In an interesting development, I'm almost inclined to believe that ballistic fingerprinting could be theoretically as accurate as biometric fingerprinting.

"...At present, there is virtually no accurate information on just how often fingerprint examiners actually make mistakes -- and unlike DNA experts, fingerprint experts routinely testify that their matches are '100 percent certain'."

Hmmm. I see the parallel between biometric fingerprint examiners & the BATF already. Here's a quote from BATF agent Thomas A. Busey (actually he was Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF when he made the statement)

"...when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100% accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."

Nothing like a little honesty in dishonesty government. Back to the biometric fingerprint piece:

"Fingerprinting is often said to be be infallible, a forensic 'gold standard.' But if we ask how often declared fingerprint matches are actually wrong, the only honest answer is that no one has any idea...There are no systematic proficiency tests to evaluate examiners' skill. Those tests that exist are not routinely used and are substandard. In another recent case, even the FBI's proficiency tests were acknowledged by another fingerprint examiner to be absurdly easy."

Sounds as if they've taken the scientific approach that many gun control advocates use. Say you're right about a subject, but fail to provide any credible documentation to back your claims. But be sure to label someone an "expert" if they agree with your claim, despite their qualifications.

"...there are no uniform standards, locally or nationally, about what counts as a fingerprint match. Different jurisdictions, and even different examiners, have different criteria, and the courts have simply left it to the experts' judgment."

Again, not that different from the "assault weapons" legislation across the country.

"In addition, we have no idea how often two individuals -- whose prints would indeed look different if we had access to a complete set of 10 undistorted prints -- might have partial fingerprints that resemble each other enough for an examiner reasonably to mistake them as coming from the same person, especially when the print lifted from the crime scene might be smudged and distorted."

& similarly this is a flaw in the ballistic fingerprinting concepts that have been pushed around: the idea that a partial match is conclusive proof that the two prints came from the same source.

Here's ballistic fingerprinting in a nutshell:

Ballistic fingerprinting is suppossed to match the "unique" markings left on the projectile to the barrel that made them.

However, one must remember that the markings a barrel will leave on a projectile will change over time. A projectile of lead or any other metal travels down a steel barrel at great speed - often faster than the speed of sound. This creates friction which wears on both the projectile & the barrel. The same process that imprints markings from the barrel on the projectile wears down the barrel itself. The rate of this wear is dependent upon several variables not the least of which is projectile speed. Some cartridges are more wear intensive than others, but all cartridges cause this wear to some degree or the other. In fact, many gunsmiths could make a decent living off of rebarrelling alone. Some cartridges in common use for certain shooting sports (namely benchrest competition) will wear down the rifling in a barrel to the point that accuracy suffers because the bullet no longer tightly fits the barrel. This can happen in as little as a few hundred rounds, although most rifle cartridges will not degrade accuracy of a barrel for at least a few thousand rounds.

So the markings left by the barrel itself tend to change with use.

Another variable is intentional alteration of the barrel. A piece of No.4 steel wool run down a barrel a few times will alter a barrel enough that it cannot be matched with 100% certainty to the projectile that it shot last. A pocket knife, coat hanger or any other piece of metal can later a barrel's "unique" markings in a matter of seconds.

& this notion of matching a projectile to a barrel is further nullified when dealing with shotguns, which with a few exceptions, have no rifling at all to make a mark & typically fire shot (many projectiles) in a protective plastic cup.

Ballistic fingerprinting is completely erroneous, except as an example of how unscrupulous or ignorant politicians will use junk science to further a prejudicial goal.

Professor Jennifer L. Mnookin's article is an excellent response to those who keep insisting that ballistic fingerprinting is as accurate as biometric fingerprinting. They may in fact even be correct. Ballistic fingerprinting may be as accurate as biometric fingerprinting in certain cases. They just don't realize that those cases would be where biometric fingerprinting is as accurate as the witch dunking test abandoned in the 17th century.

A meme is floating around that asks 5 questions of a blogger. I first happened upon it over at Walter In Denver's blog. It's more or less a short interview initiated at the request of the interviewed party. I'll post the rules to this at the bottom.

Walter was gracious enough to ask me 5 questions & here are the answers:

1. If you could choose either a) modern America or b)a new country that
completely bans guns but has no taxes or other restrictions on civil
liberties, which would you take?

Modern America. Not that I'm particularly happy with the way things are & seem to be headed, but it is inevitable that a disarmed populace will be subjected. So while this gunless utopia may seem cool now, odds are it won't stay that way for long & the people won't have the means to resist forceful degradation of their Rights.

2. Where is your favorite camp site in Colorado?

I haven't actually had a chance to camp since I've been out here, but there's a spot I have my eye on near where I go turkey hunting. So forgive me if I can't disclose the exact location. It's around the wet mountains of the Sangre de Cristo range.

3. Is there anyone currently in the State Lege who would make a good US
congresscritter?

I would say Marilyn Musgrave, but she's already made the jump from state to federal politics.
I have little experience with the Colorado legislature, aside from the form letters I get when I write my reps. So I can tell you more than a few who shouldn't be public servants (especially since they don't act like public servants now) but the only current Colorado congresscritter I could say might be an o.k. federal congresscritter is Greg Brophy. I say this with some reservation since I don't know much about his stance on other issues, but anyone who introduces a bill to make concealed carry without a permit legal is probably closer to being a good guy than a bad one.

4. What's an appropriate prison term for the average member of
congress?

Well, I think prison might be the wrong punishment. Lately I'm thinking more & more that the "tarred & feathered" approach was abandoned way too early.
But to answer the question let's say 1 year for every vote for an unconstitutional law, & 1 year for every vote against a repeal of a constitutional law. So a life sentence in most cases.

5. What music do you listen to which would suprise people if they knew,
i.e. disco?

Yep - disco. Earth Wind & Fire did some technically impressive stuff. I listen to Funk as well as Light jazz, R&B (old & new), Country, Blues, Classical, Reggae & a few other genres. But perhaps the most surprising is Beach Music. No, not Jan & Dean. Beach Music. You know - music to Shag to. That good ol' beer drinking music. (even though I don't drink beer - I'm more partial to Bourbon, Amaretto & other fine spirits.) This probably comes from spending too many years playing in beach bands on the country club circuit in the south. It grows on ya after a while.

Thanks to Walter in Denver for taking the time to ask 5 questions.

THE RULES

1. Leave a comment, saying you want to be interviewed.
2. I will respond; I'll ask you five questions.
3. You'll update your blog with my five questions, and your five answers.
4. You'll include this explanation.
5. You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.

The Denver Post has once again, through its editorial section, proven that it is of less value than a used roll of Charmin for any of your paper product needs.

They want to stop the "Wild West" bill that would allow people in Colorado to not have to beg for permission & pay fees to exercise a Right.

The bill is to be heard in a house committee next week.

"Rep. Greg Brophy's attempt to turn Colorado streets into the gun-slinging Old West will only jeopardize the rights of responsible gun owners."

The rest of the article goes along those same lines.

All I can really say is that when the revolution comes I hope those statist worshipping bastards at the Denver Post think their names will be on the list of friends of the people.

It's really just becoming too damn easy to fisk assholes such as those who hide behind the name of the editorial board of the Denver Post*. I just don't have the heart (well, time actually - I always have the heart to correct this kind of erroneous BS) to do it right now.

Tell ya what: any of y'all care to fisk this article send it to me & I'll post it here (depending upon quality of course). Just try to keep it clean.


Now one thing about this bill: it ain't just the idiocy at tyhe Denver Post we have to contend with. Odds are the NRA's state affiliate (The Colorado State Shooting Association) will oppose it as well. The reasons are long & complex but here's the simple version of the plan (This would apply concerning the bill to almost double the hunting & fishing license fees as well):

Write letters to the editor, talk to your neighbors, etc... but do something a bit more difficult. Instead of just threatening your congresscritter to note vote for him if he votes the wrong way, you have to call your por-gun org & tell them in no uncertain terms if they don't back up your Rights on these issues no amount of justification, excuses or other forms of BS will get you to continue being a member. Any org, & I don't care what their reputation is, that will oppose a Vermont-style CCW law &/or support jacking up hunting costs by over 66% is not an org whose association you'll miss in life.

