Snowflakes in Hell

So the other day I highlighted a candidate for Congress who doesn’t have a chance. Then I pondered why Bob Brady wanted her off the ballot – I assumed it was because his ego was too fat to allow anyone else on it.

In all of that, I assumed her campaign didn’t have much money. Well, I still think that political reality shows this is an more than an uphill battle for Pia – more like climbing the Alps – but I was wrong about the resources in her attempt at a PR coup. She has full page ads in both Philadelphia papers today. They stop you in your tracks, and they get right to heart of matter – “Hate Philly Politics?”

Damn straight, people do hate it. And clearly enough people hate it to help her buy some these ads. And hopefully these ads will lead to more volunteers and votes.

I don’t know if y’all have noticed, but Obama really enjoys coming to the Philadelphia area. He’s here often enough that when Sebastian complains about all the cops out when he drives to or from work, we can safely assume that Obama is here.

I think I just figured out why that is. It’s not because the City of Brotherly Love is showed him so much love in the last election (in the form of men armed with batons blocking polling places). It’s because the stench of Democratic corruption must remind him of Chicago.

For those who have forgotten, Obama won his first campaign unopposed. Which is interesting considering there was a sitting Democratic incumbent who did not retire. He challenged all of her signatures to get her thrown off the ballot – along with any other competitors.

The intriguing campaign I mentioned yesterday is facing a similar problem. Only instead of her being an incumbent, she’s a political newbie who has no shot of winning the overwhelmingly Democratic district represented by the head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party. But he wants her off the ballot anyway. There’s no room for anyone else once you factor in his ego, I suppose.

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

• For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
• Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
• Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
• Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
• Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

The Philadelphia Inquirer is noting the growing momentum of the anti-gun movement in Pennsylvania, and taking shots at the only man who ever went after straw purchasers in a big way in Philadelphia: Tom Corbett.

So they are willing to cast aside someone who’s actually tried to do something about criminal misuse of firearms, by actually prosecuting criminals, and advocate replacing that person with someone who will just pass more laws the City won’t bother to enforce. Brilliant!

When they do catch people, and prosecute them, under the laws we have against straw purchasing, they don’t get any real punishment. Yet they scream louder and louder every year at Harrisburg that they need more laws they won’t enforce. How are more laws going to help when they aren’t even using the ones they already have?

I know, it’s hardly new advice to readers here. But apparently things are getting worse with the second fatal attack on pizza delivery guys in a two weeks.

I guess that quest to “minimize” the right to self-defense is working out pretty well for the city. I guess the only hope Philly has for economic recovery is a bustling underground economy that has a side effect of improving the economy of putting people underground.

The Philadelphia Inquirer seems to be on to something:

Philadelphia defendants walk free on all charges in nearly two-thirds of violent-crime cases. Among large urban counties, Philadelphia has the nation’s lowest felony-conviction rate.

Only one in 10 people charged with gun assaults is convicted of that charge, the newspaper found.

Only two in 10 accused armed robbers are found guilty of armed robbery.

Only one in four accused rapists is found guilty of rape.

The data also show that people charged with assaults with a gun escape conviction more often than those who use fists or knives. Of people arrested for possession of illegal handguns, almost half go free.

Nationally, prosecutors in big cities win felony convictions in half of violent-crime cases, according to federal studies. In Philadelphia, prosecutors win only 20 percent.

So does the Inquirer want to explain how more gun laws are going to help if we’re not even enforcing the laws adequately against rape and robbery? This is scandalous, yet the Inquirer’s editorial board will continue to blame guns and the NRA, and shame Harrisburg for not passing more laws. Can we try locking up criminals first?

It looks like the Philadelphia media is rather fascinated that criminals straw purchase guns in other states and traffic them back to Philadelphia. In this case, the feds are prosecuting because a police officer was killed with the gun. Straw purchasing is a state crime too. How often do run of the mill, non-cop-killing criminals end up getting let go because the authorities ordinarily don’t care?

