Mart, this writer has successfully avoided any meaningful discourse on how to effectively stimulate any economy. In the process, he has revealed his true agenda: to discourage people from shopping at Wal-Mart due to their failure to adhere to the moral standards of the moochers and looters.

Conclusion:

At the core of this argument is the presumption that if everyone who worked for and shopped at Wal-Mart knew (as the writer claims) the “hidden costs” of doing business with Wal-Mart, they would cease to do so on moral grounds. The fact that millions of people choose freely to accept wages and purchase goods from Wal-Mart is the greatest evidence of the morality of its business, and a far greater indicator than the complaints of this writer. As is usually the case in the socialist mindset, the writer presumes to know better than millions of free individuals how best to use their resources (even their own labor) – and given the power (of government), would likely use force against the villain he condemns, claiming to do so “for the good of the people”. And like every other well-meaning tyrant in history, would ignore the evidence and the freedom of the actions of “the people” for their own sakes.

If Wal-Mart – or any company – is not in the business of creating value for its employees and its customers, it will not be in business very long. Thus Wal-Mart’s success is evidence of the value it has created (Principle 6: Profit is the Tool of Validation). As long as its business does not rely on force or deception in its transactions, whether for wage labor or for cheap laundry soap, there can be no greater statement of the value it provides to each individual and thus, to our economy as a whole, than this confession by the writer:

“…our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company”

Action Steps:

• Examine your relationship with the people and companies you do business with – are your dealings with them voluntary, and free of force or deception?
• Write a letter to the editor in your local newspaper in support of those businesses (big or small) that are successful as a result of the value they create for you.
• Research what laws are being proposed in your community (from the city council to the state legislature) that seek to control prices, wages, or other terms of free exchange. Contact your representative and express your opinion.

MRFC Principles: 6 (5,7,8,9)

References:

Why Wal-Mart Does Not Strengthen Our Economy – by David Nassar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nassar/why-wal-mart-does-not-str_b_99463.html

Key Points

• Rand teaches, “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” In other words, the person who put forth this Human Life Value should be the rightful owner of his efforts.
• The Internet exists in name only, for it is merely a system of wires, hardware, and software, no matter how high tech; all assembled by individuals and therefore individually owned, operated and maintained. The government neither owns nor controls these devices collectively.
• There are many levels of ownership involved with the Internet. For example, those who own the servers, routers, cables, etc; and those who own the intellectual property stored and transmitted on these devices.
• An individual user owns the data he created, an email for example. He is simply renting the rest. He therefore has no more right to those devices than a driver on the road has a right to owning the guardrail or the lines painted on the street.
• Though acting more like a pipeline than hauling buckets, the transmission of data through this web of communication is only facilitated by the work of human hands.
• Ayn Rand explained, “It is the proper task of the government to protect individual rights and, as part of it, to formulate the laws by which these rights are to be implemented and adjudicated. It is the government’s responsibility to define the application of individual rights to a given sphere of activity—to define (i.e., identify), not to create, invent, donate, or expropriate.” In other words, if the dispute over ISPs discriminating between pieces of data does come to government’s doors, government should ask one question: “Whose property is this?” When the owner is sufficiently found, government should then say, “Great. All the rest of you, do what the owner says.”
• However, there is a great sickness in our land. It is the sickness of collectivism. Too many people believe in the mantra what’s yours is mine. Dunbar reported beautifully on this when he quoted Justine Bateman, the TV actress, “The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your amterial or allow quick access is appalling.” A closer look at this statement reveals an entitlement attitude regarding activity on the Internet, and a lack of understanding of how the web works.
• A great way to sort this out is to return to the first statement: “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” With this it becomes understandable that individuals own the Internet and it is their agency and stewardship to manage data traffic the way they see best. If customers are dissatisfied, they have the right to seek out a more satisfying Provider and become their customer. If data traffic is handled inefficiently, the market will decide who stays in business, and who finds a different line of work. This is as it should be.

Conclusion

Just as radio revolutionized the way we communicate, the Internet has revolutionized that revolution, making the availability of information almost instantaneous around the world. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, how we do business, how we store information, how we pass time. Properly understanding the hard lines of property ownership will aid each one of us in acting appropriately in this matter. The government’s role is not to demand fairness, as seen in the eyes of those who would rob others of their hard work, but rather to insure that the lines defining ownership are clearly drawn and that those who would cross those lines are duly dealt with. Anything else is an abuse of power.

Action Items

1. Review Ayn Rand’s “The Property Status of Airwaves” (p. 122–129 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Decide how her message applies to the question of Internet use and government restrictions.
2. In questions of “Is it good to do _____” (i.e., Is it good to demand that ISPs treat each bit of data equally?), start asking, “Whose property is ______?” Then act accordingly.
3. Evaluate your own life. Identify areas where you may have misunderstood the principle of property rights. Resolve to change your perspective regarding property rights.

MRFC Principles: 13 (11, 12, 13)

Resources

John Dunbar, “Senators Debate Future of Web” AP, Yahoo! News, April 22, 2008.

Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet, 1967. pp. 122–129.