The hard part is following through. If any org you belong to tries to back out, compromise, or generally seel you down the river for their own gain, leave the bastards. Resign your membership even if it expires next week, explain why, explain why yet again every time they call you asking for donations or membership renewal & most importantly tell them nothing will alter your disgust with them short of them delivering Vermont-style CCW & a decrease in hunting fees.

It's tough cause we not only have to fight the anti's, but we have to fight the groups that claim to be on our side. Hell, I'd feel better being backed by the French.

More on all of this as I can get to it.

* The names of those statist worshipping bastards on the editorial board of the Denver Post are:

William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher;
Bob Ewegen, deputy editorial page editor;
Todd Engdahl, assistant editorial page editor;
Peter G. Chronis, Angela Cortez, Dan Haley and Penelope Purdy , editorial writers;
Mike Keefe, cartoonist;
Barbara Ellis, news editors;
Fred Brown and Barrie Hartman, associate members.

Please remember that the next time one of them walks into your space to do some business. Smile when you tell them to get the hell out cause you don't trade with vermin who'd have us all on all fours like common beasts. (feel fre to insert your own colloquialisms though).

Unfortunately I'm still pressed for time, but this post & the one that follows will be about virtually self fisking subjects.

First of all Sen. Feinstein has done the unthinkable; she's added a rider to the firearms manufacturers immunity bill. The rider, which can be viewed here, will make the "assault weapons" ban permanent, along with a provision banning the import of "high" capacity magazines. Now from what I understand the rider is not definitively attached, but it has 12 co-sponsors so far & odds are it'd get approved by the Senate.

No big surprise. The real question is will the NRA withdraw support from this bill if the rider isn't removed or will they compromise away our rights for another political feather in their cap?

Bug 'em about doing the right thing, & drop a dime to your senators as well. Least that way you can say you've tried.

But the way things are looking, the NRA will probably continue to support the bill despite the rider & try to make excuses to us about having a tough choice or that the AWB would have been renewed anyway.

If you're living in Colorado there's a couple of things that you should know about.

The first is that the Colorado Department of Wildlife wants to increase fees for resident hunting & fishing licenses. & they've convinced a legislator to introduce a bill in the house that would do just that. Initially they were going for a 100% increase of most fess, but realized that would tick off a lot of people, so they dropped it to a 66% increase for some fees in an amended form of the bill.

What's worse is that the premise for this is that the DOW feels that it's underselling its "resource" & thereby not making as much profit as possible. Now this is a fine thing for a private business dealing with privately owned property, but in effect they're saying that the government owns the wildlife & will charge what it wishes for it. It's been recommended to proceed to the House for a vote.

They're also a bill that would decriminalize unlicensed concealed carry. It seems to be similar to Alaska's recently passed law in that it would leave the permit system in place for those who wish to carry in states that honor Colorado's CCW permits but would not require a person to have a permit to carry concealed in Colorado. It's been assigned to the States, Veterans & Military Affairs committee of the House. Here's a summary of the bill from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

There are some other bills, such as one to get rid of the database of CCW holders & another to remove the SS# requirement for hunting & fishing licenses. You can find info on all the pertinent firearms related legislation here courtesy of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

I'll try to have more on these a bit later on, but in the meantime call your Reps & Senators & make sure they know how you want them to vote on these bills.

My posting has been sporadic & will probably continue to be so for a short while. I regret this as this blog has helped me feel like I've been doing something (albeit a very little something) good for the cause. So I offer my apologies to those who stop by regularly & are dissappointed at the lack of recent posts.

It was a year ago today that this blog started. Not the most impressive first posts on the net, but hey- we all gotta start someplace. I would prefer you remember some other posts from the first few weeks & I'll list them at the bottom of this post.

I had envisioned this as a group blog, not a solo project. & in fact I have two co-bloggers. One is a friend from the G&A 2nd Amendment Forum named Mark, the other is a very talented writer named Nicki. Mark has only been able to post once (due to a very busy life) but he was the one who turned me on to blogs & told me where to look to set this one up. Hopefully he'll get hold of more free time & when he does you'll be treated to a very insightful perspective concerning all things gun. Nicki has written for the NRA & Armed Females of America. She's another one with a busy life but her posts have been insightful & a much welcome addition.

I would also be remiss in not mentioning Jeff, Rachel, Kevin, Jen, Matt, Uncle & Miss Annika (to name a few) who helped promote this blog & who may have actually stopped by to read it once or twice.

& special thanks to Jen for being the first commentor & Gunner for being the most frequent.

So thanks to all of you who have stopped by &/or commented &/or linked to Publicola in the last year. It's been a slow start to 2004 but posting will pick up. Although I sincerely hope that within the year there won't be a need for blogs such as ours & we can revert back to talking about more pleasant issues. (hey- it's possible. Unlikely as hell, but possible.)



Reasons against CCW permits From February 03, 2003

Concealed carry & prior restraint: why it's not like shouting fire in a crowded theater From February 16, 2003

Fuddite From February 17th, 2003

Rights are Absolute From March 9th, 2003

Colorado's new CCW vs. Colorado's old CCW vs. Colorado's proposed but tabled CCW From April 03, 2003

The Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist From April 10, 2003

From the co-bloggers:

On the Illinois Democrats' issuance of a call for the ban of the .500 S & W Magnum revolver By Mark From February 20, 2003

Dissent at the G&A board will not be tolerated By Nicki From November 03, 2003

Allison Brown converts By Nicki From November 12, 2003

There are some really scary people among the enemies of freedom By Nicki From November 26, 2003

A New Study Says Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence By Nicki From November 30, 2003

The Travesty of Justice Continues in Florida By Nicki From December 04, 2003

Florida citizens have some strong words for the tyrannical bureaucrats who continue to victimize Melvin Spaulding By Nicki From December 04, 2003

Reaction to Peter Mancus' Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira By Nicki From December 04, 2003

I missed the State of the Union speech last night, but thanks to Spoons & many others I think I've gotten the gist of it.

Of interest was the following from Bush:

"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Hmm. So he says the U.S. does not need permission slips to defend itself yet in this very nation U.S. citizens need & often do not receive permission slips to defend themselves, their families & communities. D.C., NYC, & Chicago come to mind, as do national parks & airports. Odds are this irony completely slipped by his speech writers, and was apperently missed by Bush himself.

Via The Volokh Conspiracy I found a link to a post on the Constitutional nature of the State of the Union Address. No permalinks as Mayerblog seems to be brand new, so scroll down to the post from January 20th entitled The Unconstitutional State of the Union Address. Give it a read.

Now this is funny. In this thread from The High Road a rather amusing story about a pro-Kucinich website unfolds. The website original used this picture entitled "Guns Kill" (found at the top of the article) to emphasize Kucinich's willingness to "save the children" from unregulated gun violance. It was found about halfway down the page underneath yje "On Gun Control" section next to a link that explained how Kucinich had voted "no" on a bill reducing the NICS waiting period for guns show purchases to a maximum of 24 hours. The link carries you here where you'll find out more in depth about Kucinich's stance on gun control. (Please note it states that Kucinich is in favor of "Renew[ing] the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.")

In any case, the picture that was linked to was from a pro-Right to Arms site & was used to denounce the picture & its intent, whereas the pro-Kucinich site intended it to stress the need for gun control. The pro-Right to Arms site wasn't too happy when they discovered that the pro-Kucinich site hijacked their pic, so they made a little switch. Here's the pro-Right to Arms site's explanation of event, along with the original pic & their replacement.

BTW, the pro-Right to Arms site is called Orange County Shooters.com, & that'd be Orange County, New York. While I was there I found this link which is guaranteed to make every gun owner drool.

There's another graphic in the "On Gun Control" section which also appears to be a replacement of the one originally used. It's next to a link that leads to a page that talks up an effort for Dean to get an NRA endorsement. I believe the original graphic was an NRA logo that was swiped from another pro-Right to Arms site; Students for the Second Amendment.

Here's a Yahoo cache of the website which has a slightly different graphic than the one currently replacing the NRA logo.

Ah, going back it appears they replaced the first replacement graphic with something less profane. Those crazy kids.

The pro-Kucinich website operators haven't seemed to notice the switch in graphics. & judging from their original intent they haven't noticed that pro-gun control is not how the Democrats are wanting to spin things, as it can lead to lost elections.