Today Andrew Breitbart released video and audio from the Philadelphia ACORN office sting. It did not just prove that ACORN staff were lying to cover their butts, but it also proved David Gambacorta of the Philadelphia Daily News didn’t really investigate the local office’s claims before publishing a full fledged defense of the organization.

I don’t believe that being invited to come back for a housing workshop to help a declared prostitute evade the law is being “shown the door,” a claim made by Mr. Gambacorta. Nor does hearing the staff argue that it doesn’t matter how many underage illegal sex slaves are brought in cause any kind of disturbance, another claim published by Gambacorta without evidence.

And they honestly wonder why no one is buying their papers anymore? They don’t do any kind of reporting, just a little reorganizing of the ACORN press releases and they call it a day at the Daily News!

Both DA candidates in Philadelphia say they will have no tolerance for illegal guns.

“My number one priority as a father of three daughters and a lifelong resident of Philadelphia is to make Philadelphians feel safer. And we are going to do that by prioritizing illegal guns. We are going to be going after the people that are using guns illegally. We are going to be going after the people that are selling guns illegally.”

I have no real beef with this position. But will they follow through if elected? If Bloomberg’s group were lobbying to put illegal gun traffickers and people illegally using guns in jail, I would have no problem with the group. But that’s not what they are doing.

The Pocono Record has run another glowing op-ed on Mayor Baughman of Stroudsburg, praising his membership in Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Tunnel vision gun owners, spurred by the powerful National Rifle Association, have been sending hostile messages to Baughman urging him to resign from MAIG. The NRA and groups like it hold tremendous sway over gun owners and elected officials.

Hear that? You have tunnel vision. You’re too stupid to think for yourself, according to The Record. They, of course, can see the big picture. But they wouldn’t be running this op-ed, once again today, if Baughman wasn’t continuing to be pressured by his constituents. Hopefully we can keep it up and get him to leave MAIG.

Or maybe not. Even city council members can become victims of the City’s bureaucracy. Seems back in 2005 City Council member Rick Mariano went up to the city hall tower and started acting oddly. It would seem he was upset about a pending federal indictment. Family decided it would be best if the Philadelphia Police took his guns, including the 9mm he apparently liked to wear on his ankle.  Only problem is, they sort of accidentally melted his guns down:

“It’s obvious this wasn’t supposed to happen,” said Lt. Frank Vanore, a police spokesman. “It looks to be just an error.”

Vanore said he was not aware of anyone’s being disciplined because of the error.

Mariano’s recourse? Vanore said the department told the family it could file a claim with the city and would be reimbursed for the destroyed guns, which included a Romanian AK-47 rifle. Vanore had no estimate of their value.

But it is LYMOB, because if that had been anyone else, they would have told them “Sucks to be you.” and made you sue them. I’ve heard of more than a few cases of people unable to get guns back from the city when the city had no lawful authority to hold them, and having to file lawsuits. And these are people who are found to have broken no law. Mariano is a prohibited person now.

Before we were largely speculating.  Now we actually have some facts in the case. It seems Colosimo entered into a plea deal with prosecutors.  We also have this:

The government’s plea memorandum said that on Aug. 4, 2004, a straw purchaser identified only as “Person #1″ received money from “H.B.” and a male known as “Shiz” to purchase four firearms on their behalf at Colosimo’s.

H.B. accompanied Person #1 into Colosimo’s and provided money to Person #1 in the presence of a store employee, who recorded that the purchase had been made by Person #1.

None of the four firearms has been recovered. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tomika Stevens told Savage that prosecutors did not know if the firearms had been used in any crimes.

After that purchase, ATF agents set up controlled buys using informants for the purchases of six firearms between Dec. 8, 2005, and April 18, 2007, the plea memo said.

Those guns were turned over to ATF agents immediately after the purchases, which were set up and monitored by the ATF, court documents said.

On one occasion a cooperating witness, A.P., identified himself as the buyer, but Person #2, the straw purchaser, filled out the paperwork, identifying himself as the buyer. A Colosimo’s employee recorded the transaction in the straw purchaser’s name.

