This ought to make you feel all warm & toasty inside. In Colorado a couple was detained by armed guards while the state ordered & carried out an injection on their newborn daughter against their wishes.
This started because of a doctor urging the prents to sign a consent from to allow a vaccination. when the couple refused the doctor contacted teh SS (Social Services) & they in turn arranged for an emergency hearing of the matter, saying it was a matter of life & death that the baby receive the shots within a few hours.
"Faced with opposition from the parents over the vaccination of "Baby M," the doctor called in hospital social service worker Joni Vohs, who reportedly threatened the parents with the loss of custody of their baby if they did not comply with the vaccination schedule.
Next, hospital administrators called in attorneys who persuaded Chief District Court Judge Charles Buss to hold an emergency, after-hours hearing at the hospital on the basis that the baby's life would be in danger if she was not vaccinated within hours. The family was given 15 minutes' notice of the hearing and was unable to secure competent legal help in time.
As the father describes it, he went up against a 10-person panel of attorneys, social workers, hospital administrators and the doctor who argued for the immediate vaccination.
The father pleaded for second opinions. He also pleaded for the judge to wait for the results of a more confirmatory test which were scheduled to arrive in 16 hours.
During the four-hour hearing, the father cited the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Colorado revised statute, which states there are religious, medical and philosophical exemptions to medical treatment.
Rather than share the 19-year-old's passion for U.S. constitutional history, the lawyers reportedly mocked him.
"When I was reading, the lawyers were whispering back and forth almost laughing at me," the father told WorldNetDaily. "In retrospect, reminding them of the Constitution hurt me more than it helped."
The judge ruled the baby should be vaccinated immediately and also ordered her put into protective custody with the Mesa County Department of Human Services, which the parents were told meant social-service agents had the ability to intervene in the medical treatment of the baby at any time and could take physical custody of the baby if deemed necessary to "protect the child's best interests."
Now keep in mind the couple & the article itself provide plausible reasons why vaccinations are not neccessarily beneficial for the child. But a judge placed the perceived interests of the state above the Right & Duty of parents to provide for their child as they saw fit.
Chief District Court Judge Charles Buss. Social Service worker Joni Vohs. Remember their names & explain why you refuse to do any business with them should they come your way.
Course, maybe it's caused I just watched the movie the other day, but how the hell is this - in principle- any different than Napoleon taking away Jessie's pups in Animal Farm? Personally, I wouldn't have blamed the father or mother if they took out as many of those statist thugs as necessary to protect their child from the threat they perceived.
Saturday, June 21, 2003
This was found over at End the War on Freedom who found it at Keep & Bear Arms.com. It's fiction & damned improbable fiction at that. But we can all dream can't we?
"Stirring from deep thoughts, the man's wife looked with respect and affection at the grizzled old man who was her husband and her hero. "Of course, they rewrote the Second Amendment", she said, "It wasn't the same back then. They added a line. Before the war for independence started, the Second Amendment said, "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." It wasn't until 2011 that they added, "Any person who questions this right in a legislative body may be shot without consequences." The change was enacted exactly four years after that first encounter with the U.N. troops, on the day when ordinary citizens took their firearms into the Nation's capital and came back with our freedom... Independence day, September 6, 2007."
You may find the rest here.
"Stirring from deep thoughts, the man's wife looked with respect and affection at the grizzled old man who was her husband and her hero. "Of course, they rewrote the Second Amendment", she said, "It wasn't the same back then. They added a line. Before the war for independence started, the Second Amendment said, "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." It wasn't until 2011 that they added, "Any person who questions this right in a legislative body may be shot without consequences." The change was enacted exactly four years after that first encounter with the U.N. troops, on the day when ordinary citizens took their firearms into the Nation's capital and came back with our freedom... Independence day, September 6, 2007."
You may find the rest here.
I found this over at End the War on Freedom. It's a rather thoughtful look at the M-16 platform of weapons over at MadOgre.com. Here's a few choice selections:
"The AR can jam so easily, and it doesn’t even make a good club."
& perhaps my favorite:
"The best way to improve the AR-15 is to unscrew the front sight, and put a new gun under it."
Go read the whole thing for yourself.
"The AR can jam so easily, and it doesn’t even make a good club."
& perhaps my favorite:
"The best way to improve the AR-15 is to unscrew the front sight, and put a new gun under it."
Go read the whole thing for yourself.
A very interesting Livefire is on this week. Livefire is the weekly radio show hosted by Larry Pratt, the head honcho over at Gun Owners of America. His guest is an attorney by the name of Scott Bach who took on a case that concerns anti-gun groups influencing children at school. I'll leave it at that so as not to spoil the show for ya. Clicking this should open a Realplayer window with the show in question loaded.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Part of the reason blogging has been light - okay, damn well non-existant - is because here at the Publicola house we have a new mouth to feed. You can see pics of her here. It should work for those w/o a Yahoo account, but worst comes to worst Yahoo accounts are free & have some handy features.
The vitals -
weight - 9.5 lbs.
length - 43.5 inches
color - light grey/dark brown
Date of Birth - august 1944 (i think)
In case you haven't figured it out, the new mouth to feed is approximately .308 in diameter & is attached to what is commonly know as the M1 Garand.
More or less I think the serial number puts it as being made in August of 1944, though the literature that came with it had 1941 serial number ranges. Probably a simple mistake as my serial number was 3,xxx,xxx & the 1941 serial numbers covered the 300,000's. It was made by Springfield Armory. It was re-barelled in 1949 with a Springfield barrel. It spent some time in the Danish military. It came my way via the CMP.
Now why would a simple purchase take up most of the free time I spend blogging?
Well the military hates rusty rifles in warehouses, so they dose them liberally with cosmoline. Cosmoline is a great preservative - for metal at least. Over time it's not real good for wood. & in any event it's not a good lubricant. So before firing it's advisable to remove all the cosmoline, clean & lubricate the rifle. Cosmoline gets everyplace. Every little nook & crevice that you could never purposefully lubricate in a decade cosmoline will find its way into.
The best method for cleaning cosmoline off metal is gasoline. But gasoline isn't the most stable of cleaning agents. Next best is kerosene. It's an improvement over gasoline but not by much. So I opted for method No. 3 - mineral spirits.
After detail stripping the Garand, which due to my rusty memory took more time than it should have, I washed all the parts in mineral spirits. I scrubbed with an old toothbrush (at least I hope it was an old tooth brush!) to make sure I didn't miss anything, as cosmoline can gumm up in places. I then let the parts dry. When they'd been drying an hour or so I then degreased the whole thing with a spray degreaser. It ate a nice layer or two off my hands before I remembered I had some rubber gloves laying around, but the important thing was I then had a clean, grease,oil & cosmoline free rifle.
After that oil it all over, wipe off the excess & then use grease (not oil) to take care of a few of the more critical contact points.
The stock was a little trickier. I hadn't decided then whether or not I was going to re-finish the whole thing, so I taped off the outside portion of the stock with masken tape, then sprayed the inside of the stock ( where the rifle sits) with easy-off oven cleaner. Nothing I know of works better when it comes to removing oil from wood. After spraying a coat, letting it sit & then scrubbing the hell out of the barrel & receiver channel I let it dry for a day. Then boiled linseed oil was applied to restore some of the oils the wood is suppossed to have.
Ammo is another consideration. The Garand likes ammo that uses a medium to medium fast powder & sends a bullet along at between 2500 & 2800 feet per second, depending upon the weight. heavier bullets, slower powders or faster velocities won't hurt the action, but they may very well bend the op-rod, which is something that must be replaced - not fixed. So new factory ammo is out of the question. There are some good deals on military surplus ammo but I handload so it's not that economically enticing.
Handloading for a gas operated semi automatic is a bit different than say, for a bolt action. Cartridge headspace, primer depth & over-all length are much more critical. A Garand has a free floating firing pin, so if the primers are too high, or too sensitive, then there's the possibility of a slam fire. A slam fire is when the cartridge discharges the instant the bolt locks shut. Sometimes this will happen the instant before the bolt locks shut, which is called an out-of-battery fire & they are mucho dangerous. This can also happen if the cartridge headpsace is longer than the chamber headspace.
& a good bit of time has been spent searching for parts. Not just any part mind you, but the parts that will make this Garand into a decent macth rifle. I've also been pricing gunsmith work that I don't feel up to doing myself.
So if you add all of that on to the normal things that keep me from blogging as much as I should (such as making a living) then you'll understand why blogging has been light to damn well non-existant as of late. Lord willing & the gas port pressure don't rise I'll resume a semi-normal schedule sometime within the next few days.
In the meantime please check out the blogroll. there are some excellent bloggers over there. The Smallest Monority is always worth a visit, as is Kim DuToit, Annika, Rachel Lucas, Courtney, Random Acts of Kindness, Lileks, The Volokh Conspiracy, Lay Lines, Boone Country, Jen Speaks, Say Uncle, A Coyote at the Dog Show, Weck Up To Thees, & Kippercat among others.
& worth special mention is Alphecca. Not only has he done more to help out pro-Right to Arms bloggers (like myself for instance) than any other blogger I know, but he's added some neat graphics to his Weekly Media Anti-Gun Bias Survey. If he keeps up with the fancy graphics, I suspect he may become the first gay gun nut to have conservative heterosexual gun nuts visit his blog just to look at the pictures! In any event throw something in his tip jar as he has hungry cats to feed. In fact any & every blogger you enjoy reading that has some sort of tipping system, throw in what you can.
& for your enlightenment here are a few links I found which provide some helpful tips for High Power Rifle competitions.
Equipment for High Power shooting
Forum about High Power shooting
Several articles discussing various aspects of High Power shooting
Several more articles about High Power shooting
CMP's National Matches page
Home page of a High Power competitor
Camp Perry website - home of the National Matches
National Association of Shooting Sports Athletes
Shooting coach Chet Skinner's Homepage
The vitals -
weight - 9.5 lbs.
length - 43.5 inches
color - light grey/dark brown
Date of Birth - august 1944 (i think)
In case you haven't figured it out, the new mouth to feed is approximately .308 in diameter & is attached to what is commonly know as the M1 Garand.
More or less I think the serial number puts it as being made in August of 1944, though the literature that came with it had 1941 serial number ranges. Probably a simple mistake as my serial number was 3,xxx,xxx & the 1941 serial numbers covered the 300,000's. It was made by Springfield Armory. It was re-barelled in 1949 with a Springfield barrel. It spent some time in the Danish military. It came my way via the CMP.
Now why would a simple purchase take up most of the free time I spend blogging?
Well the military hates rusty rifles in warehouses, so they dose them liberally with cosmoline. Cosmoline is a great preservative - for metal at least. Over time it's not real good for wood. & in any event it's not a good lubricant. So before firing it's advisable to remove all the cosmoline, clean & lubricate the rifle. Cosmoline gets everyplace. Every little nook & crevice that you could never purposefully lubricate in a decade cosmoline will find its way into.
The best method for cleaning cosmoline off metal is gasoline. But gasoline isn't the most stable of cleaning agents. Next best is kerosene. It's an improvement over gasoline but not by much. So I opted for method No. 3 - mineral spirits.
After detail stripping the Garand, which due to my rusty memory took more time than it should have, I washed all the parts in mineral spirits. I scrubbed with an old toothbrush (at least I hope it was an old tooth brush!) to make sure I didn't miss anything, as cosmoline can gumm up in places. I then let the parts dry. When they'd been drying an hour or so I then degreased the whole thing with a spray degreaser. It ate a nice layer or two off my hands before I remembered I had some rubber gloves laying around, but the important thing was I then had a clean, grease,oil & cosmoline free rifle.
After that oil it all over, wipe off the excess & then use grease (not oil) to take care of a few of the more critical contact points.
The stock was a little trickier. I hadn't decided then whether or not I was going to re-finish the whole thing, so I taped off the outside portion of the stock with masken tape, then sprayed the inside of the stock ( where the rifle sits) with easy-off oven cleaner. Nothing I know of works better when it comes to removing oil from wood. After spraying a coat, letting it sit & then scrubbing the hell out of the barrel & receiver channel I let it dry for a day. Then boiled linseed oil was applied to restore some of the oils the wood is suppossed to have.