Hope y'all find all this as amusing as I did, & I hope the pro-Kucinich website's webmaster has other accounts as I think he'll lose this one. Once they figure things out that is.

Update: The guys at the pro-Kucinich site have figured things out & replaced the linked graphics with ones embedded on their site. (Do I get bonus points for using the word "embedded"?)

However the link above to the Yahoo cache of their page still displays the switched graphics as does this link to a screen capture of the page provided generously by The Patriette in her post about said events.

In Ohio they've passed a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Permit law. I'm no fan of CCW. It takes what should be an unfettered Right & reduces it to the legal status of privilege. For more on my problems with CCW laws, even Shall Issue, please look here, as well as here & here.

The full text (& I mean "full") of Ohio's CCW law may be found here.
Of particular instance is something stated at the end of the law on page 138 & 139:

"Section 6. In amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13,
2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and
4749.10 of the Revised Code and in enacting sections 109.69,
109.731, 311.41, 311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised
Code in this act, the General Assembly hereby declares its intent
to recognize both of the following:
(A) The inalienable and fundamental right of an individual to
defend the individual's person and the members of the individual's
family;
(B) The fact that the right described in division (A) of this
section predates the adoption of the United States Constitution,
the adoption of the Ohio Constitution, and the enactment of all
statutory laws by the General Assembly and may not be infringed by
any enactment of the General Assembly."

It further states:

"Section 7. In enacting sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41,
311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised Code in this act
and in amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13, 2923.12,
2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and 4749.10 of the
Revised Code in this act relative to licenses to carry a concealed
handgun, the General Assembly hereby declares that it is not its
intent to declare or otherwise give the impression that, prior to
the effective date of this act, an individual did not have an inalienable and fundamental right, or a right under the Ohio
Constitution or the United States Constitution, to carry a
concealed handgun or other firearm for the defense of the
individual's person or a member of the individual's family while
engaged in lawful activity. Further, the General Assembly declares
that it is not its intent to invalidate any prior convictions for
violating any section of the Revised Code or a municipal ordinance
prior to the effective date of this act or to prevent the
prosecution of any violation committed prior to the effective date
of this act."

So it states that defense of self & others is an inalienable, fundamental Right, & that while it is not claiming that the Right to carry a weapon concealed was not inalienable & inherent prior to this law, neither is it claiming that any convictions for carrying concealed were in violation of that Right!

In other words, Ohio has said that self defense & the defense of others is a Right that they cannot touch, & that carrying concealed is an extention of that Right, but they're not going to correct errors made in prosecuting someone for simply exercising a Right!

This is all beside the point that a law requiring a permit to exercise a Right is repugnant to the whole concept of natural inherent Rights, & if they can concede that self defense & carrying arms are in fact Rights which pre-date the respective applicable constitutions, they should also concede that no permit is, has been or should be required merely to exercise an existing fundamental Right.

Regardless of my problems with CCW laws, there is something else in Ohio's law that is particularly nasty: at the request of the governor & the Ohio police unions, the names & addresses of Ohio CCW permit holders will be made public on request to journalists (actually this is a compromise as initially the idea was to have the names & other info about CCW permit holders available to anyone). & we all know how fair & objectively the press have treated self defense issues, particularly those involving firearms in the past. & we'd expect more of the same in the future.
In any event the practical ramifications should not take a back seat to the principled one: a person should not have his name subject to public information searches merely because he/she wishes to defend his/herself.

Here is the relevant language from page 69 of the Ohio CCW law:

(2) Upon a written request made to a sheriff and signed by a
journalist on or after the effective date of this section, the
sheriff shall disclose to the journalist the name, county of
residence, and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff
has issued a license or replacement license to carry a concealed
handgun, renewed a license to carry a concealed handgun, or issued
a temporary emergency license or replacement temporary emergency
license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or
2923.1213 of the Revised Code. The request shall include the
journalist's name and title, shall include the name and address of
the journalist's employer, and shall state that disclosure of the
information sought would be in the public interest.
As used in division (B)(2) of this section, "journalist"
means a person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any news
medium, including a newspaper, magazine, press association, news
agency, or wire service, a radio or television station, or a
similar medium, for the purpose of gathering, processing,
transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating information for
the general public."

An Ohio newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, has threatened to publish the names of all who receive concealed carry permits.

"It is this newspaper's intention to obtain this information and publish it. Our readers deserve to know the identities of those who obtain permits to carry their guns in public. We hope other news organizations will do the same in their communities." - From The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

To counter this KeepAndBearArms.com has decided to publish the names, addresses & home phone numbers of every person working at said newspaper when they start publishing the names of CCW permit holders. What makes things even more interesting is that Ravenwood as well as The Smallest Minority have decided a preemptive strike is called for.

On the links to their respective blogs you'll find the following:

I say, why wait. Lets start at the top. The Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is Douglas Clifton. Here is his address and telephone number:
Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

Here is his bio. For a map to his home, click here.

& since the Cleveland Plain Dealer has urged all other Ohio newspapers to publish information about people who wish only to protect themselves, I would urge all bloggers & any others with a web site to publish the names & information of all on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's staff as well as any other newspaper which follows the Cleveland Plain Dealer's advice. Needless to say if you're in Ohio I'd also suggest dropping nay subscriptions to such "newspapers" after explaining why.

But thanks to KeepAndBearArms.com, Ravenwood & The Smallest Minority for being on top of this. & thanks to Clayton Cramer for having a link to the text of the Ohio CCW law.

A Vermont town wants to secede. Secession is not a new concept in the world, nor was it confined to the Southern States in America in the mid-19th century. In fact there are several secessionist movements in the U.S. today. What is notable is that since the War of North'en Aggression the "question" of secession was presumed to have been settled by the force of the federal government. Of course I find this erroneous just as most people would find that because someone is stornger than another that person is not in fact stealing when he takes the weaker person's possessions by force. Here's an earlier post I did on secession & some reasons why it's still a legitimate idea.

Getting back to this particular case, we find that the source of the discontent with Killington is that Vermont seems to be taxing the town as if it were just another revenue source, thus causing their desire to secede & ally themselves with New Hampshire which lacks the taxation they find so burdensome.

Of course the town is drawing parallels to the various taxing measures brought about in the colonies by Great Britain in the mid-18th century.

"It kind of reminds us of Colonial days,' Town Manager David Lewis said Thursday. 'The Colonies were being faced with the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Sugar Act. England wasn't giving them any rights. They were treating the Colonies as just a revenue source."

So perhaps it's understandable why they wish to leave Vermont. They plan to put the issue of secession before the townspeople in the March elections.

But in steps Vermont:

"Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz said Killington has little chance of secession 'absent an armed insurrection type of thing. ... A town is a construction of the state and exists at the pleasure of the Legislature."

A town exists at the pleasure of the state? If Killington's desire to leave Vermont garnered little sympathy before I'd assume that statements such as that would cause a change of heart. A town is an organization of communities that have bonded together for their common interests, usually bigger than a village but smaller than a city.

From Merriam Webster we find a unique definition as pertaining to New England:

"6 : a New England territorial and political unit usually containing under a single town government both rural areas and urban areas not having their own charter of incorporation; also : a New England community governed by a town meeting"

I have seen nothing that would define a town as a place, unit or organization that is constructed by & for the state. To suggest that is very insulting to the town in question, & should be taken as offensive by all towns within that state.

So if Killington wishes to leave Vermont, I see no reason why it should not. & if Vermont's Secretary of State has an attitude typical of Vermont's governing body, then I can hardly blame them, nor could I fault Killington if an armed insurrection were the course they had to pursue to achieve it. I would even go so far as to offer any assitance possible to Killington, not so much because I agree with the specific issues they have, but because if a community wishes to shatter the political bonds that they feel are no longer beneficial, then that is their Right.

Odds are though that the Secretary of State's insults will be overlooked by most people & Vermont will strong arm any thoughts of secession out of the townsfolk of Killington. Hopefully I'll be mistaken, but chances of Killington actually seceding are slim, despite the townsfolk's wishes.

End The War On Freedom reports of a man who seems to have received less than a fair trial in a tax evasion case. What's worse is that after the miscarraige of justice that the judge attempted to pass off as a trial, the man was convicted of 29 counts.

USDC Judge John McBryde & Assistant US Attorney Jarvis are the ones who should have been on trial. Fortunately an appeal is planned & barring any prejudice on the courts part should be succesful.