On another occasion, a government informant and Person #3 entered Colosimo’s together. Court papers said that the informant had told a Colosimo’s employee that Person #3, the straw purchaser, was buying a handgun for the informant because the informant could not buy a gun. The Colosimo’s employee recorded the purchase in Person #3’s name, court papers said.

Now those are better facts, but they raise some questions:

• The person who recorded the straw transaction committed a federal crime. Was he or she prosecuted?
• If ATF was conducting these stings since 2005, why was Colosimo’s allowed to remain operating for four more years, despite ATF having evidence that his employees were allowing straw buys?

What’s described here is most definitely a crime committed on the part of the dealer’s agent. At best, he’s not training his employees correctly, and at worst not being careful about hiring scrupulous employees. I’m sorry I ever stood up for this guy. This looks like strong evidence, and I suspect the prosecution is actually going rather easy on the defendant in this case.

In the latest Monica Yant Kinney column, we get some idea of what gun shop Heeding God’s Call might be going after next:

Emboldened by the victory, the curbside crusade continues. Heads up, Shooter Shop in Kensington: You’re next.

You don’t get the option of not standing up to these people.

UPDATE: Here’s Shooter Shop’s web site, and it looks like they even have a commercial. I don’t know, that deer head just screams “criminal hangout” to me! Seriously, what’s their beef? Other than this is a family business that has the audacity to try to run a legitimate gun business in Philadelphia? Let’s hope it’s a family that will stand up to these hateful people.

James Colosimo admits in federal court that illegal activity went on in his shop. His FFL has been revoked, and he is selling his inventory to other dealers. His shop will close.

Good riddance, I say. If the charges were true, we don’t need dealers who break the law. If the charges were false, we don’t need dealers who won’t stand up for what’s right.

His attorney says he’s going to close. ATF is planning to revoke his FFL, and he does not plan to contest it. He’s still apparently debating whether he’s going to fight the criminal charge against his corporation.

Federal authorities began investigating Colosimo’s after the protests, and the ATF since has filed a notice to revoke his federal license to sell firearms, said Colosimo’s attorney, Joe Canuso.

So ATF didn’t inspect this guy until after the protests? That must be how he kept the FFL for so long. If ATF is doing a retrospective paperwork inspection, how are they determining that the sale was to a straw buyer, and that it was willful? It would be one thing if they conducted a sting, but if ATF is just now looking through his paperwork, how is intent being determined? Is it similar to ATFs traditional approach, which is if it was an error in paperwork, it clearly had to have been willful? How often does ATF find paperwork problems at other FFLs it inspects that don’t end up facing charges? These aren’t just semantics. The section of the United States Code the corporation is charged under is Title 18, Chapter 44, 922(m):

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector knowingly to make any false entry in, to fail to make appropriate entry in, or to fail to properly maintain, any record which he is required to keep pursuant to section 923 of this chapter or regulations promulgated thereunder.

The statute requires intention to violate, so the United States would need to have evidence that that there was intent to commit a violation. What’s the evidence of that? These are questions that deserve an answer, but we will never find out of Mr. Colosimo doesn’t contest the charges against his company. If the charges are true, fine, plead guilty, by all means. But if they are false, the federal government should be forced to meet its burden before a judge and jury.

The US Attorneys have released the information associated with the prosecution of Colosimo’s gun shop.  They have also issued a press release as well. What strikes me is the complaint against them doesn’t really offer any evidence that his paperwork was a willful violation, it just states that is the case. Paperwork errors are not that uncommon in a high volume gun business. Few FFLs can get everything right 100% of the time. The question still remains why ATF allowed him to keep operating all these years if he was engaging in willful violations of the condition of his license. When was the last time ATF inspected the records of Colosimos?  What violations were found? These are key questions in this case, that I think the public ought to know.

But the fact is, if this is a deal where Colosimo’s Inc. is going to plead guilty, the District Attorney doesn’t need to bring forth detailed evidence, since the defendant will admit he is guilty . He will not force the state to meet its burden, and so it won’t bother.