Ammo is another consideration. The Garand likes ammo that uses a medium to medium fast powder & sends a bullet along at between 2500 & 2800 feet per second, depending upon the weight. heavier bullets, slower powders or faster velocities won't hurt the action, but they may very well bend the op-rod, which is something that must be replaced - not fixed. So new factory ammo is out of the question. There are some good deals on military surplus ammo but I handload so it's not that economically enticing.
Handloading for a gas operated semi automatic is a bit different than say, for a bolt action. Cartridge headspace, primer depth & over-all length are much more critical. A Garand has a free floating firing pin, so if the primers are too high, or too sensitive, then there's the possibility of a slam fire. A slam fire is when the cartridge discharges the instant the bolt locks shut. Sometimes this will happen the instant before the bolt locks shut, which is called an out-of-battery fire & they are mucho dangerous. This can also happen if the cartridge headpsace is longer than the chamber headspace.
& a good bit of time has been spent searching for parts. Not just any part mind you, but the parts that will make this Garand into a decent macth rifle. I've also been pricing gunsmith work that I don't feel up to doing myself.
So if you add all of that on to the normal things that keep me from blogging as much as I should (such as making a living) then you'll understand why blogging has been light to damn well non-existant as of late. Lord willing & the gas port pressure don't rise I'll resume a semi-normal schedule sometime within the next few days.
In the meantime please check out the blogroll. there are some excellent bloggers over there. The Smallest Monority is always worth a visit, as is Kim DuToit, Annika, Rachel Lucas, Courtney, Random Acts of Kindness, Lileks, The Volokh Conspiracy, Lay Lines, Boone Country, Jen Speaks, Say Uncle, A Coyote at the Dog Show, Weck Up To Thees, & Kippercat among others.
& worth special mention is Alphecca. Not only has he done more to help out pro-Right to Arms bloggers (like myself for instance) than any other blogger I know, but he's added some neat graphics to his Weekly Media Anti-Gun Bias Survey. If he keeps up with the fancy graphics, I suspect he may become the first gay gun nut to have conservative heterosexual gun nuts visit his blog just to look at the pictures! In any event throw something in his tip jar as he has hungry cats to feed. In fact any & every blogger you enjoy reading that has some sort of tipping system, throw in what you can.
& for your enlightenment here are a few links I found which provide some helpful tips for High Power Rifle competitions.
Equipment for High Power shooting
Forum about High Power shooting
Several articles discussing various aspects of High Power shooting
Several more articles about High Power shooting
CMP's National Matches page
Home page of a High Power competitor
Camp Perry website - home of the National Matches
National Association of Shooting Sports Athletes
Shooting coach Chet Skinner's Homepage
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Yes, I have been slack. It might even be a day or two longer before posting returns to normal.
In the meantime, for your amusement please have a glance at "You Might Be A Gun Nut If.....
Here are a few of my favorites:
You ever seriously thought about dabbing a little Hoppe's #9 on your neck before going out on a date.
You ever bought ammo/reloading dies in a caliber for which you have no gun, because you thought some day you MIGHT get a gun in that caliber.
You bought a barrel of Garand clips for the Garand you're going to buy.
You have ever had your local gun store call your house and ask "We are doing a stock order, did you need anything??"
You've ever slept more than five minutes while lying strapped to your rifle in prone position, waiting for the "commence fire" command.
Your alarm clock actually screams, "Ready on the RIGHT! Ready on the LEFT! Ready on the FIRING LINE! LOAD! COMMENCE FIRE!"
You've ever shot offhand through a thunderstorm while standing in water because the other 150 members of your relay kept going until the targets washed out.
If Federal sends you Christmas cards and the wife flowers on your anniversary.
If Sierra goes on double shifts when you place your order.
Every time you decide to sell leftover parts from your Garand restoration projects, prices at the Gun Show and even at the DCM are affected.
Every year you bug your accountant to run an cost/time savings analysis on the possible purchase of Springfield Museum versus collecting Garand variations one at a time.
Four local gun shops know you by name.
You're friends with 90%-100% of the employee's at every one of those shops.
You own enough guns to arm everyone on your block
You preach how stupid gun laws/bans are at work when you work in a predominately ANTI-gun company.
You list your local FFL dealer as a dependent on your tax return.
If "Miller Time" means plinking at beer cans.
Your wife wants to wear black leather, so you buy her a carry holster.
The smell of 30 year old cosmoline attracts you like perfume.
You keep leaving home with the empty gun case, while telling your wife that you are taking that one gun to be fixed, and returning with a full gun case.
When you have enough guns to take over a small third world country.
You go to a gun show and contemplate buying a particular gun for a half an hour before you remember you already have that one.
You buy a gun that is a duplicate of one you already have because the original one might break someday.
You have to run out to the range this weekend to shoot up some ammo because you need some brass to reload.
You keep a framed picture of John Garand on the mantelpiece.
When your littlest son cheers and yells "DEER MEAT" when Bambi's mother gets shot.
Your car has a bumper sticker that reads "My wife - yes, my car - maybe, my gun - NEVER!"
You buy a gun you know is cheaply made and won't work well out of the box because all the guns you have work too well and you don't have anything to play with.
If Peter Alan Kasler owes you a lunch because you caught him out on an obscure fine point of firearms law.
You get a flat and realize that you've got 400 pounds of shot, a Hefty bag each of wads and empty hulls, and enough primers to re-open the main shaft of the Lost Dutchman on top of your spare tire.
Your gun dealer owes you $500 bucks rather than the other way around.
If the largest gun store in your area calls you if they need something they can't get elsewhere.
If your wife/girlfriend starts using Hoppes No. 9 instead of perfume to get your attention.
(follow up: Truth is stranger than fiction: I have witnessed friends being asked by (attractive) waitresses what kind of cologne they were wearing, because it smelled good. The cologne in question: Hoppes #9.)
follow up: You know, I've been waiting years for Hoppes to make a cologne, and it makes a nice room freshener. : )
You call your local store to tell them where they can get a hard-to-find item, and then they piggyback their small order onto your larger one.
You read that "Brady II" would outlaw possession of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition and think "I have more than that rolling around loose in the trunk of my car!"
You teenage daughter's next date is introduced to you while your sitting at the loading bench cleaning your M-1.
You buy a .25 Beretta to keep inside your Bible cover, 'cause everybody needs a "hideout church gun".
You buy a used holster at a show for $5.00, and then spend a few hundred on a gun that fits it..
Your teenage daughter's new boyfriend asks, "What are the flags at different places along your driveway for?" and you reply, "Young man, they're range markers."
You're in the army reserves, and they can't figure out why every time they send you out to shoot the M60 with 100 rounds, you return with a shot-out barrel. It never dawns on them you're bringing your own ammo.
If, upon seeing your 1978 wildcatting project (a .375 on a .50 Sharps 3-1/4" case, 3340 FPS with a 300 Sierra boat tail), Elmer Keith says "You're nuts!"
& no, that wasn't all of them. There's 279 total.
In the meantime, for your amusement please have a glance at "You Might Be A Gun Nut If.....
Here are a few of my favorites:
You ever seriously thought about dabbing a little Hoppe's #9 on your neck before going out on a date.
You ever bought ammo/reloading dies in a caliber for which you have no gun, because you thought some day you MIGHT get a gun in that caliber.
You bought a barrel of Garand clips for the Garand you're going to buy.
You have ever had your local gun store call your house and ask "We are doing a stock order, did you need anything??"
You've ever slept more than five minutes while lying strapped to your rifle in prone position, waiting for the "commence fire" command.
Your alarm clock actually screams, "Ready on the RIGHT! Ready on the LEFT! Ready on the FIRING LINE! LOAD! COMMENCE FIRE!"
You've ever shot offhand through a thunderstorm while standing in water because the other 150 members of your relay kept going until the targets washed out.
If Federal sends you Christmas cards and the wife flowers on your anniversary.
If Sierra goes on double shifts when you place your order.
Every time you decide to sell leftover parts from your Garand restoration projects, prices at the Gun Show and even at the DCM are affected.
Every year you bug your accountant to run an cost/time savings analysis on the possible purchase of Springfield Museum versus collecting Garand variations one at a time.
Four local gun shops know you by name.
You're friends with 90%-100% of the employee's at every one of those shops.
You own enough guns to arm everyone on your block
You preach how stupid gun laws/bans are at work when you work in a predominately ANTI-gun company.
You list your local FFL dealer as a dependent on your tax return.
If "Miller Time" means plinking at beer cans.
Your wife wants to wear black leather, so you buy her a carry holster.
The smell of 30 year old cosmoline attracts you like perfume.
You keep leaving home with the empty gun case, while telling your wife that you are taking that one gun to be fixed, and returning with a full gun case.
When you have enough guns to take over a small third world country.
You go to a gun show and contemplate buying a particular gun for a half an hour before you remember you already have that one.
You buy a gun that is a duplicate of one you already have because the original one might break someday.
You have to run out to the range this weekend to shoot up some ammo because you need some brass to reload.
You keep a framed picture of John Garand on the mantelpiece.
When your littlest son cheers and yells "DEER MEAT" when Bambi's mother gets shot.
Your car has a bumper sticker that reads "My wife - yes, my car - maybe, my gun - NEVER!"
You buy a gun you know is cheaply made and won't work well out of the box because all the guns you have work too well and you don't have anything to play with.
If Peter Alan Kasler owes you a lunch because you caught him out on an obscure fine point of firearms law.
You get a flat and realize that you've got 400 pounds of shot, a Hefty bag each of wads and empty hulls, and enough primers to re-open the main shaft of the Lost Dutchman on top of your spare tire.
Your gun dealer owes you $500 bucks rather than the other way around.
If the largest gun store in your area calls you if they need something they can't get elsewhere.
If your wife/girlfriend starts using Hoppes No. 9 instead of perfume to get your attention.
(follow up: Truth is stranger than fiction: I have witnessed friends being asked by (attractive) waitresses what kind of cologne they were wearing, because it smelled good. The cologne in question: Hoppes #9.)
follow up: You know, I've been waiting years for Hoppes to make a cologne, and it makes a nice room freshener. : )
You call your local store to tell them where they can get a hard-to-find item, and then they piggyback their small order onto your larger one.
You read that "Brady II" would outlaw possession of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition and think "I have more than that rolling around loose in the trunk of my car!"
You teenage daughter's next date is introduced to you while your sitting at the loading bench cleaning your M-1.
You buy a .25 Beretta to keep inside your Bible cover, 'cause everybody needs a "hideout church gun".
You buy a used holster at a show for $5.00, and then spend a few hundred on a gun that fits it..
Your teenage daughter's new boyfriend asks, "What are the flags at different places along your driveway for?" and you reply, "Young man, they're range markers."
You're in the army reserves, and they can't figure out why every time they send you out to shoot the M60 with 100 rounds, you return with a shot-out barrel. It never dawns on them you're bringing your own ammo.
If, upon seeing your 1978 wildcatting project (a .375 on a .50 Sharps 3-1/4" case, 3340 FPS with a 300 Sierra boat tail), Elmer Keith says "You're nuts!"
& no, that wasn't all of them. There's 279 total.
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Tom Mauser's letter from the Denver Post. I have taken the liberty of providing a translation for those not well versed in Idiotspeak.
"Imagine a world in which one of its most dangerous products is exempt from consumer-protection laws. Imagine a world in which the makers and sellers of that product are immune from civil lawsuits related to that product.
The first scenario is already the case; the second is close to happening, right here in America."
Translation: We're not going to be dealing with much factual information, so let's try to get used to the make believe world I'm about to describe to you.
"When consumer-protection laws were developed, the gun lobby convinced Congress to exempt guns from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That means your child's toy gun is subject to greater regulation than a real gun."
Translation: We couldn't get Congress to outlaw guns under the guise of consumer protection, so we'll try to convince you that toys are more regulated than guns are, despite the many thousands of firearms laws & the very few toy laws.