Here's an account of the trial so y'all can decide for yourself.

Just added some more folks to the ol' blogroll. Of particular note is the link entitled "North State Blogs". Nope, it ain't a group of Yankees. This is a link to a group of bloggers that come from or live in North Carolina. Ya see, North Carolina was called "the Old North State" way back when & it's still something taught in the local schools. I wonder if they're still teaching about the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence? Hopefully at least in Mecklenburg County, but who knows the way the government schools are nowadays.

So in honor of that (& because I'm feeling kindly homesick) I offer you the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independance in it's entirety

"1. That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted or in any way, form or manner countenanced to unchartered & dangerous invasion of our rights as claimed by G. Britain is an enemy to this County - to America & to the inherent & inaliable rights of man.

2. We the Citizens of Mecklenburg County do hereby desolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country & hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown & abjure all political connection, contract or association with that nation who have wantonly trampled on our rights & liberties & inhumanely shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.

3. We do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people - are & of right ought to be a sovereign & self-governing association, under the controul of no power other than that of our God & the general government of the congress, to the maintainence of which independence civil & religious we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation, our lives, our fortunes & our most sacred honor.

4. As we now acknowledge the existence & controul of no law or legal officers, civil or military, within this County, we do hereby ordain & adopt as a rule of life, all, each & every of our former laws - wherein nevertheless the crown of great britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.

5. It is also further decreed that all, each & every military officer in this County is hereby reinstated in his former command & authority, he acting conformably to these regulations. And that every member present of this delegation shall henceforth be a civil officer, viz. a Justice of the peace in the character of a 'Committee-man' to issue process, hear & determine all matters of controversy according to sd. adopted laws - to preserve peace, union & harmony in sd. County & to use every exertion to spread the love of country & fire of freedom throughout America until a more general & organized government be established in this province. A selection from the members present shall constitute a Committee of public safety for sd. County.

6. That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by express to the President of the Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia, to be laid before that body.

Ephraim Brevard
Hezekiah J. Balch
John Phifer
James Harris
William Kennon
John Foard
Richard Barry
Henry Downs
Ezra Alexander
Charles Alexander
Zaccheus Wilson
Waightstill Avery
Benjamin Patton
Matthew McClure
Neil Morrison
Robert Irwin
John Flennegin
David Reese
William Graham
John Queary
Hezekiah Alexander
Adam Alexander
John Davidson
Richard Harris
Thomas Polk
Abraham Alexander
John McKnitt Alexander"

& so as not to be without thoroughness in the matter, here's a link to the Mecklenburg Resolves of May 31rst 1775.

Ya see, when Mecklenburg County of North Carolina declared her independence from Great Britain, that effectively nullified every law in place at the time. But the declaration also adopted all former laws. what was lacking was a system of enforcement since all ties to the crown (including constables) had been severed. So the Resolves were necessary to create some kind of system of enforcing order.

I will repeat a few sections of the Resolves:

"4. That the Inhabitants of this County do meet on a certain Day appointed by this Committee, and having formed themselves into nine Companies, to wit, eight for the County and one for the Town of Charlotte, do choose a Colonel, and other military Officers, who shall hold and exercise their several Powers by Virtue of this Choice, and independent of Great-Britain, and former Constitution of this Province."

"19. That the several Militia companies in this county do provide themselves with proper arms and accoutrements, and hold themselves in constant Readiness to execute the commands and Directions of the Provincial Congress, and of this committee."

"20. That this committee do appoint Colonel Thomas Polk, and Doctor Joseph Kennedy, to purchase 300 lb. of Powder, 600 lb. of Lead, and 1000 Flints; and deposit the same in some safe place, hereafter to be appointed by the committee."

Now there is some debate as to whether or not the Mecklenburg Declaration existed. As I remember hearing it one Captain James Jack arrived in Philedelphia on June 3rd, 1775 with the purpose of informing the Second Continental Congress of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. But Captain Jack does not. The most credible speculation I've heard for his not mentioning the mecklenburg declaration is that he was afraid it would nto be received well in Congress, since they were still contemplating peace with Great britain & the wording of said declaration was fairly hostile.

But what is not in dispute is the Mecklenburg Resolves. It never crossed my mind until I re-read them a few minutes ago, but it does seem to indicate that the militia was to provide its own arms doesn't it? It provides for a general purchase of powder, shot & flint by the militia as a whole, but it seems to state that the arms are to come from the militia members themselves.

Not that this is conclusive, but it does question the idea that arms were provided for the militia by the state (or county in this case). Or more accurately, it adds more evidence against the idea that militias of the time were not privately armed.

In any event, this is the end of my reminiscing about home & its history. Please check the blogroll as there are several new blogs (new to me at least) over there. Not all are in line with my politics, but the writing & discussions offered are good enough that this isn't an issue. & check out the North State Blogs link, as it has some very well written blogs from what I've seen so far.

This will be a brief post. I plan on elaborating on it, but time constraints prevent that for now.

This thread at The High Road (mentioned below in this post about Mr. Jordan's plight) we find an interesting discussion.

You have people expressing resentment at Mr. Jordan's situation as you'd expect. But you also have something else that is not uncommon; people condemning Mr. Jordan out of hand because he broke the law.

It ranges from berating Mr. Jordan's intelligence to justifying the idea that even unjust laws should be obeyed until they are repealed. You also have those who are worried that Mr. Jordan's actions will reflect badly on the pro-gun community & those that think concealed carry laws themselves are acceptable & thus Mr. Jordan is nothing more than a common criminal.

There are also those who take these fools to task for their erreneous logic & conclusions, myself being one of them.

So if you're looking for an interesting interactive discussion, then mosey on over there & give it a read. Just don't say I didn't warn ya about what some posters are saying. Oh, & please remove any breakable objects from arms reach. Better make that two arm lengths if your last name rhymes with Bu Poit.

Lest I delay mentioning it any longer, a gentleman in Ohio needs your help.

Mr. Jeff Jordan of New Hampshire was traveling through Ohio. A state trooper claims he was speeding & pulled him over. Mr. Jordan was then searched because the trooper claims he saw a magazine pouch on Mr. Jordan's belt. Mr Jordan was arrested after it was discovered that he was wearing concealed weapons.

Naturally the press moved in to make Mr/Jordan out to be some sort of arsenal carrying extremist.

In Ohio the law is funny. If you have a weapon in the car it's a misdemeanor, but if the weapon is concealed on your person then it's a felony. Mr. Jordan is facing 2 counts of felony concealed carry.

Needless to say if he is convicted it will be bad for him, for according to federal law any conviction that could result in more than one year of incarciration disqualifies one from legal firearms possession, even if a sentence of less than a year was given.

But if Mr. Jordan wins then there's hope that the law in question which violates the U.S. & Ohio constitutions repsectively will be removed.

I won't try to decieve you: Mr. Jordan did not do this in order to challeneg Ohio's concealed carry law. He simply ignored a law that interfered with his Right to Arms. But don't let that stop you from helping him out if you are able. Despite this not being purposeful, it could still be helpful to those in Ohio & possibly those in other states. At the very least winning the case would help out Mr. Jordan, who was merely possessing the means of defense.

BTW, Mr. Jordan is known as Hunter over at The Liberty Round Table. while not a blogger Mr. Jordan is apperently a pro-Right to Arms activist with an online presence.

For more on this I refer you to this post, this post & this post (as well as a few in between) at End The War On Freedom, this post over at Musings of a Geek With A .45, & this thread at The High Road.


Donations to Mr. Jordan's legal defense can be made through

Keep And Bear Arms PMB # 141
15201 N Cleveland Ave.
North Fort Myers, FL 33903-2715
(239) 560-7566

(Checks should be made out to KeepAndBearArms.com, with a note in the memo field or attached letter stating that they are for "Hunter's Defense".)

KeepAndBearArms.com has said it will create a web page for donations & I'll update this when their page for said donations is up & running.

Fayetville Online writes a press release for the face of gun control in this country: the BATF.

"A timely phone call delivered the break lawmen needed."

The only break the BATF needs is a permanent one. Besides, calling them lawmen is like calling Satan an option provider.

"A man suspected of selling guns to drug dealers called a Fayetteville pawnshop while federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents were there investigating a case. An employee tipped agents that the caller might be one of the men they were asking about."