Key Points:

• Increased use of food crops for fuel production has reduced the amount sold for human consumption, resulting in price increases (supply & demand).
• Where bio-fuels have been more profitable than selling crops for food, some farmers have chosen to sell their crops to the fuel producers.
• Government price controls on food commodities have limited the profit possible to farmers, incentivizing them to seek other markets for their product.
• Government subsidies for bio-fuel production have distorted the economic value of food crops by creating an artificial demand (using tax dollars to stimulate production in the place of buyer dollars, which would demonstrate true demand).
• Acute shortages of subsidized bread, which is sold at less than one U.S. cent a loaf, have caused hours-long lines and violence at some sites in poor neighborhoods in Egypt in recent weeks.
• The supply of subsidized bread has been decreasing. Many people in Egypt believe subsidized bakeries sell some of their flour on the black market rather than make bread.
• Egypt has long been one of the top importers of U.S. wheat, but its U.S. purchases have been falling as it searches for cheaper sellers on the world market, where prices have tripled in the last 10 months.
• Some have criticized the use of food crops for fuel as “uncaring” and an example of “lopsided priorities”, due to the effect it has had on food prices, making it more difficult for poorer people to purchase basic foodstuffs.

Commentary

Not surprisingly, those who are suffering the consequences of government manipulation of the free market are the first to cry for the government to manipulate it further. This mentality believes that all costs are determined by the power of huge corporations, greedy middlemen, and government regulators – thus creating the illusion that the economy is simply a constant struggle between greedy businessmen and “the public” (represented by government protectors), waging price wars, with both sides continually seeking the upper hand. This illusion, during times of economic hardship, leads to the cry for government to be given greater powers to control commerce and trade, and to set “fair” prices.

What is not seen or heard in this debate is the fact that in a free exchange, the price of the product is decided mutually by the buyer and seller. Absent force, neither party can demand the other buy or sell the product – they must mutually agree. Thus, a general rise in the price of a commodity would indicate that someone is willing to pay more for it, and is doing so. Attempts to manipulate such an exchange through force will always result in its collapse, for the buyer will refuse to sell (reducing the amount of product available) and the seller will refuse to buy (creating a surplus in product available). These forces cannot be changed by government edict, and those who clamor for the force of government to be exercised to impose their opinions on what should be sold for what purpose and for how much will reap the consequences of history – shortages, recession, and general economic collapse.

In a real sense, what is being demanded by those who condemn the use of food crops for bio-fuel, is that each individual farmer should not be allowed to sell the fruits of his labor for the best price he can ask. He should be constrained to use his crops only for the benefit of those determined to be “in need” – by selling it only for food use and only at a price that is deemed “fair” by those who are demanding it from him. Such a policy can only be implemented through force, and has only one possible outcome. Eventually, the farmer will cease to produce when it is no longer profitable for him to do so under the coercive terms of the “public good” – and when that happens, there will be no food to buy at any price, no matter how great the need.

In the case of food crops and bio-fuels, both sides of the equation have been manipulated by tyrants – those who wish to control the direction of the fuel industry, and those who wish to mandate the value of a simple food product. Both distortions have aggravated what might have a been a simpler development in our modern economy. When men are free to exchange, temporary disruptions like those created by the invention of bio-fuels are quickly adjusted to, and self-interested people are quick to fill the needs and desires of others, for a profit. And that motivation, whether you revile it or not, is truly what fuels the economic activity of every person on the planet.

Action Steps

1. Read “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman (available in the F.C. Primer).
2. Ask a local farmer what determines the sale price and use of the crops he produces.
3. Research the recent trends in the commodity markets – do you know the cost of the sources of your food?
4. Email your congressman and ask his/her opinion about the U.S. Farm Bill.
5. Read “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat – How does the concept of “legal plunder” apply to the issues of production, free exchange, government subsidies, price controls, and other economic manipulation?

MRFC Principles: (6, 7, 8, 9, 11)

Resources
Indian minister attacks biofuels
BBC – March 26, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7315308.stm

Egypt tries to tackle deadly bread crisis. CNN – March 4, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/24/egypt.bread.riot.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world

Key Points:

• In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation attempting to combat childhood obesity.
• In an effort to comply, Victorville schools have removed all candy from vending machines and replaced it with “healthier items” such as baked chips, granola bars, and juices.
• Some students reportedly fill their backpacks full of candy bars and Twinkies and even energy drinks, bringing to school a veritable convenience store on their backs to sell to fellow students. This has become quite the black market economy for many of the students, some earning upwards of $40 a day.
• Local school principals and teachers report seeing just as much junk food as before.
• The students, if caught selling the candy, are punished with detention and confiscation.
• The solution, according to officials reported in the news article, is for parents to put lunch money on special lunch account cards that can only be redeemed at the school cafeteria, and that way the parents will know their children are getting a healthy meal at school instead of spending lunch money on candy and junk.
• A quick check of physical education scores and a good look at the children reveals that the ban is not working, reported one principal.