"Recently Colorado was shocked by the tragic accidental shooting of 11-year-old Sahil Ahmed. He was shot and killed by a friend who thought a handgun was empty because the magazine was removed. This tragic mistake has occurred before, and many times manufacturers have been urged to change designs so a bullet doesn't stay in the chamber after the magazine is removed - or to at least place an indicator warning that a bullet is in the chamber. But why should gun manufacturers change? They're exempt from regulation."
Translation: we much prefer to blame a company or an object than a human being's negligence. We sleep better that way. Also we don't know exactly how guns work, but since this is make believe we'll pretend that a gun could be designed to make it completely & utterly safe from the risk of an accidental discharge & blame the gun makers for not defying the laws of pyshics to accomodate our desires. & while we're at it let's blame the lawmakers for not requiring the gunmakers to do the impossible.
"Having this unprecedented exemption apparently isn't enough. The House recently passed a bill that will provide gunmakers and sellers with immunity from virtually all current and future civil lawsuits related to the use of guns. The Senate and President Bush are expected to approve it."
Translation: if we use words like 'unprecedented', even if incorrectly, then we'll seem smart. & the lawmakers are to blame for passing a law that keeps people from suing gunmakers for stuff that ain't their fault, but if we tell you that we won't seem that smart so we use broad sweeping descriptions instead. See? we still seem smart.
"They're poised to prohibit one group - victims of gun violence - the right to seek redress in civil courts, providing the broadest legal protection ever granted to one industry."
Translation: They actually want to keep people who have been victims of crimes from suing companies with 2nd, 3rd & 4th party relationships to the criminals?? what's next? sayig it was the criminals fault for shooting someone? huh. Like criminals have any money!
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps some lawsuits are frivolous, but that's why we have a court system - to sort them out."
Translation: yes some of the lawsuits are silly, but it's the only way we can bypass the legislature to restrict guns.
"But this law wouldn't even allow a case with merit to proceed. The law of unintended consequences comes into play here - it's entirely possible that a host of negligent and felonious parties will escape any liability for their acts or failures to act."
Translation: we think that if a gunmaker sells a gun to a gun store, who sells it to a person & someone else steals it, then sells it to someone else that the gunmaker is responsible, as is everyone with any wealth in that chain of people. That's a meritous lawsuit that won't happen because of this new law.
"Gun activists say immunity is appropriate because of the Second Amendment, but that amendment speaks of a right to bear arms, not of a right to immunity for arms-makers and -sellers. Likewise, the First Amendment doesn't immunize publishers from libel suits."
Translation: We are too smart to get involved in that whole constitution/bill of rights/second amendment thing, so we'll compare apples & oranges & hope no one realizes that libel is more appropriately compared to a gun maker shooting someone than it is to regulating an industry which produces a product specifically mentioned in the constitution.
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because it's unfair for gunmakers to be sued for a buyer's unlawful use of a gun. But it's not that simple. The way guns are sold can enable criminals to obtain guns - e.g., failing to question large-quantity sales."
Translation: well of course it's unfair unless you look at things our way. I mean despite all the regulations & laws & licenses & such a person can still buy guns, & that means even if he's able to buy them legally the gun maker should have known he had evil in his heart. How dare they not read minds before engaging in selling a constitutionally protected product!
"The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is responsible for regulating gun dealers, says that a small number of dealers are responsible for selling the majority of new guns traced to crimes. Why does the gun industry want to shield these bad apples?"
Translation: not that many gun dealers break the law, so we must use inuendo to associate this new law which does not protect a gun maker or seller from criminal acts or even negligent ones with the small number of dealers that break one of the many thousands of gun laws.
"Robert Ricker, a whistleblower who once was an attorney for the NRA and spokesman for the gunmakers, says the gun industry has failed to crack down on questionable dealers and rejected his proposals to establish stricter guidelines for the industry."
Translation:If we use the term whistleblower it might cover up the fact that Ricker is being paid. It might also make people think that his claim that the gun makers were not reading minds of the gun sellers who were not reading minds of the customers seem legitimate.
"Gunmakers say they can't be responsible for policing dealers who sell their guns. But most manufacturers go to great lengths to control distribution of their products. Why not gunmakers?"
Translation: Why do the gun makers do things just because it's legal for them to do? Why can't they do the BATF's job for them? & just because it's legal, why do they still keep selling guns? That's just mean & we don't like it.
"Gunmakers say it's up to the ATF to police gun dealers. However, for years the gun lobby has fought against any increase in funding or regulatory power for the ATF. The NRA's top executive has referred to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs." Does the gun lobby really expect us to believe they support ATF oversight of gun dealers?"
Translation:Just because it's not their job why should they place blame on the agency whose job it actually is? & why, just because the BATF is a bunch of jack booted statist thugs do people call them that? I don't care how many kittens they stomp to death or how many people's lives they needlessly ruin through the incompetant enforcement of Constitutionally prohibited laws, they shouldn't be calling them bad names.
"Gun activists say this legislation is simply part of tort reform. It's far beyond that. Most tort reform is aimed at limiting amounts of punitive damages, not at immunizing an entire industry. There surely are plenty of industries that would welcome such immunity."
Translation: I'm not sure what tort reform is, but we want you to believe that because it is not just limiting monetary awards that the new law isn't tort reform. We seem smart when we do that kind of stuff. & of course many other industries would want that kind of protection. But since no one is suing them in an attempt to wipe out the entire industry they don't need it. & since the gun makers need it & the others don't, then that's not fair!
"Gun activists say gunmakers are under attack and need protection. But we've heard other industries make that claim before. Automakers, for example, have said it's unfair to blame them for the misuse of a car by a driver."
Translation: Of course gun makers say they need protection, but that's only because they're getting sued. & othe rindutries would need that protection & they say so, but let's not dwell on the fact that the auto industry isn't getting sued because people drive drunk while gun makers are getting sued because criminals shoot people. It makes much more sense if we don't look at the facts or even go into much detail.
"Yet, despite lawsuits, automakers still thrive. More important, when automakers faced civil lawsuits, they made safety improvements in automobiles. Do you really think we'd see as many improvements if not for civil lawsuits? Lawsuits can succeed in reforming where reluctant regulators and heavily lobbied legislators fear to tread."
Translation: let's pretend that all lawsuits are the same. So suing a car company for having a faulty seat belt design is the same as suing a gun make for making a gun used by some criminal in a crime, even though in the one instance we're talking about material defects & in the other we're talking about intentional misuse. Besides, Congress won't let us ban all guns, but maybe the courts will. Trying to stop us from banning all guns using the courts rather than the legislature is wrong. I mean, we allready bought most of the judges!!!
"If we provide unprecedented immunity to the gun industry, where's the incentive to make guns safer and not as easy to slip into the hands of criminals?"
Translation: we used the word 'unprecedented' again so we must seem really smart. So let's not dwell on the free market regulating itself in terms of making safe weapons. & let's pretend that if we sue the pants off of gu makers that it will keep criminals from getting guns.
"I hear lots of rhetoric about how the gun industry believes in responsibility and accountability. Well, it's time its members start acting like it. It's time for them to accept responsibility and accountability like the rest of America and stop asking for special treatment not afforded to others."
Translation: Just because the gun industry is being sued in a manner unlike any other industry before in an attempt to bankrupt them & bypass the legislature to regulate them, let's use the words 'accountability' & 'responsibility' to make them seem like they being unfair, mean & whiny.
"Gunmakers and sellers are not above the law."
Translation: gunamkers & sellers should do what we want, because we mean it.
"Tom Mauser's e-mail address is safemauser@yahoo.com."
Translation: If i show a catchy e-mail address then maybe people will think i'm credible.
"Imagine a world in which one of its most dangerous products is exempt from consumer-protection laws. Imagine a world in which the makers and sellers of that product are immune from civil lawsuits related to that product.
The first scenario is already the case; the second is close to happening, right here in America."
Translation: We're not going to be dealing with much factual information, so let's try to get used to the make believe world I'm about to describe to you.
"When consumer-protection laws were developed, the gun lobby convinced Congress to exempt guns from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That means your child's toy gun is subject to greater regulation than a real gun."
Translation: We couldn't get Congress to outlaw guns under the guise of consumer protection, so we'll try to convince you that toys are more regulated than guns are, despite the many thousands of firearms laws & the very few toy laws.
"Recently Colorado was shocked by the tragic accidental shooting of 11-year-old Sahil Ahmed. He was shot and killed by a friend who thought a handgun was empty because the magazine was removed. This tragic mistake has occurred before, and many times manufacturers have been urged to change designs so a bullet doesn't stay in the chamber after the magazine is removed - or to at least place an indicator warning that a bullet is in the chamber. But why should gun manufacturers change? They're exempt from regulation."
Translation: we much prefer to blame a company or an object than a human being's negligence. We sleep better that way. Also we don't know exactly how guns work, but since this is make believe we'll pretend that a gun could be designed to make it completely & utterly safe from the risk of an accidental discharge & blame the gun makers for not defying the laws of pyshics to accomodate our desires. & while we're at it let's blame the lawmakers for not requiring the gunmakers to do the impossible.
"Having this unprecedented exemption apparently isn't enough. The House recently passed a bill that will provide gunmakers and sellers with immunity from virtually all current and future civil lawsuits related to the use of guns. The Senate and President Bush are expected to approve it."
Translation: if we use words like 'unprecedented', even if incorrectly, then we'll seem smart. & the lawmakers are to blame for passing a law that keeps people from suing gunmakers for stuff that ain't their fault, but if we tell you that we won't seem that smart so we use broad sweeping descriptions instead. See? we still seem smart.
"They're poised to prohibit one group - victims of gun violence - the right to seek redress in civil courts, providing the broadest legal protection ever granted to one industry."
Translation: They actually want to keep people who have been victims of crimes from suing companies with 2nd, 3rd & 4th party relationships to the criminals?? what's next? sayig it was the criminals fault for shooting someone? huh. Like criminals have any money!
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps some lawsuits are frivolous, but that's why we have a court system - to sort them out."
Translation: yes some of the lawsuits are silly, but it's the only way we can bypass the legislature to restrict guns.
"But this law wouldn't even allow a case with merit to proceed. The law of unintended consequences comes into play here - it's entirely possible that a host of negligent and felonious parties will escape any liability for their acts or failures to act."
Translation: we think that if a gunmaker sells a gun to a gun store, who sells it to a person & someone else steals it, then sells it to someone else that the gunmaker is responsible, as is everyone with any wealth in that chain of people. That's a meritous lawsuit that won't happen because of this new law.
"Gun activists say immunity is appropriate because of the Second Amendment, but that amendment speaks of a right to bear arms, not of a right to immunity for arms-makers and -sellers. Likewise, the First Amendment doesn't immunize publishers from libel suits."
Translation: We are too smart to get involved in that whole constitution/bill of rights/second amendment thing, so we'll compare apples & oranges & hope no one realizes that libel is more appropriately compared to a gun maker shooting someone than it is to regulating an industry which produces a product specifically mentioned in the constitution.
"Gun activists say immunity is needed because it's unfair for gunmakers to be sued for a buyer's unlawful use of a gun. But it's not that simple. The way guns are sold can enable criminals to obtain guns - e.g., failing to question large-quantity sales."
Translation: well of course it's unfair unless you look at things our way. I mean despite all the regulations & laws & licenses & such a person can still buy guns, & that means even if he's able to buy them legally the gun maker should have known he had evil in his heart. How dare they not read minds before engaging in selling a constitutionally protected product!
"The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is responsible for regulating gun dealers, says that a small number of dealers are responsible for selling the majority of new guns traced to crimes. Why does the gun industry want to shield these bad apples?"
Translation: not that many gun dealers break the law, so we must use inuendo to associate this new law which does not protect a gun maker or seller from criminal acts or even negligent ones with the small number of dealers that break one of the many thousands of gun laws.
"Robert Ricker, a whistleblower who once was an attorney for the NRA and spokesman for the gunmakers, says the gun industry has failed to crack down on questionable dealers and rejected his proposals to establish stricter guidelines for the industry."