Uh-huh.

"The man, who called himself Mike, said he wanted to buy some pistols the next day - May 22, 2003.
Agent Rick Samples got on the phone posing as a pawnshop employee and convinced Mike to come in that day. Samples sold four guns to the man, whose real name is Reginald Paul Currie."

So Agent Samples sold guns contrary to the law. But as usual the BATF are not restricted by the same laws they would enforce upon us peasants.

"Joe Lenczyk, the agent-in- charge of the Fayetteville ATF office, arrested Currie when he stepped outside.
'It was beautiful,' Samples said."

Hmm, I wonder how many Sicherheitspolizei commented on how "beautiful" the Kristallnacht was?

So Agent Samples thinks it's a beautiful thing that he causes a man's arrest through enforcing an unconstitutional law while enjoying immunity from said law himself. That's typical of the hypocrisy inherent in a special class of citizen.

"The case was one of the biggest in the ATF's continuing effort to stop the pipeline of guns from Fayetteville to New York drug dealers."

Wait. Hold up. Are they implying that despite NYC's draconian gun laws that those they deem criminals are still acquiring arms?
The most effective way to stop this "pipeline of guns" is to legalize their sale in NYC & stop illegally restricting sales in the rest of the state.

"Lenczyk said the men bought 32 guns at Fayetteville pawnshops, took them to New York City and sold them to middlemen.
The brokers sold them to Dominican drug dealers, Lenczyk said."

Well I can't really blame them. The prohibition against purchasing Arms in NYC has really driven the prices up & made the black market much more lucrative than it'd otherwise be. Funny how prohibition always seems to do that.

"U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft highlighted the Smith case during remarks he made in December about gun crime prosecutions."

Too bad he didn't read the bloody Constitution before he went around braggin that he was vigorously enforcing unconstitutional laws.

"The practice, called straw purchasing, is illegal, relatively easy and lucrative, Samples said."

Of course Agent Sample, being the good little NAZI he is fails to mention that the law against straw purchases is itself illegal, being it conflicts with the Constitution. But why on earth would he jeopardize his job security for the sake of honesty?

& it's easy as hell. In fact in some places it's so easy that most people don't realize they're doing it. They buy a lever action for their Great Uncle or an elderly relative & instantly they're felons.

& of course it's lucrative. The Feds created a lucrative market every time they outlawed a firearm, why would it be any different because a state or city does it?

"Guns are bought in bulk and usually cost $130 to $150. They sell on the streets for $500 to $700, Samples said."

Ayup. Although the numbers seem a bit off. It's probably closer to $200 - $250 per pistol they buy & $300 on the street when they sell. Again, this is because of gun control laws that prohibit free market trade.

"Gun dealers are required to notify authorities when they suspect someone is buying guns illegally, but often don't, he said.
'We do get notification on occasion,' Lenczyk said, 'but not as often as we like.'
'There are some (dealers) that are openly cooperative and some that are reluctantly cooperative,' he said."

Of course he doesn't get as much notification as he'd like. Ideally he'd sit on his ass while every person in his jurisdiction was spying on their neighbors to inform him the second they saw any potential gun crime.

& of course dealers often don't notify the BATF. First of all this is the agency that has dominion over who gets to sell guns & who doesn't. They can walk in & inspect a store at anytime during business hours (at least once a year) without a warrant & generally they have a reputation of making life hell for people who are just trying to make a living while following their bullshit regulations. Not to different than a Sicherheitspolizei bitching because not everyone is calling them to inform on Jews.

Additionally, think about it: a straw purchaser walks into a store, purchases a firearm & then hands it over to someone else. How the hell can you tell? Outside of the nervous, firearms ignorant type how exactly can a firearms dealer determine who is purchasing for themselves & who is purchasing for someone else? Yet Agent Samples would have you believe it's simply a willful refusal to comply that prevents dealers from reporting straw purchasers.

"Gun runners have high status among drug traffickers, the agents said. 'It's done for profit, power and prestige,; Lenczyk said"

Ya know what? If I was in a place where my Right to Arms was as disrespected as NY or NJ, I'd look to gun runners with high esteem my damn self. But note how throughout the article they constantly refer to these gun runners customers as consisting solely of drug dealers. That's a little bit disingenuous considering how many people in NYC are arrested every year for no other reason than they possess an unregistered firearm.

"Tougher gun laws in other states and criminals who can't buy guns legally because of felony convictions make for a lucrative market, especially in large cities."

Keep in mind it's not just violent felons, but any person convicted of a crime that carries a potential sentence of more than one year in prison, as well as those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Lord only knows how low the mark will be in ten years at the rate they keep passing unconstitutional gun laws.

But as I've said before, this is merely another example of how government regulation & prohibitions create a black market that's more lucrative than the government sanctioned one. You have restricted classes of people as well as restricted areas when it comes to gun possession or purchase, therefore the market will provide.

"The Fayetteville ATF office makes more arrests than any other ATF office in the Carolinas, Lenczyk said. Twelve agents and one lawman each from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office and Lumberton and Fayetteville police departments investigate gun-related and other crimes in 14 counties in eastern and central North Carolina."

& they seem proud of that? An agency makes more arrest based on unconstitutional laws than any other in the state & they think that's something to be proud of? What's worse is that the local cops are complicit in this slap in the face to the Bill of Rights.

"Illegal gun trafficking causes more crime and violence wherever the guns land, Lenczyk said.
'A bad guy on the street, ... he's looking for a reason to use that gun."

No, violent criminals cause more violence. "illegal" gun trafficking does not cause violence, just as "legal" gun trafficking does not cause violence.

Further the majority of gun crimes the BATF persecutes people for is of the non-violent nature. That means the record number of busts this office makes is comprised of mainly technical violations, such as mere possession, or buying/selling w/o the appropriate permits.

So again like the Sicherheitspolizei they make arrests because a person's "papers are not in order". This is the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of cases they pursue. Remember, they're a tax agency. (Yes, I'm aware they've been transferred to the Dept. Of Justice, but their main job is to enforce the NFA of '34 & certain provisions of the GCA of '68 which are primarily disguised as tax laws.)

& I'm sure I'd disagree with Agent Lenczyk's definition of "bad guy on the street". To him it no doubt would include any person with a non violent intent who exercisies their Right to Arms without the required permission of local, state &/or federal government. To me that would encompass soley those who seek to cause harm through force or the threat of force to someone with just provocation.

"A grant from the U.S. Justice Department will allow Fayetteville police to hire a full-time technician soon to trace the history of every gun involved in a crime in the city and Cumberland County."

Your federal tax dollars going to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws yet again.

"ATF will train the technician, Lenczyk said"

Well at least we know it'll be an inefficient use of your tax dollars then, considering their history of managing another database. The bright side is it will not be a complete research effort, so some gun owners may avoid persecution. The dark side is that some innocent gun owners will likely get tangled up by the BATF's incompetence.

"Samples and Lenczyk said they hope the recent arrests change the belief of some area lawmen that the ATF is interested in snagging, but not sharing, high-profile cases.
'We don't take over local cases,; Lenczyk said. 'We pride ourselves on being the Avis of federal law enforcement. We try harder."

I think certain sheriffs in Idaho & Texas would disagree. But in any case these assholes are proud that they work hard to infringe a person's constitutionally protected Rights?

"The agents also want to dispel what they said is another myth - that illegal gun trafficking is a low-risk business.
Gun runners and felons and drug dealers with guns 'will be found and they will be prosecuted,; Lenczyk said."

I wonder how many Sicherheitspolizei said the same thing about Jews & those who smuggled them in violation of NAZI law?

& I realize I keep comparing the BATF to the Sicherheitspolizei. In a way this is inaccurate as the Sicherheitspolizei were unfortunately very competent despite the evil they assisted & committed. But the comparison is valid in principle; both are enforcing laws that are contrary to the inherent natural Rights of the ones it is enforced against.
& if the BATF wants to keep acting so similar to the Sicherheitspolizei then I say that we citizen should play our role as well. Vive Le Resistance!