I can’t say I would entirely blame James Colosimo, at age 77, if he agreed to plead guilty rather than risk financial and personal ruin trying to fight charges in front of a jury. But it should be understood that by admitting to such actions, he will not get to enter retirement with his dignity, and in the right. He will have admitted his shop was engaged in criminal activity, and that’s not something I’m going to support. Everything the anti-gun folks have said about Colosimo’s will have be admitted to as true. Whether that’s just a matter of legal fact, rather than actual fact, I don’t think is important. Colosimos will be a criminal gun shop, and that’s how it will be remembered. James Colosimo might get to retire in peace, but that will be little comfort for the next gun shop that ends up in the crosshairs.

This is one of those businesses, when you get too tired to cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’, and even more importantly, when you lose interest in standing up for what’s right, it’s time to give up the FFL, close up shop, and get out of the business.

One of the members of the group that protested outside of Colosimo’s is feeling vindicated with the arrival of federal charges:

Little did we know that while we were meeting the U.S. Attorney’s office was charging Mr. Colism with falsifying statements and failing to keep accurate records. On a practical level, it appears that our activities may have called attention to this particularly notorious gun dealer, and moved the process along in bringing him to justice. On another level, today feels like a vindication of our efforts, and an affirmation that God is indeed working in and through our efforts.

Is he being brought to justice though? I’ll one up you, Professor. I’m going to suggest the US Attorney is going easy on this guy rather than throwing the book at him. I would like to understand why. The accusation is that he knowingly sold a firearm to a person he knew not to be the actual buyer of the firearm, and that those firearms were later recovered from criminals. In the reports, he’s accused of doing this not once, but ten times over the course of five years. Yet the US Attorney’s office isn’t pressing charges against Mr. Colosimo himself, but rather against Colosimo, Inc, the corporate entity. This basically puts the maximum penalty at a fine and probation for the corporation, which means a judge gets to oversee the operation of the corporate entity.  There’s no jail time involved. I would argue that if Mr. Colosimo knowingly sold firearms to straw purchasers, he ought to be facing charges himself.

The US Attorneys office seems to be proceeding with a Prosecution by Information, which means that Colosimo’s has waived its right to have the evidence in the case presented to a Grand Jury. Usually a defendant will not do this unless they intend to plead guilty to the charge. This leads me to believe the US Attorney likely cut a deal with Colosimo, either because they didn’t see any use in prosecuting an old man, or because they weren’t confident in taking a case forward against Colosimo himself, and cut a deal where the corporate entity agreed to plead guilty.

But I don’t just meant to question the US Attorney’s office over why they are going after the company and not the man, I also think the ATF needs to explain, if the US Attorney has had evidence that Colosimos was knowingly selling to straw buyers, why it allowed Colosimos to continue operating? I would assume ATF has inspected this dealer in the past? What did they find? If it warranted charges, why was his FFL not revoked?

Lots of questions still in this case. Hopefully we’ll get answers as more information comes to light.

Looks like the U.S. Attorney’s office in Philadelphia is bringing charges against James Colosimo of Colosimo’s gun shop. According to another source, the charge is related to false statements and bad record keeping:

Patty Hartman with the US attorney’s office says that Colosimo’s, the well-known Philadelphia gun dealership, is being charged with knowingly selling guns to people who would not be the actual gun owners:

“The information alleges that there were 10 firearms that were “straw purchased” from Colosimo’s Inc. from on or about August 4th, 2004, through on or about April 18th, 2007.”

We’ve previously been supportive of Colosimo’s when they were targeted by overzealous activists, but a US Attorney is a different matter.  If they are indeed guilty of what is alleged here, I have no problem with harsh punishment, but it will be up to a grand jury to decide whether the prosecution has enough evidence for this to proceed to a trial.

UPDATE: Maybe not:

Jim Colosimo, the owner of Colosimo’s Gun Center on Spring Garden Street near Ninth Street, was not personally charged. He could not be reached for comment last night.