Translation:If we use the term whistleblower it might cover up the fact that Ricker is being paid. It might also make people think that his claim that the gun makers were not reading minds of the gun sellers who were not reading minds of the customers seem legitimate.
"Gunmakers say they can't be responsible for policing dealers who sell their guns. But most manufacturers go to great lengths to control distribution of their products. Why not gunmakers?"
Translation: Why do the gun makers do things just because it's legal for them to do? Why can't they do the BATF's job for them? & just because it's legal, why do they still keep selling guns? That's just mean & we don't like it.
"Gunmakers say it's up to the ATF to police gun dealers. However, for years the gun lobby has fought against any increase in funding or regulatory power for the ATF. The NRA's top executive has referred to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs." Does the gun lobby really expect us to believe they support ATF oversight of gun dealers?"
Translation:Just because it's not their job why should they place blame on the agency whose job it actually is? & why, just because the BATF is a bunch of jack booted statist thugs do people call them that? I don't care how many kittens they stomp to death or how many people's lives they needlessly ruin through the incompetant enforcement of Constitutionally prohibited laws, they shouldn't be calling them bad names.
"Gun activists say this legislation is simply part of tort reform. It's far beyond that. Most tort reform is aimed at limiting amounts of punitive damages, not at immunizing an entire industry. There surely are plenty of industries that would welcome such immunity."
Translation: I'm not sure what tort reform is, but we want you to believe that because it is not just limiting monetary awards that the new law isn't tort reform. We seem smart when we do that kind of stuff. & of course many other industries would want that kind of protection. But since no one is suing them in an attempt to wipe out the entire industry they don't need it. & since the gun makers need it & the others don't, then that's not fair!
"Gun activists say gunmakers are under attack and need protection. But we've heard other industries make that claim before. Automakers, for example, have said it's unfair to blame them for the misuse of a car by a driver."
Translation: Of course gun makers say they need protection, but that's only because they're getting sued. & othe rindutries would need that protection & they say so, but let's not dwell on the fact that the auto industry isn't getting sued because people drive drunk while gun makers are getting sued because criminals shoot people. It makes much more sense if we don't look at the facts or even go into much detail.
"Yet, despite lawsuits, automakers still thrive. More important, when automakers faced civil lawsuits, they made safety improvements in automobiles. Do you really think we'd see as many improvements if not for civil lawsuits? Lawsuits can succeed in reforming where reluctant regulators and heavily lobbied legislators fear to tread."
Translation: let's pretend that all lawsuits are the same. So suing a car company for having a faulty seat belt design is the same as suing a gun make for making a gun used by some criminal in a crime, even though in the one instance we're talking about material defects & in the other we're talking about intentional misuse. Besides, Congress won't let us ban all guns, but maybe the courts will. Trying to stop us from banning all guns using the courts rather than the legislature is wrong. I mean, we allready bought most of the judges!!!
"If we provide unprecedented immunity to the gun industry, where's the incentive to make guns safer and not as easy to slip into the hands of criminals?"
Translation: we used the word 'unprecedented' again so we must seem really smart. So let's not dwell on the free market regulating itself in terms of making safe weapons. & let's pretend that if we sue the pants off of gu makers that it will keep criminals from getting guns.
"I hear lots of rhetoric about how the gun industry believes in responsibility and accountability. Well, it's time its members start acting like it. It's time for them to accept responsibility and accountability like the rest of America and stop asking for special treatment not afforded to others."
Translation: Just because the gun industry is being sued in a manner unlike any other industry before in an attempt to bankrupt them & bypass the legislature to regulate them, let's use the words 'accountability' & 'responsibility' to make them seem like they being unfair, mean & whiny.
"Gunmakers and sellers are not above the law."
Translation: gunamkers & sellers should do what we want, because we mean it.
"Tom Mauser's e-mail address is safemauser@yahoo.com."
Translation: If i show a catchy e-mail address then maybe people will think i'm credible.
The Denver Post ran the following letter which was written by Colorado state Senator Mark Hillman. Before you completely hyperventilate they also ran a letter by Tom Mauser, a very staunch gun control advocate. I'll get to Mauser's letter in the next post. For your convenience Sen. Hillman's letter in its entirety can be found below.
Anti-gun lobby's frustration exaggerates fact
By State Sen. Mark Hillman
Proponents of gun control prefer to blame their legislative failures on the gun lobby's campaign war chest rather than to look in the mirror.
By casting their opponents as corrupt and callous, the gun-control crowd avoids the unpleasant admission that its hysterical fear of guns isn't shared by mainstream Coloradans, that severe regulations don't bother criminals and that emotional tirades wither when held to intellectual scrutiny.
Moreover, if pro-gun legislators are mind-numbed robots captivated by campaign contributions, what does that say about anti-gun legislators?
Surely, groups like SAFE Colorado and Colorado Ceasefire aren't so self-righteous as to believe that all gun-rights supporters are gullible twits but that all anti-gun legislators are intellectual stalwarts.
Gun-rights supporters succeeded this year in establishing uniform standards for concealed-carry permits and replacing a patchwork of unpredictable and often discriminatory local gun laws with a uniform state law.
So, the gun-grabbers' newest retort is that guns are somehow "above the law."
Anyone who believes that guns are above the law hasn't attempted to purchase one lately. The gun inside the locked case at your favorite gun shop has a serial number on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That gun came from a federally licensed manufacturer who sold it to a federally licensed dealer who must keep a record of all transactions and who cannot sell it to you unless you clear state and federal background checks.
Once you legally purchase a gun, understand that federal firearms laws cover a mere 365 pages and state law adds numerous restrictions on carrying, possession, discharge, purchase and use.
However, this "above the law" claim is more likely an expression of the anti-gun lobby's frustration than an assertion that guns are unregulated.
Legislators were one step away from enacting concealed-carry laws when the Columbine tragedy occurred in 1999. Despite the facts that the Columbine assailants ignored numerous firearms laws and that concealed-carry permits had no rational relationship to the crime, many legislators concluded that the ensuing days were not the time to discuss any sort of gun legislation.
Gun foes predictably assumed that withdrawing those bills represented a confession that guns are the problem. The next year, the legislature prohibited Columbine-style strawman purchases, and SAFE Colorado passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks at gun shows. Gun foes wrongly interpreted these events as their mandate.
Even after Columbine, polls showed that while Coloradans wished to keep guns from criminals, their support of the individual right to self-defense - including concealed-carry - had not wavered.
Not only do anti-gun forces ignore these indicators, they also ignore the shrillness of their own tactics:
They accuse foes of voting to put "hidden guns in schools," encouraging the politically nave to believe that gun-rights supporters would stand at the schoolhouse door and stuff guns into students' backpacks.
They disseminate outrageous "facts." Propagandists claimed that concealed-carry would make it "easier to obtain a permit than to purchase a firearm" and would put 160,000 additional handguns on Colorado streets.
In fact, Sen. Ken Chlouber's concealed-carry bills - even before Columbine - prohibited guns in schools, except for security personnel. Anyone ineligible to purchase a gun cannot receive a permit, and only abject paranoia suggests that this legislation puts 160,000 more guns in circulation.
Obviously, fear-mongering foes of responsible gun ownership believe anyone who wants a concealed-carry permit has a Clint Eastwood complex and wakes up every morning craving a hot cup of coffee and a loaded .45.
Lastly, gun foes cannot understand why legislators don't pass storage laws but do prohibit lawsuits that make gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals.
Gun manufacturers are no more responsible for crime than automakers are responsible for drunk driving.
Responsible gun ownership does demand responsible storage, but criminalizing "unsafe" storage is risky business.
Jessica Carpenter's father trained her to shoot effectively. He also complied with California's safe storage law and kept his .357 Magnum out of reach of his children.
When a crazed man wielding a pitchfork broke into the Carpenter home in Merced, Calif., in August 2000, 14-year-old Jessica was helpless to defend her three younger sisters and brother. With her parents away and the phone line cut, Jessica's only choice was to run for help, but the attacker stabbed to death 9-year-old Ashley and 7-year-old John before help arrived.
Contrast that story with the readily available .38 revolver which which 72-year-old Emogene Zamarripa of Colorado Springs used to scare off an intruder - later linked to at least one rape - who crashed through her backdoor in November 2000.
The constitutional protections afforded gun ownership are equivalent to the guarantees of freedom of speech, right to worship and security from unreasonable search and seizure. Legislators who take those rights seriously must defend them, whether against well-intentioned objectors or mean-spirited attacks.
Sen. Mark Hillman's e-mail address is mail@markhillman.com.
Anti-gun lobby's frustration exaggerates fact
By State Sen. Mark Hillman
Proponents of gun control prefer to blame their legislative failures on the gun lobby's campaign war chest rather than to look in the mirror.
By casting their opponents as corrupt and callous, the gun-control crowd avoids the unpleasant admission that its hysterical fear of guns isn't shared by mainstream Coloradans, that severe regulations don't bother criminals and that emotional tirades wither when held to intellectual scrutiny.
Moreover, if pro-gun legislators are mind-numbed robots captivated by campaign contributions, what does that say about anti-gun legislators?
Surely, groups like SAFE Colorado and Colorado Ceasefire aren't so self-righteous as to believe that all gun-rights supporters are gullible twits but that all anti-gun legislators are intellectual stalwarts.
Gun-rights supporters succeeded this year in establishing uniform standards for concealed-carry permits and replacing a patchwork of unpredictable and often discriminatory local gun laws with a uniform state law.
So, the gun-grabbers' newest retort is that guns are somehow "above the law."
Anyone who believes that guns are above the law hasn't attempted to purchase one lately. The gun inside the locked case at your favorite gun shop has a serial number on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That gun came from a federally licensed manufacturer who sold it to a federally licensed dealer who must keep a record of all transactions and who cannot sell it to you unless you clear state and federal background checks.
Once you legally purchase a gun, understand that federal firearms laws cover a mere 365 pages and state law adds numerous restrictions on carrying, possession, discharge, purchase and use.
However, this "above the law" claim is more likely an expression of the anti-gun lobby's frustration than an assertion that guns are unregulated.
Legislators were one step away from enacting concealed-carry laws when the Columbine tragedy occurred in 1999. Despite the facts that the Columbine assailants ignored numerous firearms laws and that concealed-carry permits had no rational relationship to the crime, many legislators concluded that the ensuing days were not the time to discuss any sort of gun legislation.
Gun foes predictably assumed that withdrawing those bills represented a confession that guns are the problem. The next year, the legislature prohibited Columbine-style strawman purchases, and SAFE Colorado passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks at gun shows. Gun foes wrongly interpreted these events as their mandate.
Even after Columbine, polls showed that while Coloradans wished to keep guns from criminals, their support of the individual right to self-defense - including concealed-carry - had not wavered.
Not only do anti-gun forces ignore these indicators, they also ignore the shrillness of their own tactics:
They accuse foes of voting to put "hidden guns in schools," encouraging the politically nave to believe that gun-rights supporters would stand at the schoolhouse door and stuff guns into students' backpacks.
They disseminate outrageous "facts." Propagandists claimed that concealed-carry would make it "easier to obtain a permit than to purchase a firearm" and would put 160,000 additional handguns on Colorado streets.
In fact, Sen. Ken Chlouber's concealed-carry bills - even before Columbine - prohibited guns in schools, except for security personnel. Anyone ineligible to purchase a gun cannot receive a permit, and only abject paranoia suggests that this legislation puts 160,000 more guns in circulation.
Obviously, fear-mongering foes of responsible gun ownership believe anyone who wants a concealed-carry permit has a Clint Eastwood complex and wakes up every morning craving a hot cup of coffee and a loaded .45.
Lastly, gun foes cannot understand why legislators don't pass storage laws but do prohibit lawsuits that make gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals.
Gun manufacturers are no more responsible for crime than automakers are responsible for drunk driving.
Responsible gun ownership does demand responsible storage, but criminalizing "unsafe" storage is risky business.
Jessica Carpenter's father trained her to shoot effectively. He also complied with California's safe storage law and kept his .357 Magnum out of reach of his children.