To sum up, this Fayetteville Online "story" is nothing more than a fluff piece designed to make people think that the BATF is doing something commendable. In reality they are enforcing the most heinous of the prior restraint based gun control laws on the federal level & each & every one working in the Firearms division should have had several "tar & featherings" by now. They are contemptible, not because they are bad people at heart, but because whether they realize it or not they are accessories to a bad system that does great harm to the people of this country. They should be disbanded as an agency & any employee or ex-employee should be barred from holding any public office or position of public trust. That would include being a flag waver on a government funded road work project.

But perhaps too many years of seeing too many laws that disrespect my Rights have made me a bit too harsh in my condemnation of the BATF. If y'all think they deserve leniency please lemme know.

Now the worst part is these damn revenuers (they're tax agents & that's what we call 'em back home) are occupying my home state! I'm not there presently but it's always sad to see the place you grew up in being occupied by a foreign force. Well, to any of y'all behind the lines (like there are any of us who aren't) Vive Le Resistance!

This thread over at Battlerifles.com led me to this story. It's about a family that goes by the surname of Pilgrim.

In summation they moved to Alaska for religious & ideological reasons. They simply wanted to live a very simple life away from the influence of modern society. They Found some land in McCarthy, Alaska & thought they'd found their promised land.

Enter the Federal Government.

The land they purchased is about 14 miles inside a National Park. The National Park Service is harassing them because they attempted to use a bulldozer to maintain the road that leads from their property to the outside world.

The Pilgrim family is trying to go through the proper legal channels. But as it stands now, the only access to their property is by snowmobile, horse & airplane. That's 14 miles by snowmobile, horse or airplane.

Sure, riding snowmobiles & horses is fun. But try it for 14 miles hauling supplies with ya. & planes can get expensive, not to mention a bit risky. One plane has crashed already trying to get supplies to the Pilgrim family.

."A key point of argument was the law that the Pilgrims have learned to pray about: RS 2477, an 1866 mining statute getting new attention as a way for states to claim historic rights of way across federal land.
'It took me so long to memorize those numbers, two four seven seven,' Papa Pilgrim said. The next moment he was describing his case with all the savvy of a veteran land-rights lobbyist.
'I have a whole map of all the 2477s in Alaska,' he said. 'We're simply using what's been here 100 years. This road is a perfect example of a 2477 right of way."

Now the state government of Alaska is generally supportive of having road access into & across federal land. But they aren't doing much on behalf of the Pilgrim family because they feel the use of a bulldozer will generate negative PR & thus the Pilgrims aren't the State's ideal test case

"The Murkowski administration is eager to press its RS 2477 claims with a friendly Bush administration. Unfortunately for the Pilgrims, the state would prefer to establish precedents without generating headlines about bulldozers in national parks.
'I am going to be the last one to argue they shouldn't have the right to go back and forth to their land,' said Murkowski aide Jack Phelps. 'But it's not a good test case for RS 2477, and that's why we've been fairly low key."

But what really should get your attention is the way the NPS has handled things. According to the Pilgrims they were merely maintaining a road that had been in existence for about 100 years. The Park Service claims that their bulldozer wandered off the road in a few places, & that part of their cabin & about an acre of oats was located on National Park land instead of their property. So we have a few things that the Pilgrims may have been in error on. & one would think it would be easily corrected.

Remember though, the NPS is a federal agency & they have a reputation to live up to.

"The Pilgrims might even have gotten a permit to run a bulldozer seasonally up the old road, since any lesser vehicle couldn't make the dozen or more crossings of the boulder-strewn stream, said Sharp, the chief ranger."

Seems here the Park Service is admitting that a bulldozer was a necessity, doesn't it? But like a lot of other necessities they must be government approved.

"Finally this summer, with the Pilgrims still insisting they had needed no permits, the Park Service got tough. Park officials said their patient, nice-guy approach seemed to be encouraging the Pilgrims to break other park regulations."

Well, first of all when the hell did requiring a permit for a necessary activity constitute being nice? Especially when there's a dispute about the legality of requiring said permit?

"Surveyors flown in by the park in June found that two-thirds of the family's cabin was over the five-acre parcel's line -- the kitchen's cookstove was in the national park. The family had also cleared an acre or so of alder to plant oats in what proved to be the park.
The Pilgrims blame Wigger, saying he assured them the buildings were on private property. Wigger says they never asked. He says the lines were always vague, based on long-lost corners, and the house was built on I-beam skids so it could be moved."

Again, this seems like something that could be chalked up to a misunderstanding of the property lines on the Pilgrim family's part. Move the cabin & oat field & the problem would be solved right?

"Ironies multiplied. The federal survey's lines, cut with chain saws, left a highly visible rectangle in the woods of the national park. And with Wigger's bulldozer padlocked, the family had no way to skid their building onto their property."

Well I guess padlocking the bulldozer would make moving the cabin a bit trickier now wouldn't it?

"For two weeks in late August, park biologists and other specialists were helicoptered daily to the Pilgrims' site and followed the old road to assess bulldozer damage and build a civil case against the family, noting particularly where the bulldozer might have strayed off the historic right of way. Armed rangers in bulletproof vests stood nearby to keep the Pilgrim children from meddling with investigators. Both sides wielded video cameras as well. Park officials said that without guards, investigators could never discuss the case in the field because the Pilgrims were always in their midst taking pictures and notes."

Let me repeat part of that last paragraph in case y'all missed it:

"Armed rangers in bulletproof vests stood nearby to keep the Pilgrim children from meddling with investigators. Both sides wielded video cameras as well. Park officials said that without guards, investigators could never discuss the case in the field because the Pilgrims were always in their midst taking pictures and notes."

Armed park rangers to keep the children from taking pictures & notes????

"We've kind of had it. We're not going to back up and go away," Sharp said. "I represent the people of the United States, and I'm going to do my job."

If he represents the people of the United States then I'll gladly renounce my citizenship. He represents the government of the United States, which, sadly to say, is very far removed from the people. Authorizing armed agents to keep children or adults from taking pictures or notes of said agents activities is not something to be proud of. Unless you were in the Hitler Youth program.

"Joseph, 26, was cited for trespassing and vandalism, accused of breaking into the park's mine shaft after rangers chained it shut. He was written up by a ranger who staked out the mine shaft entry from a nearby ridge with binoculars. Joshua, 24, and his mother, Country Rose, were cited for leading a commercial horse trip in the park without a permit or insurance after an undercover agent contracted for a ride. Park officials say the family was warned they needed permits to work in the park, just like other McCarthy businesses."

breaking into a mine shaft on park property may be something legitimate, if the family's claims that it is a historic access point is discredited. But the latter instance sounds more like entrapment to me. Being paid to guide someone through the park on a horse doesn't exactly strike me as something the government should regulate in the first place, but aside from my free market ideas, we're dealing with a relatively poor family & I'd argue that any offer of cash for what they'd feel is a reasonable & lawful activity is not as much an indictment of the Pilgrim family's guilt as it is of the NPS's desire to discredit the family in any way possible.

BTW, if you recall the NPS is a federal agency. Care to guess how much of your tax dollars have gone to their efforts to build a case against the Pligrim family?

"Critics are calling the park's response absurd. They estimate the cost of the investigation, including helicopters and staff time, at $200,000 to $500,000. The park superintendent, Candelaria, acknowledged the cost was in that range."

$200,000 because a family used a bulldozer to maintain a road, an acre of oats was planted in the wrong place & their cabin strayed a few yards off the property line??? Wonder what they charge to prevent a rape?

"The dispute reached the public eye in early summer, with Internet alarms sent out by Kenyon and others over a park plan to dispatch a special team of armed rangers with the surveyors. The park and its critics accused each other publicly of encouraging a "Ruby Ridge" type armed showdown, with children in the line of fire.
The Park Service quickly backed down and sent in the survey team without guards, according to a June 4 park memo, to reduce risk of a confrontation 'being deliberately constructed to serve the narrow interests of some of the citizens of McCarthy and the Hale family."

So they feel that if they sent armed guards to escort a survey team on another persons property, that could be used to serve "narrow interests" of said property owners & residents of the town? I suppose "narrow interests" means anything that the government doesn't approve of or can't get away with?

Concerning the support the Pilgrim family has received:

"They're allies of convenience,' said Sharp, the park ranger. 'I think we have people in this community who hate authority and the government. (The Pilgrims) are the poor pioneers just trying to live in the old-fashioned way. There are people who think you can drive the federal government out of here if you do this just the right way."