The charges against the business were contained in a criminal information, which means the defendant waived the right to have the case heard before a grand jury. A criminal information can mean the defendant will plead guilty, though that is not always the case.

The information charges the gun dealership with making false entries in gun-sales records by listing three buyers as the firearms purchasers “when the defendant knew or had reason to believe that each person was not the actual buyer, but was a straw purchaser.”

That seems to be really unusual to me. Why didn’t ATF pull his FFL if they were aware of this? Plus, they are charging the corporation rather than Colosimo himself, even though the law allows for him to be prosecuted personally? If he’s selling guns to criminals, knowingly, and it can be proved, shouldn’t the US attorney want to put Colosimo in federal prison? It seems to me that would be appropriate. Why charge the company? I will definitely keep abreast of developments in this case.

It does appear that Darwin was working in Philadelphia this weekend. Some enterprising young criminals thought it would be a good idea to pull a gun on an off duty police officer. One is dead and the other is on the run.

With both Philadelphia newspapers in bankruptcy, creditors are putting the kibosh on an ad campaign to spurn out of town suiters for the papers.

Man, I’m really glad we’re getting dangerous bouncers off the street.  It’s always easier to arrest people for technicalities than go after actual hardened criminals.

Lying on an application to buy a firearm, or an application to carry a gun, has always been illegal under Pennsylvania law. The problem, explained Deputy Police Commissioner William Blackburn, was that the application used by the Police Department made it difficult to determine if the applicant was lying to illegally obtain a gun or was just confused by terminology.

Yes, it’s illegal, and has traditionally been used when you find someone who has committed a crime, and you’re looking for other things to throw at them, or throw at associates in an attempt to get them to turn witness.  How is the City of Philadelphia making the streets safer by going after people for paperwork violations?  Was Emmit Bethea a threat to public safety?

Why is the city wasting resources on paperwork violations, when they aren’t prosecuting real criminals who assault people, rob people, or even hardened criminals who are caught with guns?  I’m not arguing that Abraham isn’t in the legal right.  The law is the law.  But her priorities are horribly out of whack if she considers going after paperwork errors a priority over going after real criminals.

Looks like the District Attorney of Philadelphia is going to go after LTC holders who lie on their application.  It would appear she has legal authority to do this, since the License to Carry Application for Pennsylvania makes it clear you’re making a statement to authorities, and can be prosecuted for falsehoods.  I do have to wonder though, how many hardened criminals Abraham thinks are applying for LTCs, and whether this is just a distraction from going after actual hardened criminals, in an attempt to make it appear that gun licensees are a problem in Philadelphia.

UPDATE: I’m hearing Abraham is also looking to abolish reciprocity with Florida.  I will try to find some verification of this, and an article.

UPDATE: On a Fox Local News story on last night’s 10:00 news, Abraham reportedly suggested she would go after a “loophole” in PA law that allowed people to get Florida permits online, and carry guns in Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia is pretty much broke at this point.  Over at PA Water Cooler we find out some lesser known parts of Nutter’s nutty plan to keep the city from going bankrupt, like laying off 1000 police officers, laying off 200 firefighters and closing 10 companies.  Switching traffic signals to blink and shutting off all street lighting.  What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe this is why they call him Nutter.

It would appear that the owner of the bassets recently seized in Philadelphia is speaking out.  And the PSPCA isn’t very happy about it.

Good news is we got a very sympathetic article in one of the two major papers today. A reporter has also called from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as the AKC and the Chronicle of the Horse (Molly Sorgi? [Molly Sorge] 804-994-2349). My problem is that if I respond personally, the SPCA has made it clear that I must “cooperate or multiple citations will be issued and there would be no PA Kennel License”.So here is my response to the PSPCA website (www.pspca.org/news), first article about the Murder Hollow Bassets. I cannot respond to anyone in the media or even the PSPCA, but I can let you know. Whatever you chose to do with my information, oh well.