When a crazed man wielding a pitchfork broke into the Carpenter home in Merced, Calif., in August 2000, 14-year-old Jessica was helpless to defend her three younger sisters and brother. With her parents away and the phone line cut, Jessica's only choice was to run for help, but the attacker stabbed to death 9-year-old Ashley and 7-year-old John before help arrived.
Contrast that story with the readily available .38 revolver which which 72-year-old Emogene Zamarripa of Colorado Springs used to scare off an intruder - later linked to at least one rape - who crashed through her backdoor in November 2000.
The constitutional protections afforded gun ownership are equivalent to the guarantees of freedom of speech, right to worship and security from unreasonable search and seizure. Legislators who take those rights seriously must defend them, whether against well-intentioned objectors or mean-spirited attacks.
Sen. Mark Hillman's e-mail address is mail@markhillman.com.
Other bloggers have been all over this. Dixon pleads guilty to a reduced charge & gets 3 days.
To sum up, Dixon shot an intruder & was charged by a slime of a D.A. named Hynes for having an unregistered gun. Initially Hynes was throwing the book at him, but due to public pressure Hynes reduced the charge. He didn't do this because he thought maybe the people were right & he was being a bit harsh. Mope, he did it because reducing the charges meant that a judge, not a jury would decide the verdict & Hynes knew damn well that no self respecting jury would convict a father for having the means to protect his family, especially when it was undeniably necessary to have the means to protect his family.
I don't know why Dixon pleaded guilty as he had been pretty adament about fighting this thing. I do know that 1 minute in jail is too long when your only 'crime' is not having the governments permission to exercise a Right.
To sum up, Dixon shot an intruder & was charged by a slime of a D.A. named Hynes for having an unregistered gun. Initially Hynes was throwing the book at him, but due to public pressure Hynes reduced the charge. He didn't do this because he thought maybe the people were right & he was being a bit harsh. Mope, he did it because reducing the charges meant that a judge, not a jury would decide the verdict & Hynes knew damn well that no self respecting jury would convict a father for having the means to protect his family, especially when it was undeniably necessary to have the means to protect his family.
I don't know why Dixon pleaded guilty as he had been pretty adament about fighting this thing. I do know that 1 minute in jail is too long when your only 'crime' is not having the governments permission to exercise a Right.
Allan C. Stover writes about the UN's civilian disarmament agenda:
"One of the many NGOs that participated in the conference was the International Action Network on Small Arms. IANSA is “an international network of over 340 organizations from 71 countries working to prevent the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.” (And you thought this was a small effort!) Here is what just one section of IANSA´s Founding Document states it wants to accomplish:
'Effective domestic control over small arms requires: Establishing laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms, including licensing and registration arrangements, along with promotion of the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws. . . .' Now there´s a statement that could come from our own gun grabbers. 'Domestic control' means just what it says. Our government controls our weapons by passing even more 'laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms.' We have some 20,000 of them already, but IANSA wants more 'licensing and registration” and “the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws.' While UN documents tend to drag on and on, this NGO says a lot in a few words.
They have another goal: 'Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.' Even Sarah Brady couldn´t have summarized it in fewer words. That´s what both groups want, although this group says it wants to do it around the world, while Brady supposedly just wants to impose gun control on America. The IANSA website lists a link to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Brady changed the name to clean up its image, but we all know that the original name meant what it said. In fact, you can still get the Brady website."
J.J. Johnson of the Sierra Times writes about police shootings & what race may or may not have to do with it.
"East Chattanooga, Tennessee - What we find most interesting about Whack & Stack is how readers perceive the attitude of the author once the victim's race is mentioned. You either have to be biased against blacks or whites in order to even report on the latest state-sponsored execution. That is not the case, and we felt it best to warn you before reading this next one. When it comes to this lethal trade - race actually does matter. Read on."
Indeed read on. A very interesting take on the justifications for police shootings & the effects of such to the community.
"East Chattanooga, Tennessee - What we find most interesting about Whack & Stack is how readers perceive the attitude of the author once the victim's race is mentioned. You either have to be biased against blacks or whites in order to even report on the latest state-sponsored execution. That is not the case, and we felt it best to warn you before reading this next one. When it comes to this lethal trade - race actually does matter. Read on."
Indeed read on. A very interesting take on the justifications for police shootings & the effects of such to the community.
Monday, June 09, 2003
The UN has announced it will hold a global gun control forum in, appropriately enough, New York City.
'The July 7-11 meeting builds on a similar forum held in 2001, in which participating nations signed a "Program of Action" to "Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.'
The Program of Action, or PoA, "sets the first global norms of good behavior to reduce small-arms proliferation," says a statement by the U.N. Small Arms Conference. "By agreeing to this document, all countries have formally committed themselves to take action" regarding the proliferation of "illicit" small arms and light weapons.
Among the provisions in the PoA agreed upon by member states:
A commitment to make "illicit gun production/possession a criminal offense";
The establishment of a national coordination agency on small arms;
A pledge to identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons;
Track "officially held guns";
The notification of nations who were the original supplier of weapons when those weapons are re-exported;
The marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture, so they can be tracked and traced globally; and
The maintenance of gun manufacture records.
'The purpose of the [meeting of states] in July 2003 is for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing the PoA," said the conference statement. Groups "will make their own independent report on governments' activities, as well as showcasing the important contributions that [non-governmental organizations] themselves are making to stop gun violence'. "
So they want to compare notes on which civilian disarmament programs are the most effective. I wonder if any will have the courage to say, " well, Hitler had great success with this method..." or "I think stalin was onto something when he...".
The emphasis on registration should be obvious: registration makes confiscation so much easier.
& don't expect them to invite JPFO or GOA to the forum, although I'd love to sit down with a White Russian or 5 & watch Aaron Zelman &/or Larry Pratt tell the truth. But do expect some of your favorites from the VPC & the Brady Bunch to make their feelings known on the matter.
But now onto some self damning statements from Mr. Annon himself:
The United Nations has a history of pushing an anti-gun agenda. As early as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Annan identified them as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.
Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, however, such weapons account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100-mm caliber, and land mines.
"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."
He correctly says that small arms are used for violence. They are. & he also correctly states that they are used for violence in countries that are not engaged in civil war.
But there are two things he left out which make his statements less than honest:
Most of the time it is the government using small arms against their own people. In fact 170,000,000 non-military (i.e. civilian) deaths were attributed to their respective governments in the 20th century.
When a civilian population possess small arms, they cannot be controlled by the likes of the UN.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote someone with experience in the matter. I give you the words of Helga Hooper.
"In 1934 and 1935, the German people had to register all their firearms, pistols, rifles," she explained. "The Germans only had hunting weapons. They were great hunters.
"It's very seldom that Jews owned guns, but my whole family were avid hunters. My parents had to register their guns in '34 and '35, in '36 they were confiscated" by the German government headed by Adolph Hitler.
They allowed Hitler to have "total control over the people," she said. "First they (guns) were registered, then they were confiscated, then came concentration camps."
This is a link to a previous post about Ian McCollum examining Jewish resistance to the Holocaust.
Here's a previous post about David Kopel & associate's analysis of Hitler's means of control.
Here's a previous post about Ilana Mercer's thought on the dangers of globalism
Here's a previous post about Samizdata's David Carr's post about Andy Duncans analysis of a marxist approach to EU strategy
Here's a previous post on the UN's plans for global civilian disarmament
Here's a previous post on Rep. Ron Paul introducing a bill to withdraw the US from the UN.
After reading all the above I would suggest buying this, this & a couple of these. I would also suggest starting out by placing them at 300 yards before moving them out to 600. After all, ya might as well practice with realistic targets.
'The July 7-11 meeting builds on a similar forum held in 2001, in which participating nations signed a "Program of Action" to "Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.'
The Program of Action, or PoA, "sets the first global norms of good behavior to reduce small-arms proliferation," says a statement by the U.N. Small Arms Conference. "By agreeing to this document, all countries have formally committed themselves to take action" regarding the proliferation of "illicit" small arms and light weapons.
Among the provisions in the PoA agreed upon by member states:
A commitment to make "illicit gun production/possession a criminal offense";
The establishment of a national coordination agency on small arms;
A pledge to identify and destroy stocks of surplus weapons;
Track "officially held guns";
The notification of nations who were the original supplier of weapons when those weapons are re-exported;
The marking of guns and light weapons at the point of manufacture, so they can be tracked and traced globally; and
The maintenance of gun manufacture records.
'The purpose of the [meeting of states] in July 2003 is for governments to report their progress and lessons learned in the first two years of implementing the PoA," said the conference statement. Groups "will make their own independent report on governments' activities, as well as showcasing the important contributions that [non-governmental organizations] themselves are making to stop gun violence'. "
So they want to compare notes on which civilian disarmament programs are the most effective. I wonder if any will have the courage to say, " well, Hitler had great success with this method..." or "I think stalin was onto something when he...".
The emphasis on registration should be obvious: registration makes confiscation so much easier.
& don't expect them to invite JPFO or GOA to the forum, although I'd love to sit down with a White Russian or 5 & watch Aaron Zelman &/or Larry Pratt tell the truth. But do expect some of your favorites from the VPC & the Brady Bunch to make their feelings known on the matter.
But now onto some self damning statements from Mr. Annon himself:
The United Nations has a history of pushing an anti-gun agenda. As early as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Annan identified them as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.
Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, however, such weapons account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100-mm caliber, and land mines.
"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."
He correctly says that small arms are used for violence. They are. & he also correctly states that they are used for violence in countries that are not engaged in civil war.
But there are two things he left out which make his statements less than honest:
Most of the time it is the government using small arms against their own people. In fact 170,000,000 non-military (i.e. civilian) deaths were attributed to their respective governments in the 20th century.
When a civilian population possess small arms, they cannot be controlled by the likes of the UN.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote someone with experience in the matter. I give you the words of Helga Hooper.
"In 1934 and 1935, the German people had to register all their firearms, pistols, rifles," she explained. "The Germans only had hunting weapons. They were great hunters.
"It's very seldom that Jews owned guns, but my whole family were avid hunters. My parents had to register their guns in '34 and '35, in '36 they were confiscated" by the German government headed by Adolph Hitler.
They allowed Hitler to have "total control over the people," she said. "First they (guns) were registered, then they were confiscated, then came concentration camps."
This is a link to a previous post about Ian McCollum examining Jewish resistance to the Holocaust.
Here's a previous post about David Kopel & associate's analysis of Hitler's means of control.
Here's a previous post about Ilana Mercer's thought on the dangers of globalism
Here's a previous post about Samizdata's David Carr's post about Andy Duncans analysis of a marxist approach to EU strategy
Here's a previous post on the UN's plans for global civilian disarmament
Here's a previous post on Rep. Ron Paul introducing a bill to withdraw the US from the UN.
After reading all the above I would suggest buying this, this & a couple of these. I would also suggest starting out by placing them at 300 yards before moving them out to 600. After all, ya might as well practice with realistic targets.
Think an electronic tag is more convenient than stopping at the toll booth? It probably is, but not just for you. In Virginia the government is using the information from these electronic tags to track an individuals' movements.
"Virginia law enforcement authorities are using records from the state's Smart Tag electronic highway-toll-collection system in their investigations.
Though the Virginia Department of Transportation has been subpoenaed for the electronic toll-system records, it also hands over the records of vehicle movements to police without requiring a court order, the department said.
'We have provided Smart Tag information for criminal investigations that relate to activities of a specific car,' [Transportation Department spokeswoman Tamara Neale] said. 'We've done so without a subpoena.'
Virginia's Smart Tag operation has the names, addresses, phone numbers, credit-card numbers, driver's license numbers and vehicle license numbers of its customers.
It also records the date, time and location - down to the highway toll plaza and lane number - for every use of the tag.
VDOT says it takes requests for information on Smart Tag customer accounts from police in person, in writing or by telephone."