He wonders why people hate authority & government? He orders armed escorts for his armed Rangers, entraps the family, fines the family, & prevents them using equipment he states is necessary to travel the road to their property but yet he admits that the Pilgrims are basically good people? Are we to assume that this is the way good people must be dealt with?

"I felt like I was back in the 1800s scouting through hostile Indian territory,' Sharp said."

Ah, we see where his creed for dealing with non-government employed peoples comes from.
He made that statement after explaining that he felt the Pilgrim family members were tracking him & fellow agents. He also seemed a little surprised when he recounted how the Pilgrim family's eldest sons told him to stay off their property.

In summation, what it seems like is the NPS does have a few legitimate issues about the Pilgrim family's activities. However the NPS has a love of authority that is blinding it to the degree of seriousness to take the Pilgrim's actions as well as the appropriate responses.

They're acting like masters, not stewards.

Sadly that's all to common with government agencies - & agents.

Here's a page that has updates on the Pilgrim family's plight.

From this thread over at The High Road I found a link to a survey about gun control that's being conducted by a gentleman from Yale.

From the opening page of the survey:

"Thank you for taking part in this exploratory study on society and current issues! This survey is being used to develop a larger national survey, and it is important that you answer each question carefully. The questions vary widely, and there are now "right" or "wrong" answers. We want your opinion or best guess." (emphasis added)

Of course there's a Right & Wrong answer to these kinds of surveys. Odds are I flunked it. I'd be ashamed of myself if I didn't. :D

If you opt to take the survey, page 3 is where the gun questions crop up. Some of the wording leaves a lot to be desired, such as "As long as criminals, the mentally insane & those that are a danger to themselves are prohibited, would you support a law that allows private citizens to carry a firearm?" (Going from memory - the wording may not be exact, but it's close). Now a lot of people wouldn't want serial killers to own weapons, but criminals could mean jaywalkers as well as murderers. This is a flaw I've found on damn near every survey, so I'm not going to hold ambiguity of questions against them.

But if you have time take the survey. If nothing else it's always interesting to cause a person to alter their research to support their conclusions (assuming rather prejudicially that Yale means the surveyor is pro-gun control), but it might lead someone to discover that not all people are terrified of firearms & better yet it might help this fellow convince his colleagues that firearms aren't as generally feared & despised as they believe.

I'll try to post more on this when/if the results come out.

Glenn Reynolds opines in this post that the "assault weapons" ban will sunset.

I wish he were correct, but it still remains up in the air.

I refer you to this post for some background on the political theories concerning the ban, look at this post for some information on the 100 co-sponsors for the McCarthy-Conyers bill to make permanent & strengthen the "assault weapons" ban, & look at this post for how the Senate & House break down in terms of supporting or opposing gun control bills.

Bottom line is that there are enough votes in the Senate & probably enough votes in the House to pass any version of an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. Veto-proof isn't a concern as Bush promised to sign it into law & Bush always keeps his promises no matter how much it infringes on our Rights (In all fairness I'd have to go back before Roosevelt - not the good Roosevelt; FDR - to find a president who would stand up for the Constitution despite political pressure).

So what it comes down to is whether or not any of the bills that would make permanent & strengthen the "assault weapons" ban will come to a vote. If it does I'm pretty sure it'd pass.

But most people assume it won't come to a vote. This is mainly because of House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) said it wouldn't come up for a vote. This was said in May.

But House Speaker Dennis Hastert )R-Illinois) said a few days later that he hadn't yet decided whether the House would vote on renewing the ban. "'I need to have some discussions with the president and (Republican) leadership before I make that decision" were his words.

So we're by no means out of the woods yet. If Hastert brings any one of the "assault weapons" ban bills to the floor, it's likely to pass. The Senate's a done deal. & Bush will betray us yet again. The courts? Heh. SCOTUS has been ducking direct second amendment questions for almost 54 years. I doubt they'd grow some spine if someone challenged the "assault weapons" ban again.

I wish I could share Prof. Reynolds' optimism, but I fear I know too much about what's going on.

Here's the section of my archives that deal with proposed bans. Most of the stuff from halfway down to the end of that section deals with the "assault weapons" ban & proposals to renew it. It's not going to be an uplifting read, but if you would know all the details (at least all that I could find) feel free to browse. Of course if you see any flaws with my reasoning or know something to be different than I stated it, please drop me a line. I want to be wrong about this.

In this thread over at The High Road, a rather interesting discussion was getting started. Specifically around page 4 it was becoming more interesting to me, but alas, it deviated too much from the original topic & was locked.

The orginal question was about answering or not answering an LEO's questions at a traffic stop. It morphed however into a discussion of what constitutes legitimate law enforcement (i.e. how can a cop vioate your Rights by merely enforcing the law) & what defines one as "pro-gun".

First let's look at the "pro-gun" definition.

A law enforcement officer made the claim that he was "...as pro-gun as anybody..." while going on to say that there needs to be some gun laws to keep the wrong people from having weapons & cops should not be blamed for enforcing those laws. He seemed a little miffed when i pointed out that he was not in fact pro gun, but simple not as hard core anti as others are.

But here's what I think is a workable definition of "pro-gun": Being oppossed to any prior restraint based gun control laws.

Simple, eh?

Of course that's not very popular as it would exclude those who think that we should enfocre the laws we have. In other words those who think the NFA of 34 &/or any firearm law since then would not fall under my definition of pro-gun. That's simply because they in fact support gun control. So it ticks people off who are not members of the VPC that they wouldn't be considered "pro-gun".

Folks there are varying degress of damn near everything, but generally being "pro" or "anti" means you're either in favor of something or against it. These are two extreme points with most people who label themselves one or the other falling in between. & labels do tend to take on their own meanings over time, especially to those on one side of the issue or the other, but for my purposes & from my perspective I see it as a person either being for gun control or against it, with those who support even minimal gun control as being less than "pro-gun".

& I'm sure there are die hard firearms prohibitionists who see anything less than a desire to confiscate all civilian owned arms as being "pro-gun". But I think that wanting most guns left alone while some are confiscated helps the anti's more than those who want most guns confiscated but some left alone helps us.

That's not to say they're necessarily bad people, or they're our enemies; just they lack either an understanding of the subject or that they are not absolutely on my side all of the time. Sure, they'd help out if an effort was needed to stop a bill that would ban all firearms, but maybe not one that let anyone carry concealed sans permit, or one that made short barreled shotguns legal w/o the extensive paperwork we know have.

Here's an old joke that perhaps illustrates my point:

A man walks up to a woman in a bar. he asks her if she'd sleep with him for $1,000,000. She says yep she would. He then asks if she'd sleep with him for $5. She looks offended & replies, "What kind of girl do you think I am?!?!?". He answers. "Ma'am, we've already established that; now we're bartering".

Similarly those who support prior restraint based gun control laws are offended if you dispute their assertions of being pro-gun. The fact is if you support a little gun control, then what you are is already established. What you're contending is the degree to whcih you are anti-gun. More or less you're attempting to use a relative standard to include yourself in an absolute definition.

But if you do support some gun control laws - fine. I'll argue with you all day long about the effectiveness of said laws, & they're Constitutionality & the degrees to which they violate our Rights. I won't spit on you or otherwise degrade you even if I do disparage your decision. But don't try to tell me you're pro-gun while wanting to infringe upon my Right to Arms.

So what is a good word or phrase to describe those who are not "pro-gun" by my definition but not "anti-gun" by the gun prohibitionists definition?

& I'll try to address the other topics covered in the aforelinked High Road thread at some point soon, as they tie in well with the post I've been thinking about for weeks concerning revolution.

Continue the discussion with Spoons concerning the reversal of the 9th Circuit's decision on waiting times for forced entry when serving a warrant by SCOTUS:

"Your response basically makes three arguments, as I see it. Two of them, I submit, were not relevant in this case. First of all, you object that the warrant in this case was based on an anonymous tip. To my understanding, this was not an issue in this case, and the Defendant was not arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Correct me if I'm mistaken on that. In any event, obtaining a warrant is not quite as simple as you suppose. When police go before a judge, they have explain in detail, under oath, the nature the facts which they claim give them probable cause. This is what the Fourth Amendment expressly requires. In most cases, an anonymous tip, without more, will not be sufficient to get a warrant. If, on the other hand, the police get information from an informant who has proven reliable in the past, or who is in a position to have specialized knowledge, this will be more persuasive to a judge, and may lead to the issuance of a warrant. In any event, this is the same sort of evidence that has always supported warrants -- going back as long as we've had a Fourth Amendment.