Wow. Thank goodness for new media. If the PSPCA is trying to intimidate this woman against responding to their public accusations, the state needs to come down on them. If a police officer were to try this, they would likely be suspended or fired. They would certainly be open to a lawsuit. Unfortunately, PSPCA seems to believe they are above such standards. (Note to Ms. Willard: They are not. You can sue them.)

Interestingly, PSPCA argued that they tried to reach out to Ms. Willard before the raid to work things out. Well, that’s not quite what the owner had to say.

The websites indicated that the SPCA left requests to be contacted. The ‘Humane Law Officer’ (her term, not mine) left a card in my door with no information, no requests for a call, no warnings or no citations a few days before the raid. Absolutely none. She could have left a note to call, because I get lots of cards from grass cutters to painters. No mention of any 12 dog limit in the city.

I don’t consider that to be reaching out. If I owned a small kennel, I would presume it was someone looking to buy a dog. If I’m not selling, I wouldn’t call back.

I won’t pull out every single response, but it does get interesting. She confesses she did refuse entry at first – because they had no warrant. When they returned with a search warrant, she cooperated and granted access. (Sebastian argues, and I would agree, that the second she refused access, she should have lawyered up. Oh, and keep reading to find out more about this warrant and why it may not have been legal.) The owner also confirms that some of the seized dogs were owned by someone else and that she informed PSPCA of this fact, including by providing the contact information. You’d think that as an organization with no more room in their shelters that they would be happy to call the owner and get the dogs returned home. Nope, they merely said she may have a right to adopt them back from PSPCA. Yes, you must adopt your own pets back from an organization that seizes them.

Interestingly, the City seems to have previously approved her ownership of the dogs. She reports that she kept up to date with licenses for all of the animals, and the City repeatedly approved them. Also of note is the refusal of the DA to answer questions about the definition of terms that would determine whether the ordinance PSPCA claimed power under really applies to Ms. Willard (relating to different structures on a property). So at this point, there is a legitimate legal question that may need to be answered. Yet, some reports by other basset owners offering to care for the dogs report the seized dogs may have already been spayed/neutered, and PSPCA willingly admitted to me the have approved the adoption of these dogs via a third party. So we don’t know that Willard ever broke a law, but her property has been taken and possibly damaged beyond repair and sold to others. (PSPCA is reportedly charging folks $200/dog.)

What makes this case even more interesting is that Ms. Willard claims she has never received a complaint before. This is relevant not because it implies PSPCA may have decided to pick on her, but because it raises legal questions about the warrant issued. (These would have to be verified by Willard’s lawyer, but this is what Sebastian found when reading through Philadelphia’s ordinances.)

“The penalty for the first violation of any provision of this Section shall be a minimum fine of $100; the penalty for a second violation of any provision of this Section shall be a minimum fine of $200; the penalty for a third violation of any provision of this Section shall be a minimum fine of $300. The third violation of any provision of this Section will result in the commencement of proceedings as provided by law for the removal of said animal and delivery of same to an appropriate area of confinement approved by the Department of Health.”

That means the ordinance PSPCA was using to justify seizing the dogs does not allow for the dogs to be seized until the third complaint. Willard, if found guilty, should have been fined twice and informed about the law. That would make the entire warrant improper. Unfortunately, judges have complete immunity, but PSPCA does not. If it turns out that they did not follow the law, she could sue them as either an organization or every single individual involved in the process.

Like I said before, I called PSPCA to get their side of the story.  They made one claim that blogs were simply getting it wrong, but they did not challenge anything I asked.  In fact, they verified more than they argued.  Now that there are legitimate questions as to whether they overstepped their legal authority and stole private property, I find their broad claim that blogs were getting it wrong to be highly questionable.  While there are certainly some very impassioned bloggers who may be getting swept up and making a few assumptions, PSPCA is encouraging that by refusing to talk to folks.  They won’t account for the health and whereabouts of the dogs to either of the owners, vets in the area, and other basset enthusaists.  Yet, they confirm the worst parts of the story to the media.  At worst, PSPCA is breaking the law and punishing pet owners outside of their authority.  At the best, if they are proven right, they have an incompetent media strategy.