What this means is that the State of Virginia is allowing its law enforcement departments to access very personal information on you, at times without a warrant & at times merely by a telephone request. & among the information that they possess are any permits, such as a concealed carry permit, that you may have pertaining to firearms. In Virginia this information is tied into your drivers license so I suspect it would also be tied in to your Smart Tag records. Even if it is only accessible by looking at your drivers license record it provides a 'tool' to law enforcement for tracking the movements of gun owners should they so choose.
& not to go all Orwellian on ya, but I have long opinied that the most effective way to implement civilian disarmament in the US would be to quietly start confiscating weapons through road blocks disguised as DUI checkpoints. The theory being that once a drivers license is scanned any information about firearms, such as registration or a CCW permit if that state allows it, is found. If a person has any type of weapons permit or registered weapons that show up in the system then that person is detained while the vehicle &/or his house is searched & all weapons confiscated. That way, under the guise of a DUI checkpoint, you catch the gun owner with his guard down & it is subsequently easier & safer to disarm him. If it is done right then a good portion of the guns in this country could be confiscated in a short amount of time. I am just guessing, but if a gun owner is held under suspicion for three days, as is allowed in most states, & is further denied contact with the outside world, then there would be nothing to warn other gun owners of the confiscation untill it is too late. Perhaps as high as 20% of gunowners in the country could be disarmed this way. I think a higher percentage is unlikely while a smaller percentage is more probable.
This scenario is unlikely, at least anytime soon, but possible. I know if I were in charge that's what I'd do.
In any event a state government being able to track an individuals movements is disturbing.
"Virginia law enforcement authorities are using records from the state's Smart Tag electronic highway-toll-collection system in their investigations.
Though the Virginia Department of Transportation has been subpoenaed for the electronic toll-system records, it also hands over the records of vehicle movements to police without requiring a court order, the department said.
'We have provided Smart Tag information for criminal investigations that relate to activities of a specific car,' [Transportation Department spokeswoman Tamara Neale] said. 'We've done so without a subpoena.'
Virginia's Smart Tag operation has the names, addresses, phone numbers, credit-card numbers, driver's license numbers and vehicle license numbers of its customers.
It also records the date, time and location - down to the highway toll plaza and lane number - for every use of the tag.
VDOT says it takes requests for information on Smart Tag customer accounts from police in person, in writing or by telephone."
What this means is that the State of Virginia is allowing its law enforcement departments to access very personal information on you, at times without a warrant & at times merely by a telephone request. & among the information that they possess are any permits, such as a concealed carry permit, that you may have pertaining to firearms. In Virginia this information is tied into your drivers license so I suspect it would also be tied in to your Smart Tag records. Even if it is only accessible by looking at your drivers license record it provides a 'tool' to law enforcement for tracking the movements of gun owners should they so choose.
& not to go all Orwellian on ya, but I have long opinied that the most effective way to implement civilian disarmament in the US would be to quietly start confiscating weapons through road blocks disguised as DUI checkpoints. The theory being that once a drivers license is scanned any information about firearms, such as registration or a CCW permit if that state allows it, is found. If a person has any type of weapons permit or registered weapons that show up in the system then that person is detained while the vehicle &/or his house is searched & all weapons confiscated. That way, under the guise of a DUI checkpoint, you catch the gun owner with his guard down & it is subsequently easier & safer to disarm him. If it is done right then a good portion of the guns in this country could be confiscated in a short amount of time. I am just guessing, but if a gun owner is held under suspicion for three days, as is allowed in most states, & is further denied contact with the outside world, then there would be nothing to warn other gun owners of the confiscation untill it is too late. Perhaps as high as 20% of gunowners in the country could be disarmed this way. I think a higher percentage is unlikely while a smaller percentage is more probable.
This scenario is unlikely, at least anytime soon, but possible. I know if I were in charge that's what I'd do.
In any event a state government being able to track an individuals movements is disturbing.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." — John Philpot Curran, 1790
Looks like some people in Tennessee have come across a good idea. It's a petition to get the governor & legislature to pass a bill nullifying all federal gun control laws within the borders of Tenessee.
"PETITION TO THE GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE
WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America mandates and guarantees the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, and further mandates that the federal government shall make no law which infringes these rights, and
WHEREAS the federal government has violated, abrogated, ignored and vilified the Constitution by enacting laws which infringe these rights, and is thus in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, as citizens of the United States, call upon and hereby petition the Governor of the State of Tennessee to initiate a bill within the legislative body of the State of Tennessee, which will nullify and make void any and all federal firearms laws, within the boundaries of the Sovereign State of Tennessee, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
Sincerely
The undersigned"
If you live in Tennesse then mosey on over & sign this thing.
"PETITION TO THE GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE
WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America mandates and guarantees the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, and further mandates that the federal government shall make no law which infringes these rights, and
WHEREAS the federal government has violated, abrogated, ignored and vilified the Constitution by enacting laws which infringe these rights, and is thus in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, as citizens of the United States, call upon and hereby petition the Governor of the State of Tennessee to initiate a bill within the legislative body of the State of Tennessee, which will nullify and make void any and all federal firearms laws, within the boundaries of the Sovereign State of Tennessee, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
Sincerely
The undersigned"
If you live in Tennesse then mosey on over & sign this thing.
The proposed California Ammunition & Component tax is in the news again.The Smallest Minority is all over it. Look here for the first post, then scroll up one for the second as his permalink to that one isn't working.
The Smallest Minority covers it nicely, except for one aspect: the tax is per item on components as well as loaded ammunition. So while a 20 round box of cartridges would have an additional $2 tax added on, a box of 100 primers or bullets would have a $10 tax added on.
What follows is a previous post I did on the component aspects of the tax which can be found here.
In California they're trying to pass a bill that would charge a ten cent tax per round or component of ammunition. Of course, cops are exempt.
"...For purposes of this section, "munition" means a projectile
with its fuse, propelling charge, or primer fired from a weapon, or
any of the individual components thereof..."
I'm not sure what the going rate is in Cali but in Colorado Federal 210 Large Rifle primers are roughly $2.00 per 100. A box of 100 .30 caliber 168 grain BTHP Match will set you back around $20. A pound of IMR 4831 runs around $18. 100 Remington .30-06 Springfield cases will set you back a little over $20.
That comes to roughly 58 cents per round for the first loading, 38 cents a round for the second, third fourth & fifth loadings for an average of 42 cents per round (assuming no more than 5 reloads per case) That equates to $8.40 for 20 rounds compared to $16 per box of Remington 165 grain soft point ammo at Wal-Mart. So it costs a little less than half to roll your own with match grade bullets than it does to buy factory ammo w/o match grade bullets.
So assuming California prices are similar to Colorado, should this tax bill get passed 100 cases would run $30; 100 bullets would run $30; 100 primers would run $12. I shudder to think of each flake of powder costing 10 cents, but let's assume 10 cents per canister.
That's 91 cents per round for the first loading, 61 cents for each subsequent one for an average of .67 cents per round. (Again assuming no more than5 reloads per case) That brings it up to $13.40 per 20 rounds compared to the $18 you'd pay at Wal-Mart for factory ammo.
& the Cali calculations are based on the hope that they don't tax each flake of powder. There's 7000 grains of powder per pound, but powders don't have the same mass or density, so that could equate to 6,800 pieces of powder in one brand, 7,240 in another, & 25,923 in yet another. But just going on the assumption that if they did tax the powder by individual piece I'd assume for logistical purposes they'd round it up to 10 cents per grain by weight. I mean, who wants to spend all day counting how many thousands of flakes are in each pound of gunpowder? So at 10 cents per grain that comes to a $700 tax per pound of powder, increasing the cost per round to $7.91 for the first loading, $7.61 for each subsequent loading for an average of $7.67 per round. (Yet again assuming5 loadings per case) That would mean $153.40 per 20 rounds compared to $18 at Wal-Mart for factory ammo. I hope I am correct in assuming the legislators in Cali are not that far gone, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them tax per grain of powder rather than per can.
To sum up:
$16 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$8.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the tax bill passes this translates into:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$13.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the new tax means 10 cents per grain of powder:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$153.40 per 20 round box of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
Either way the ammo & component tax unfairly burdens the reloaders: the ones who for economy or quality control reasons load their own ammo. & let us not forget there are many people who shoot 'wildcat' rounds. Wildcats are cartridges that for one reason or another ammunition makers do not make loaded rounds of. So they have to load their own.
The majority of people who load their own ammo participate in some form of high volume shooting sport. Some hunt as well, but the typical reloader does it simply in order to target shoot more often, target shoot more efficiently, or hunt more efficiently. These are not typically the people involved in drive-by's.
The stated reason for the tax is to help recompense the state for the high cost of violence perpetrated with firearms. It would seem though, that the tax would target gun owners who are at a very low risk of committing gun violence. It's similar to saying that a tax is levied to defray costs from building new roads, but the ones being taxed the most are pedestrians.
California is in a budget crisis & they are looking to tax their way out of it. Gun owners seem to have a small voice in government out there so they are an easy target. It shouldn't be this way, as there are quite enough gun owners in California to make their voices heard, but alas, I fear apathy is the culprit. Then again I have also heard that in California, a situation exists in which the urban centers hold the most political influence & therefore neglect the needs of the rural parts of the state. Same thing occurs in Illinois, where Chicago controls the state, & In Michigan where Detroit usually has the last word. Or so I hear.
California could do other things to help curb the costs of violence & help trim their budget such as encouraging, not arresting people who carry arms for protection, keeping violent offenders in prison for the length of their sentence, stop socializing everything that moves & most things that don't, & perhaps most importantly to the budget, stop spending beyond their citizens means.
But in typical leftist fashion, they choose a means which accomplishes multiple ends: taxing their way out of a budget problem they created while punishing gun owners for crime & discouraging shooting sports by artificially inflating the costs.
My advice to people in California: Nevada, Arizona, Oregon or Revolution.
The Smallest Minority covers it nicely, except for one aspect: the tax is per item on components as well as loaded ammunition. So while a 20 round box of cartridges would have an additional $2 tax added on, a box of 100 primers or bullets would have a $10 tax added on.
What follows is a previous post I did on the component aspects of the tax which can be found here.
In California they're trying to pass a bill that would charge a ten cent tax per round or component of ammunition. Of course, cops are exempt.
"...For purposes of this section, "munition" means a projectile
with its fuse, propelling charge, or primer fired from a weapon, or
any of the individual components thereof..."
I'm not sure what the going rate is in Cali but in Colorado Federal 210 Large Rifle primers are roughly $2.00 per 100. A box of 100 .30 caliber 168 grain BTHP Match will set you back around $20. A pound of IMR 4831 runs around $18. 100 Remington .30-06 Springfield cases will set you back a little over $20.
That comes to roughly 58 cents per round for the first loading, 38 cents a round for the second, third fourth & fifth loadings for an average of 42 cents per round (assuming no more than 5 reloads per case) That equates to $8.40 for 20 rounds compared to $16 per box of Remington 165 grain soft point ammo at Wal-Mart. So it costs a little less than half to roll your own with match grade bullets than it does to buy factory ammo w/o match grade bullets.
So assuming California prices are similar to Colorado, should this tax bill get passed 100 cases would run $30; 100 bullets would run $30; 100 primers would run $12. I shudder to think of each flake of powder costing 10 cents, but let's assume 10 cents per canister.
That's 91 cents per round for the first loading, 61 cents for each subsequent one for an average of .67 cents per round. (Again assuming no more than5 reloads per case) That brings it up to $13.40 per 20 rounds compared to the $18 you'd pay at Wal-Mart for factory ammo.
& the Cali calculations are based on the hope that they don't tax each flake of powder. There's 7000 grains of powder per pound, but powders don't have the same mass or density, so that could equate to 6,800 pieces of powder in one brand, 7,240 in another, & 25,923 in yet another. But just going on the assumption that if they did tax the powder by individual piece I'd assume for logistical purposes they'd round it up to 10 cents per grain by weight. I mean, who wants to spend all day counting how many thousands of flakes are in each pound of gunpowder? So at 10 cents per grain that comes to a $700 tax per pound of powder, increasing the cost per round to $7.91 for the first loading, $7.61 for each subsequent loading for an average of $7.67 per round. (Yet again assuming5 loadings per case) That would mean $153.40 per 20 rounds compared to $18 at Wal-Mart for factory ammo. I hope I am correct in assuming the legislators in Cali are not that far gone, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them tax per grain of powder rather than per can.