Your second argument is that the Feds don't have the power to make drug posession illegal. That's a more interesting argument, theoretically, but it was NOT an argument at issue in this case. This was a case about execution of search warrants. If you object to all drug prosecutions generally, that's fine. However, given the fact that the Supreme Court is not going to agree with you on that structural question (which the defendant didn't raise and which COULD NOT therefore be addressed by the Court), I think we still want to address the general warrants question honestly, and to create a rule that can apply in all sorts of cases.

So that brings me to the third issue; namely, the length of the wait. You propose:

'Now there are situations where cops busting into someone's house would be acceptable, but they'd be limited to demonstrating a serious & imminent danger to someone's life & limb if they didn't do it. Certain hostage/kidnapping scenarios come to mind, but little else.'

'What I would prefer is that except in those situations where life & limb are threatened by not acting, that cops simply not enter a person’s home without permission irregardless of any warrant. They shouldn't have merely increased their wait time; they should have simply not entered the home until permission was obtained.'

That's a completely unworkable rule. More importantly, it's never been the law in this country. It's not what the Fourth Amendment says, nor what the framers intended. We rightly pillory liberals for making up new rights in the Constitution -- we shouldn't get into the business ourselves. The rule you suggest would cripple legitimate law enforcement. Not only drug crimes, but many other crimes that you don't have a problem with, would become difficult or impossible to prosecute, as long as the criminal worked out of the home. Simply keep the shades drawn, and destroy all the evidence when the cops come around and announce themselves (as the Court has said they must do). Better yet, if you're out of the house and learn that police have been by, simply don't go home. Hit the road, and the cops will never be able to get in.

I find it odd, too, that you object to the police entering your home -- with a warrant -- when the suspect is not home. What about when the suspect IS at home, but refuses to open the door? Is that entry okay? If so, why?

You also misunderstand the Castle Doctrine. That doctrine never had anything to do with a homeowner's right to disobey a lawful warrant. Indeed, a warrant from the King would always permit the King's men to enter anywhere in the realm (for the past 500 years or more!).

In short, my objection to your proposed rule are twofold. One, the rule you propose is utterly unworkable, and would devestate law enforcement -- even with respect to crimes that you don't disagree with. Second, and more importantly, the rule you propose is rooted nowhere in the Constitution (or even in Common Law)."

To address the first point made by Spoons, anonimous tips are a lousy basis for a warrant. Even disregarding that it allows for a flagrant abuse (i.e. making up the informant to secure a warrant or paying an informant to "inform" to base the warrant on) it offers nothing more than heresay as a basis for deprivation of a Right. In a court of law assuming Spoons & myself had equal standing (i.e. clean records, "respectable" backgrounds, etc...) he could testify that I had proscribed drugs or guns & it shoudl have no bearing, as it would be his word against mine with no proof to back it up. It may sway a jury but objectively it should have no bearing on any matters. Further I suspect that most anonymous tipsters are of less than upstanding background themselves. Hence their credibility is somewhat suspect which further discredits them in a peron's word against another person's word context. & I would remind Spoons that our favorite gun control org, the BATF, uses "informants frequently. Typically they threaten to bust a gun owner for something & offer him the chance to rat out someone else in exchange for leniency or immunity.

But here's another thing that must be considered: revenge on the part of the tipster as a motive. Say Spoons & I are at a bar & both trying to attract the same girl. For some reason she prefers me over him (i.e. she's had a drink or twelve on an empty stomach) & Spoons gets ticked off. So he calls the local PD & gives an anonymous tip that I have a machine gun & am selling coke. Now suppose the local cops have read my blog & are less then happy with my rants about the inappropriate actions that they took in a matter. They take this anonymous tip to the judge & get a warrant based on it & the judge's deference to them. So the cops come a knocking & we have at minimum a real tense situation. All because of a desire for revenge. Yes, it's a straw man but one that is probably more accurate than any of us would like to believe.

So despite anonymous tipsters being an old & accepted method of basing warrants I contend that it's flawed in many respects & shoudl be discontinued.

As to the argument that the Feds lack authority to make drugs illegal, we probably both have heard more sides of this issue than we can remember. But to sum it up, I see nothing in the constitution that allows the Feds to make any drugs illegal. States may be a bit different, but the Feds simply lack the authority.

Now as to the irrelevance of thse two points, I disagree. A court should look at all aspects of the case, not just those whicht he lawyers bring up. If a person is fighting a conviction for carying a concealed weapon & his attorney is basing his defense on some regulatory provision that allows such in one's car, that should not disuade the judge or jury from examining the question of whether or not the state has authority to prohibit or regulate the carrying of weapons at all. In fact courts should first look at a law & decide whether or not it is indeed constitutional before even considering other matters. So as you might imagine I am no fan of the presumption of constitutionality doctrine that has misled the courts for the last several decades.

The courts simply should have looked at these issues regardless of counsel bringing them up or not.

Now as to the third point Spoons addressed concerning my proposal, I do not see it as unworkable or as crippling law enforcement. What I see it as doing is perhaps inconveninecing law enforcement, but to the benefit of law enforcement & the people.

Under my program cops would still be able to break down doors & dress up in their space ninja outfits, but only when doing so would attempt to save life. This business about busting down someone's door for suspicion of possessing an illegal substance or object would be eliminated. I do not see it as hampering legitimate law enforcement efforts. If you accept gun control & drug prohibition as acceptable then officers could still enforce those laws. They just would not be able to bust into someone's home to do it, unless said person was taking potshots at passers-by out of his window, or he was holding someone against their will.

Now I will grant you this: my idea would devestate law enforcement as we know it; it would strip away a lot of power from the government to enforce its laws. But it would do so to the benefit, not the detriment of the people. In short it would only be damaging to the system as it is now, not the system as it should be.

As to it creating new law &/or Rights, I don't see it as that. I see it as merely enforcing the Rights of the people as they should be enforced. Quite simple the idea of Federal government agents, or local agents acting on behalf of the Feds to enforce Federal law, was not seen as something essential to daily operations of the federal government. In short those accussed of counterfeiting & other legitimate federal crimes were to be the only ones subject to Federal search warrants. & I doubt it was seen as something that would or should happen with any frequency. Moreover I doubt that a statement from someone whose intentions may be suspect would have been viewed as a legitimate exception to the Fourth amendment when it was penned. Keep in mind that in 1791, the Feds were suppossed to have limited powers & a limited number of agents in its employ. States had a little more discretion but still there weren't even any organized police forces - at least not as we know them today.

I really do believe that any signer of the respective constitutions - State or Federal - would have serious issues with the way the courts have interpreted the Fourth amendment as it pertains to the granting of warrants & forced entry into a person's home just as much as they'd not be happy with the courts treatment of the Right to Arms provisions.

& if Spoons is saying that the Castle Doctrine was irrelevant if the King signed a piece of paper saying it was, then I think that would do more to support my point rather than refute it.

The idea that a person's home is off limits to the government embodies the Castle Doctrine. But saying that a King could merely sign a piece of paper & the sanctity of the home would be forfeit is to essentially make the Castle Doctrine useless. Now I know that this was the case in England - the King most certainly could make exceptions at whim to the Castle Doctrine, but this does not justify its continuance today in the form of court issued search warrants.

The Fourth amendment sought to address this by the use of certain words, such as unreasonable & probable cause.

Here's the Fourth amendment in it's entirety:

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

Now as to the first part, essentially what Spoons & I are arguing is what constitutes unreasonable. I feel that busting in someone's door for a non-life threteaning reason is unreasonable. Spoons does not view it in this light.

As for the probable cause, again we disagree. I do not feel the word of one other person constitutes probable cause. Spoons sees it as an acceptable way to enforce laws that he fears would be unenforcable otherwise.

Further I believe that courts have used too little discretion in the issuance of warrants, especially the no-knock variety, while Spoons feels that adequate procedural safeguards are in place.

These three things in esence sum up the disagreement that Spoons & I have. If time permits I'll attempt to expand further on these (but as y'all may have noticed, time hasn't permitted much blogging as of late).

But in the meantime check out the comments in this post as there's some decent discussion of this issue going on.