Saturday, March 29, 2003

In Maine a bill that would allow women who are victims of domestic violence carry weapons w/o permits is meeting stiff opposition.

"Protective orders issued by the courts 'are a good tool for law enforcement,' Republican Rep. Michael Vaughan told the Criminal Justice Committee, but 'they don't stop a bullet or (a) knife'."

" women's advocates or domestic-violence groups endorsed the bill, which came under attack from the state Department of Public Safety, an organization representing Maine police chiefs and a gun-control group."
"...Even the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, which generally champions gun ownership and backed some pro-gun bills that were considered by the committee on Wednesday, did not endorse Vaughan's bill."
"...Maj. Craig Poulin of the state police. He noted that the bill would allow suspects with pending felony charges and people guilty of reckless or negligent conduct to carry concealed weapons without permits...'introducing a firearm into a domestic violence situation has the potential for grave consequences that far outweigh any perceived benefit'."

What the article didn't mention is that perpetrators of domestic violence are also oppossed to the bill. Imagine if they were trying to kill their 'ex' & she pulled out a gun! That would be dangerous.
If you are a woman & you are a victim of domestic violence * would highly recommend being armed at all times despite any law to the contrary. Seek training as soon as possible & most importantly take responsibility for your own safety.
For related reading please browse through the Self Defense category under the Previous Blogs section.

A judge pro tem was fired in Arizona because he refused to hear drug cases. The pro tem judge claims that most drug laws violate the U.S. & Arizona constituions.
A 52 year old woman is on a hunger strike in D.C. However it's not because of her feelings about the war, or foreign policy, or Bush. Her husband was convicted of failing to file a tax return & she is on a hunger strike untill her congressman answers questions she (& a lot of other people have) concerning the income tax system.
The woman is 52. She weighed 100 pounds when she started the hunger strike 24 days ago. All that she wants are answers to her questions. To put it more dramatically she desires a redress of grievences. So far the federal government has been unwilling to discuss questions brought by those questioning the income tax system. In fact most questions cannot be brought in court cases because they are deemed frivilous & stiff penalties are mandated for raising them.
If you get the oppurtunity ask your reps any of these question & see what kind of response you get. & pay a visit to We The People to find out a little more on the nature of the questions that haven't been addressed.
I noticed that other bloggers have recently been receiving hate mail. I'm a bit dissappointed because as of yet I have none to speak of. But I think I've found a way to fix that.

Some observations about commonly circulated misstatements.

1. The military gave us the Right to protest.

Actually God, or Nature or [insert-deity/belief system here] gave us all our Rights, at least the non-political ones. The military didn't give us any Rights.

2. The military protects our Rights.

That's simply not true. The only two times the military in the US fought for the Rights of Americans were the American Revolution & the War between the States (or the War of Nothe'n Aggresion as we say back home).
In every war since America declared its Independance save those two previously mentioned the military has fought for our security & for our national interests. They did so bravely & with great sacrifice & all who serve in our armed forces should be respected & admired. & in some cases they fought for the Rights, security & freedom of the people of other nations. But the truth is they did not fight for our Rights.