To sum up:
$16 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$8.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the tax bill passes this translates into:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$13.40 per 20 rounds of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
If the new tax means 10 cents per grain of powder:
$18 per 20 round box of factory ammo w/ softnose bullets
$153.40 per 20 round box of handloaded ammo w/ match quality bullets
Either way the ammo & component tax unfairly burdens the reloaders: the ones who for economy or quality control reasons load their own ammo. & let us not forget there are many people who shoot 'wildcat' rounds. Wildcats are cartridges that for one reason or another ammunition makers do not make loaded rounds of. So they have to load their own.
The majority of people who load their own ammo participate in some form of high volume shooting sport. Some hunt as well, but the typical reloader does it simply in order to target shoot more often, target shoot more efficiently, or hunt more efficiently. These are not typically the people involved in drive-by's.
The stated reason for the tax is to help recompense the state for the high cost of violence perpetrated with firearms. It would seem though, that the tax would target gun owners who are at a very low risk of committing gun violence. It's similar to saying that a tax is levied to defray costs from building new roads, but the ones being taxed the most are pedestrians.
California is in a budget crisis & they are looking to tax their way out of it. Gun owners seem to have a small voice in government out there so they are an easy target. It shouldn't be this way, as there are quite enough gun owners in California to make their voices heard, but alas, I fear apathy is the culprit. Then again I have also heard that in California, a situation exists in which the urban centers hold the most political influence & therefore neglect the needs of the rural parts of the state. Same thing occurs in Illinois, where Chicago controls the state, & In Michigan where Detroit usually has the last word. Or so I hear.
California could do other things to help curb the costs of violence & help trim their budget such as encouraging, not arresting people who carry arms for protection, keeping violent offenders in prison for the length of their sentence, stop socializing everything that moves & most things that don't, & perhaps most importantly to the budget, stop spending beyond their citizens means.
But in typical leftist fashion, they choose a means which accomplishes multiple ends: taxing their way out of a budget problem they created while punishing gun owners for crime & discouraging shooting sports by artificially inflating the costs.
My advice to people in California: Nevada, Arizona, Oregon or Revolution.
Thursday, June 05, 2003
The California Assembly has approved a bill adding .50 rifles to the state's dangerous weapons list
"The Assembly approved a bill Wednesday that would add a high-powered rifle to the state's list of dangerous weapons. Under the bill, a criminal using the weapon would face up to 12 years in prison.
People who already own the gun would be allowed to keep them, but would have to register with the state Department of Justice.
'It requires a permit for people to buy them in the future,' [Assemblyman Paul] Koretz said. 'If terrorists want to buy them, hopefully we can catch them and prevent that.'
The bill was approved on a 42-26 vote, sending it to the Senate."
I refer you to an earlier post in which Michael Marks observed the California legislature as it contemplated a .50 ban.
Thanks to Say Uncle for the link
"The Assembly approved a bill Wednesday that would add a high-powered rifle to the state's list of dangerous weapons. Under the bill, a criminal using the weapon would face up to 12 years in prison.
People who already own the gun would be allowed to keep them, but would have to register with the state Department of Justice.
'It requires a permit for people to buy them in the future,' [Assemblyman Paul] Koretz said. 'If terrorists want to buy them, hopefully we can catch them and prevent that.'
The bill was approved on a 42-26 vote, sending it to the Senate."
I refer you to an earlier post in which Michael Marks observed the California legislature as it contemplated a .50 ban.
Thanks to Say Uncle for the link
PBS & Bill Moyers promote an educational plan that could double as a Violence Policy Center press release.
"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site (www.pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html) an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: 'Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes'.
This is not the first attack on the Second Amendment that has been financed by PBS with your tax dollars. It is simply the latest. However, its target should be of particular concern to all who value our liberties and the quality of education our youth receive.
By attempting to turn classrooms into echo chambers of anti-Second Amendment dogma, Moyers and PBS erode public trust in our schools.The future of our rights can only be protected if our children are taught that the fight is constant. To continue the fight, they must be armed with the truth, not shackled by revisionist history force fed them by an anti-gun elite. This effort by PBS to undermine the Second Amendment by spreading anti-gun propaganda in our schools will only succeed if we stand by and silently allow it."
Nice to know that they take your money in the form of taxes to help fund efforts to take away your guns.
PBS contact info:
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1649
Phone: (703) 739-5000
Fax: (703) 739-0775
Also keep in mind that your elected officials in D.C. have a say in PBS funding. So a letter to them expressing your displeasure at the way they're using your money against you wouldn't hurt either.
"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site (www.pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html) an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: 'Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes'.
This is not the first attack on the Second Amendment that has been financed by PBS with your tax dollars. It is simply the latest. However, its target should be of particular concern to all who value our liberties and the quality of education our youth receive.
By attempting to turn classrooms into echo chambers of anti-Second Amendment dogma, Moyers and PBS erode public trust in our schools.The future of our rights can only be protected if our children are taught that the fight is constant. To continue the fight, they must be armed with the truth, not shackled by revisionist history force fed them by an anti-gun elite. This effort by PBS to undermine the Second Amendment by spreading anti-gun propaganda in our schools will only succeed if we stand by and silently allow it."
Nice to know that they take your money in the form of taxes to help fund efforts to take away your guns.
PBS contact info:
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1649
Phone: (703) 739-5000
Fax: (703) 739-0775
Also keep in mind that your elected officials in D.C. have a say in PBS funding. So a letter to them expressing your displeasure at the way they're using your money against you wouldn't hurt either.
This may or may not be of assistance to you, but feel free to use it if you wish. The following is a sample letter to be given to companies, corporations, businesses, etc.. that have policies against carrying arms or defending ones self on the job. I do not know if it will be at all effective, but any & all feedback would be appreciated.
Company Policy Regarding Personal Security & Risk Management
It is a standard policy among many companies & corporations to prohibit any resistance to an actual threat. It is also standard to prohibit employees from carrying any means of resistance to potential threats. There are various reasons given for the enactment & enforcement of these policies, ranging from a belief that this will protect employees to limiting a company or corporation’s legal liability should an attacker or 3rd party be injured in the course of an employee defending him/herself.
I assert that the reasoning behind these policies is flawed & in fact more dangerous to the employee & employer than the perceived danger that is the basis of these policies.
First allow me to address the question of compliance when faced with a threat:
The logic behind compliance with an attacker’s demands as it relates to company policy is that the attacker will not harm the employee as long as the demands are met. This is flawed reasoning on a number of levels.
First we have to assume that the attacker wants a specific thing, such as money, jewelry, etc. This is often the prime motivation for an attack but by no means is it the sole reason. Many attacks occur simply to satisfy a desire to hurt someone else. Some attacks, albeit fewer than the first two categories, occur because of mistaken identity. Attacks can also have multiple motives. For example robbing someone with the intent to hurt them after the objects of the robbery have been obtained is not uncommon. & there is always the possibility that an attacker will harm the victim solely to make the victim unwilling or unable to identify them.
There is enough of a chance that attackers’ motives are not limited to theft that a policy of compliance will not prevent & may even encourage violence against an employee.
Second we must assume that for a compliance doctrine to be effective, the attackers’ are trustworthy. In essence the compliance doctrine establishes a contractual relationship between attacker & victim. The essence of the contract is that if the victim complies with the attackers’ demands, then the victim will not be harmed. Admittedly this may work in some instances, but only where the attacker is motivated solely by theft, is not concerned about the victim making an identification & does not have the desire &/or capacity to inflict violence upon the victim. Now if we assume that a high percentage of confrontations meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be effective we must also realize that the remaining situations will not meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be beneficial to the victim. In fact, in non-robbery or dual-purpose encounters the compliance doctrine benefits the attacker while increasing the risk for the victim.
In essence, the compliance doctrine relies on the attacker being willing to threaten violence, but not actually act upon that threat. This is simply not a logical assumption to make. Should a person be willing to threaten violence against another person, we should not assume that it is a bluff, or even that if the demands are met then there will be no realization of the threat. Rather, we should assume that any person who is willing to threaten violence against another person unless demands are met is not only capable, but likely to carry out that threat regardless of whether the demands are met or not. While statistically it may be that only a small percentage of attackers mean to commit harm, or actually commit harm to their victim I do not know of anyone who would, given an alternative, ask their loved ones to risk encountering that percentage of attackers no matter how remote the chances are. This is no more than a lottery, where the employee is forced to adopt a policy that simply does not work in all cases because there is a misguided belief that it works in the majority of cases.
Company policy also prohibits the carrying of any type of weapon or object that can be used for personal defense. This too is an unwise approach that causes more harm than it remedies.
Weapons have been the companion of humans since the dawn of humanity. They are tools whose purpose is quite simple: providing an advantage to those who are challenged by a physically superior force. Currently their very existence is often frowned upon. This is based on an irrational fear of the weapon itself more than the belief that all humans are evil. The company policy concerning weapons & other objects of defense reflects this trend & for absolutely no good reason.
There are two primary justifications for prohibiting weapons & other objects of defense: A fear that the presence of a weapon will escalate into violence & potential legal liability for the company &/or corporation.
The idea that an employee possessing a weapon during a confrontation will cause violence to erupt where there was no potential for violence to begin with is flawed.
For that assumption to be true we must have a situation where only a threat to the attacker would cause violence. In essence we are thinking that the attacker is bluffing. By following that logic we would also conclude that since the attacker is bluffing then as long as no threat were presented there would be no violence even if the demands were not met. That’s a very interesting way of saying that an attacker will not harm you even if you refuse to meet the demands given. & if that were true then robbery would disappear. After all if there is no danger of violence then why would anyone meet demands that are not agreeable?
The facts however are that an attacker who threatens violence will not act upon that threat solely because of the presence of a weapon. In fact it is more logical to assume that an attacker will not act upon a threat of violence if he is faced with a victim who is armed equally. Most attackers, assuming that robbery is the main or sole motive will seek easier victims than go through the risk of a violent encounter with an armed opponent. Those that are not deterred by an armed victim ready & capable of self defense would not be prevented from committing any violent acts merely because demands were met to satisfaction.
In fact it has been estimated that between 40,000 & 2,000,000 crimes are prevented every year merely because the victim possessed & showed a weapon to an attacker.
The presence of a weapon will not typically escalate a situation to violence when there was little or no threat of violence to begin with. In fact the presence of a weapon is much more likely to prevent violence.
The legal liability of a company or corporation is always a concern, but I feel there are some aspects which have been neglected.
It is true that should an employee cause harm to an assailant or in the process of defense a 3rd party that there exists a real potential for litigation. However there is another possible claimant that is being neglected, & one who offers a much stronger case in a civil trial: an employee &/or the family of an employee.
Should an employee be injured or killed by an attacker while following company policy regarding compliance & the absence of defensive tools, then a very real possibility exists that a lawsuit could be brought against the company or corporation for putting an employee at greater risk than would otherwise have occurred.
The ideal case for this would be an employee who had no weapons & offered no resistance as per company policy, yet was injured or killed by an attacker, despite having some reasonable degree of competence with self defense & the tools used therein. The claim would be that the company policy created an unnecessary hazard to the employee that resulted in injury &/or death. It in essence deprived the employee the fundamental Right of Self Defense while offering no compensatory protection.
The company would have to prove that they did in fact offer adequate protection for the employee while he was obligated to forego his ability to defend himself. As pointed out above a very reasonable & persuasive argument can be made that compliance & lack of defensive tools are not adequately substituted by hoping that an attacker will commit violence.
Now with all litigation involving juries there is a chance that any claims will be dismissed. However given a jury composed of people in a region where Self Defense & the carrying of weapons are regarded as basic & inherent Rights the odds are greatly against the company &/or corporation.
There are other reasons for changing company policy in regards to compliance & the use of defensive weapons.