Conclusion:

Though it may be smart for individuals not to eat so much candy, pop and junk food, a ban in the schools does not solve the problem. Children can still obtain such items elsewhere and bring them into the halls for sale and personal consumption. Furthermore, this is a microcosm of a greater problem in society where perception determines the action of individuals. Parents seem to have abdicated teaching their children correct principles, perhaps even contributing to the problem of unhealthy eating in their own homes. So, when collective authority exercises dominion in improper places the behavior simply goes underground and the desired results do not manifest. Simply put, the government cannot control eating behavior; it cannot force people to eat more healthy. It is not within the confines of its proper role to do such and should therefore distance itself from such coercive tactics. Rather, it may use its bully pulpit to educate its citizens and help them to gain a better perspective about nutrition, but this is best done without the aid of a gun.

Upon first glance of this article it appeared that the topic would be the favorite behavior of government schools to ban any semblance of capitalist behavior within their walls. However, the article concentrated more on the effects of the ban and subsequent underground behavior on their health and freedom than on the kids actually selling the items to one another.

The instigators of this ban on junk food mean well. They sincerely want the upcoming generation to be healthy and strong. They do not recognize that the techniques they are using are tyrannical and improper. They wish to be obeyed because they know better and it is for the children’s good. They simply do not recognize that they are using force because they do not understand the full ramifications of their own behavior. In this case, if they would learn correct principles themselves, they could then use those principles to guide their children and students in the proper way to behave regarding nutrition. And it could be done without compulsory means.

Action Steps:

1. Review “The Proper Role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson
2. Since perspective determines action, review proper nutrition principles in a family council meeting with your children. Teach them correct principles and help them to govern themselves.
3. Visit your children’s schools and see if there is a similar ban which has caused underground activity. Discuss with school officials better, more effective ways of accomplishing the desired behavior.

Reference(s):

Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Source: Victorville Daily Press, “Students turn Profit from Candy Sales.”
Author: Rachel Byrd
MRFC Principles: (4, 9, 11)

Key Points:

• The text of the 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”
• There is an argument over the meaning of the amendment. Does the “right” belong to a group of citizens – belonging to a well regulated Militia (such as the National Guard) or does the “right’ belong to all individuals?
• The Supreme Court has not ruled on these questions on the 200+ year history of the country. The current case is District of Columbia v. Heller.
• All Circuit Courts to rule so far on the question have found that the right is NOT an individual right.
• The Founders suggested that it was an individual right, as with all rights.
• Consider:

“Many Americans do not even realize that they belong to the militia of their state. They confuse their state militia with the National guard, which is a specialized reserve corps in each state trained at federal expense for immediate service. Under Title 10 [Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 paragraph (a)] of the U.S. Code, the militia of each state includes “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become, [citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United STates who are members of the National Guard.” (Skousen, W. Cleon. Making of America. Page 694 – with corrections).

• The biggest disagreement is over the term “the People.” To the Founders this term was generally used to mean the entire collection of individual citizens, “none omitted.” In our day the term has been socialized and is used by the government to mean generally, “the people” in general where specific exclusions are allowable as determined by the Government. This is Karl Marx’s philosophy of social control by “the people” through Government – rendering the term “public” and “the people” to be alternative forms of the word “Government.”
• Many State Constitutions have incorporated the “Right to Bear Arms” but have clarified it as an individual right.

Action Steps:

1. Read Principle 219 in Dr. W. Cleon Skousen’s “Making of America.”
2. Memorize a quote from one of the Founding Fathers related to this discussion to have at your disposal for common discussion.
3. Research what it requires in your State to carry a firearm (concealed or not concealed). Obtain a permit if desired.
4. Contact your Congressional representative and your State Senator’s office to see where they stand on the issue of “individual vs. collective” rights related to firearms.
5. Research your own legal & ethical responsiblities related to being a member (or an eligible member of your family / circle of friends) of the unorganized militia of your State.
6. Contact your Governor’s Office and your State elected officials representing you to identify where they stand on the issue. Prepare a one page summary of what you learn as a result of these action items and mail it to each of these officials in a letter form – requesting their feedback.
7. Create a family and friends quiz on the following questions – research the answers and discuss them with your family/friends after having them take the quiz…
   1. Where in the Constitution of the United States is the individual citizen’s right to bear arms (own and carry firearms and other weapons) protected?
   2. How do we know that this is an individual right rather than a collective right for specific groups like State organized militia such as the National Guard?
   3. Why would the individual citizen in the United States “need” or “want” to own and carry firearms? Isn’t police force the only appropriate place for domestic use of firearms?
   4. What is the actual result of gun control laws in America since the mid 1850s? What is the inherent flaw in these laws?
   5. What is the consequence of disarming the citizenry – short term & long term?
   6. What is the legal definition of the state militia & who are each state’s militia?
   7. How many times has the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment being an individual right of citizens?
   8. What is the difference between the “right to bear arms” in general and owning a particular type of firearm like a hunting rifle, a pistol or a machine gun?
   9. What is currently required in your State if you’d like to have a weapon concealed or unconcealed on your person? In your car?
   10. What is the name of the current case pending before the Supreme Court on the subject?

Resource(s):

Date: Monday March 17, 2008
Source: Washington Post – “D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court”
Author: Robert Barnes
MRFC Principles: (11, 12, 13)