Currently the U.S. is under a threat, albeit to varying degrees, of attack from foreign sources. The nature of the attacks in the past indicates that compliance is not effective as it just makes the attackers’ job easier with absolutely no benefit to the victims. Now, just as before all citizens are expected to provide for the common defense. In order to assist in the common defense it is reasonable to expect that every citizen who is able & willing have on or near their person the tools needed for defense. This would mean weapons or other objects of defense. This country was founded with the idea that all citizens are responsible for the collective defense. At the time this concept was embodied in the militia. It is still in effect today. Congress has defined the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 & 45 & given the civil rights movement that should be assumed to encompass females as well. This can be found at 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958). So to prohibit the possession of weapons &/or other objects of defense company policy is in effect negating a resource that the country has been dependent upon since its inception.
Another aspect is societal protection. Should an attack be made then the chances of apprehending, identifying & prosecution the attacker are slim. This is due mostly to the fact that eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence & often the only form of evidence in these types of cases. For this reason among others all who participate in society are obligated to act in the common defense of society. This not only includes being a good witness to a crime, but if possible attempting to prevent the crime &/or apprehending the perpetrator. It is much safer for society, which includes the company/corporation & employees, if a person who attempts to commit an act of violence is not subject to the consequences of their acts. This is not to say one must act foolishly in an attempt to apprehend a criminal, but where & when able a person is obligated to prevent a person escaping justice.
Currently it is assumed that most employees of certain companies/corporations are easy targets. While potentially not having access to large amounts of money this is negated by their obliged compliance & the lack of means to resist. This encourages rather than discourages criminal behavior. Procedures which limit the amount of money available to a thief do not deter them, as petty thefts are by far the most prevalent crimes involving robbery.
However should a small amount of money accessible to a potential victim coupled with no obligation of compliance, no prohibition on resistance & no prohibition on defensive tools become the policy then the deterrent factor would be measurably increased.
& lastly should an attacker be intent upon violence then the only persuasion that will deter him is violence. It is reasonable to conclude that when threatening violence the person intends to act upon it, even to the point of causing the death of the victim. Therefore logic would dictate that since compliance will only result in a victims injury &/or death, then nothing is lost in an attempt to use violence to deter or incapacitate the attacker.
Therefore I propose that the company policy regarding compliance & weapons be rescinded.
In its place there should be a policy of resistance to any & all threats of violence whether this resistance comprises an attempt at escaping the situation or actively resisting the attacker.
Further that no prohibitions be placed upon an employee carrying or possessing a weapon or other toll suitable for defensive purposes.
To ensure that this policy is understood & to make clear the legal ramifications of it I would recommend a waiver be signed by every employee absolving the company/corporation of any liability in the event of negligence, incidental or purposeful injury caused directly or indirectly by the employee.
I would also recommend that the company/corporation either;
A: Establish & institute a training program that focuses on crime prevention as well as self defense
B: Provide incentive for employees to take defensive instruction (such as a credited vacation day to every day they spend taking an approved defensive course)
C: Both A & B
If any further discussion is required feel free to contac me at ______________________
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________________________________
Company Policy Regarding Personal Security & Risk Management
It is a standard policy among many companies & corporations to prohibit any resistance to an actual threat. It is also standard to prohibit employees from carrying any means of resistance to potential threats. There are various reasons given for the enactment & enforcement of these policies, ranging from a belief that this will protect employees to limiting a company or corporation’s legal liability should an attacker or 3rd party be injured in the course of an employee defending him/herself.
I assert that the reasoning behind these policies is flawed & in fact more dangerous to the employee & employer than the perceived danger that is the basis of these policies.
First allow me to address the question of compliance when faced with a threat:
The logic behind compliance with an attacker’s demands as it relates to company policy is that the attacker will not harm the employee as long as the demands are met. This is flawed reasoning on a number of levels.
First we have to assume that the attacker wants a specific thing, such as money, jewelry, etc. This is often the prime motivation for an attack but by no means is it the sole reason. Many attacks occur simply to satisfy a desire to hurt someone else. Some attacks, albeit fewer than the first two categories, occur because of mistaken identity. Attacks can also have multiple motives. For example robbing someone with the intent to hurt them after the objects of the robbery have been obtained is not uncommon. & there is always the possibility that an attacker will harm the victim solely to make the victim unwilling or unable to identify them.
There is enough of a chance that attackers’ motives are not limited to theft that a policy of compliance will not prevent & may even encourage violence against an employee.
Second we must assume that for a compliance doctrine to be effective, the attackers’ are trustworthy. In essence the compliance doctrine establishes a contractual relationship between attacker & victim. The essence of the contract is that if the victim complies with the attackers’ demands, then the victim will not be harmed. Admittedly this may work in some instances, but only where the attacker is motivated solely by theft, is not concerned about the victim making an identification & does not have the desire &/or capacity to inflict violence upon the victim. Now if we assume that a high percentage of confrontations meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be effective we must also realize that the remaining situations will not meet the criteria for the compliance policy to be beneficial to the victim. In fact, in non-robbery or dual-purpose encounters the compliance doctrine benefits the attacker while increasing the risk for the victim.
In essence, the compliance doctrine relies on the attacker being willing to threaten violence, but not actually act upon that threat. This is simply not a logical assumption to make. Should a person be willing to threaten violence against another person, we should not assume that it is a bluff, or even that if the demands are met then there will be no realization of the threat. Rather, we should assume that any person who is willing to threaten violence against another person unless demands are met is not only capable, but likely to carry out that threat regardless of whether the demands are met or not. While statistically it may be that only a small percentage of attackers mean to commit harm, or actually commit harm to their victim I do not know of anyone who would, given an alternative, ask their loved ones to risk encountering that percentage of attackers no matter how remote the chances are. This is no more than a lottery, where the employee is forced to adopt a policy that simply does not work in all cases because there is a misguided belief that it works in the majority of cases.
Company policy also prohibits the carrying of any type of weapon or object that can be used for personal defense. This too is an unwise approach that causes more harm than it remedies.
Weapons have been the companion of humans since the dawn of humanity. They are tools whose purpose is quite simple: providing an advantage to those who are challenged by a physically superior force. Currently their very existence is often frowned upon. This is based on an irrational fear of the weapon itself more than the belief that all humans are evil. The company policy concerning weapons & other objects of defense reflects this trend & for absolutely no good reason.
There are two primary justifications for prohibiting weapons & other objects of defense: A fear that the presence of a weapon will escalate into violence & potential legal liability for the company &/or corporation.
The idea that an employee possessing a weapon during a confrontation will cause violence to erupt where there was no potential for violence to begin with is flawed.
For that assumption to be true we must have a situation where only a threat to the attacker would cause violence. In essence we are thinking that the attacker is bluffing. By following that logic we would also conclude that since the attacker is bluffing then as long as no threat were presented there would be no violence even if the demands were not met. That’s a very interesting way of saying that an attacker will not harm you even if you refuse to meet the demands given. & if that were true then robbery would disappear. After all if there is no danger of violence then why would anyone meet demands that are not agreeable?
The facts however are that an attacker who threatens violence will not act upon that threat solely because of the presence of a weapon. In fact it is more logical to assume that an attacker will not act upon a threat of violence if he is faced with a victim who is armed equally. Most attackers, assuming that robbery is the main or sole motive will seek easier victims than go through the risk of a violent encounter with an armed opponent. Those that are not deterred by an armed victim ready & capable of self defense would not be prevented from committing any violent acts merely because demands were met to satisfaction.
In fact it has been estimated that between 40,000 & 2,000,000 crimes are prevented every year merely because the victim possessed & showed a weapon to an attacker.
The presence of a weapon will not typically escalate a situation to violence when there was little or no threat of violence to begin with. In fact the presence of a weapon is much more likely to prevent violence.
The legal liability of a company or corporation is always a concern, but I feel there are some aspects which have been neglected.
It is true that should an employee cause harm to an assailant or in the process of defense a 3rd party that there exists a real potential for litigation. However there is another possible claimant that is being neglected, & one who offers a much stronger case in a civil trial: an employee &/or the family of an employee.
Should an employee be injured or killed by an attacker while following company policy regarding compliance & the absence of defensive tools, then a very real possibility exists that a lawsuit could be brought against the company or corporation for putting an employee at greater risk than would otherwise have occurred.
The ideal case for this would be an employee who had no weapons & offered no resistance as per company policy, yet was injured or killed by an attacker, despite having some reasonable degree of competence with self defense & the tools used therein. The claim would be that the company policy created an unnecessary hazard to the employee that resulted in injury &/or death. It in essence deprived the employee the fundamental Right of Self Defense while offering no compensatory protection.
The company would have to prove that they did in fact offer adequate protection for the employee while he was obligated to forego his ability to defend himself. As pointed out above a very reasonable & persuasive argument can be made that compliance & lack of defensive tools are not adequately substituted by hoping that an attacker will commit violence.
Now with all litigation involving juries there is a chance that any claims will be dismissed. However given a jury composed of people in a region where Self Defense & the carrying of weapons are regarded as basic & inherent Rights the odds are greatly against the company &/or corporation.
There are other reasons for changing company policy in regards to compliance & the use of defensive weapons.
Currently the U.S. is under a threat, albeit to varying degrees, of attack from foreign sources. The nature of the attacks in the past indicates that compliance is not effective as it just makes the attackers’ job easier with absolutely no benefit to the victims. Now, just as before all citizens are expected to provide for the common defense. In order to assist in the common defense it is reasonable to expect that every citizen who is able & willing have on or near their person the tools needed for defense. This would mean weapons or other objects of defense. This country was founded with the idea that all citizens are responsible for the collective defense. At the time this concept was embodied in the militia. It is still in effect today. Congress has defined the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 & 45 & given the civil rights movement that should be assumed to encompass females as well. This can be found at 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958). So to prohibit the possession of weapons &/or other objects of defense company policy is in effect negating a resource that the country has been dependent upon since its inception.
Another aspect is societal protection. Should an attack be made then the chances of apprehending, identifying & prosecution the attacker are slim. This is due mostly to the fact that eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence & often the only form of evidence in these types of cases. For this reason among others all who participate in society are obligated to act in the common defense of society. This not only includes being a good witness to a crime, but if possible attempting to prevent the crime &/or apprehending the perpetrator. It is much safer for society, which includes the company/corporation & employees, if a person who attempts to commit an act of violence is not subject to the consequences of their acts. This is not to say one must act foolishly in an attempt to apprehend a criminal, but where & when able a person is obligated to prevent a person escaping justice.
Currently it is assumed that most employees of certain companies/corporations are easy targets. While potentially not having access to large amounts of money this is negated by their obliged compliance & the lack of means to resist. This encourages rather than discourages criminal behavior. Procedures which limit the amount of money available to a thief do not deter them, as petty thefts are by far the most prevalent crimes involving robbery.
However should a small amount of money accessible to a potential victim coupled with no obligation of compliance, no prohibition on resistance & no prohibition on defensive tools become the policy then the deterrent factor would be measurably increased.
& lastly should an attacker be intent upon violence then the only persuasion that will deter him is violence. It is reasonable to conclude that when threatening violence the person intends to act upon it, even to the point of causing the death of the victim. Therefore logic would dictate that since compliance will only result in a victims injury &/or death, then nothing is lost in an attempt to use violence to deter or incapacitate the attacker.
Therefore I propose that the company policy regarding compliance & weapons be rescinded.
In its place there should be a policy of resistance to any & all threats of violence whether this resistance comprises an attempt at escaping the situation or actively resisting the attacker.
Further that no prohibitions be placed upon an employee carrying or possessing a weapon or other toll suitable for defensive purposes.
To ensure that this policy is understood & to make clear the legal ramifications of it I would recommend a waiver be signed by every employee absolving the company/corporation of any liability in the event of negligence, incidental or purposeful injury caused directly or indirectly by the employee.
I would also recommend that the company/corporation either;
A: Establish & institute a training program that focuses on crime prevention as well as self defense
B: Provide incentive for employees to take defensive instruction (such as a credited vacation day to every day they spend taking an approved defensive course)
C: Both A & B
If any further discussion is required feel free to contac me at ______________________
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
_______________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)