The only people responsible for fighting for our Rights since the War between the States have been the people & organizations who have stood up to our own government. That's because at no time has the US been in serious danger of being invaded & occupied. There's been the threat, but not the imminent danger. There are only two ways in which our Rights can be threatened: by occupation of a foreign military & by direct &/or indirect action by our own government.
The Soviet Union never attempted to deny us our Rights. It possibly would have, but it never had the chance. & yes this is due in part to the military being as strong & able as it has been, but also due to the fact that American civilians would have turned any invasion of our soil into the bloodiest military action in history, no thanks to Sarah Brady. Same with Hitler, & the Kaiser, & any other enemy we've had. They would have been a threat to our Rights but they never had the chance.
Our government on the other hand has been, is & always will be a direct threat to our Rights. The military has never to my knowledge told congress it cannot pass a law because it would interfere with the citizens liberties. Now if they were ordered to confiscate all civilian arms & they refused en masse then that would be a valid example of the military fighting for our Rights. But keeping an enemy from being in a position to subvert our Rights is not the same thing as protecting those Rights. It's protecting our security & our national interests which is by no means an unrespectable goal.
The US government has done more to violate Rights than any foreign army or dictator ever has. This is simply because the US government makes the laws, therefore they are the ones who are in the most ready position to be harmful of our Rights. They are the ones who can & have at times ignored their constitutional prohibitions.
So who is responsible for protecting our Rights? To be blunt, we are. No one else, not the military, not congress, not anyone other than the American people are going to attempt a defense of our Rights. The way we do it is by protesting what we think is wrong, by writing our congressmen & senators, by voting, by challenging laws in court, by civil disobedience, by writing letters to the editor & if all else fails, by abolishing this government & setting up one that is more protective of our Rights. (Newsflash: the Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting)
So while we do owe our armed forces personnel every bit of gratitude we can show them for their service, it is because they fight for our security & our national interests, as well as the security & fredom of other nations but not for our Rights. By believing the misstatement that the military gave us or protects our Rights then we do them a disservice & place a dangerous idea in our own minds that since the military is the legitimate Giver & Protector of Rights, then they can also take them away. Thank them for what they do: that'll take much longer than we have in this life by itself. They don't need or want us to ascribe incorrect justifications to our gratitude.

3. Our Right to protest includes acts of civil disobeience including blocking traffic.

Nope. We have the Right to approach government for the Redress of Grievances & that includes protesting untill those grievances are addressed. Civil Disobedience is part of the Right to seek Redress of Grievances. Protesting generally falls in the category of the Right to Free Assembly.
But blocking traffic is not Civil Disobedience unless you are protesting traffic moving too swiftly due to government action. Civil Disobedience is the intentional breaking of a law in order to challenge those laws, or to bring awareness to their unjust nature. If someone can explain to me what blocking a street has to do with stopping the war in Iraq I'd appreciate it.
Further throwing rocks, damaging property, attacking people unprovoked, rioting, looting, stealing, etc, etc do not constitute protected actions let alone Rights of any kind. Article 1 of the Bill of Rights clearly states, "... the Right of the people peaceably to assemble...". Violent & unnecessarily disruptive acts do not fall under its protection even if they are committed in the name of peace. & just for kicks, can someone tell me how throwing rocks & smashing store windows would further the cause of peace?

4. People should not say/do certain things because they are offensive.

While I agree that some things are offensive I realize that my tastes are different from everyone elses. As long as they do not threaten me or my family directly I cannot & should not prevent anyone from saying or doing something just because I take offense to it.
I have seen this on both sides: protestors offending pro war people & pro-war people displaying things that offend anti-war people. Taking offense is no justification for tearing down yellow ribbons or American flags that someone has put up especially on their own property, & proeststing a war or a president or both as long as its done peacefully is no justification for splashing protestors with water or driving a semi onto the sidewalk in order to scare them. You can protest anything you wish on public property as long as its done peaceably & you can display anything you want on private property as long as its not stolen. If its stolen you can still display it but I wouldn't expect NASA to take your application seriously.

5. I have the Right to not be offended.

Yes you do. You exercise it by locking your door, turning off the T.V., radio & computer & kicking everyone out of your house except yourself. Beyond that you're out of luck.
Being offended is one of the hazards of living in a free or semi-free society. The only way to eliminate offense is to eliminate all freedom. Not just some of it, but all of it. God, or Nature, or [insert-deity/belief system here] gave us freedom to comfort as well as to offend. We are in no moral position to alter that arrangement. & even if we were it would demonstrate a serious flaw in logic on our part. So no, you do not have the Right to be free from offense unless you lock yourself away from all contact with humans. If someone breaks into your house & starts ranting on their political views that'd be different, but what we're discussing here is the acts of others in public.

6. The media isn't biased or it is biased towards the right.

The only way to rationally think that is to assume an unbiased position is Hillary Clinton & anything to the right of her is conservative. To keep it brief unbiased journalism is almost impossible although some come closer than others. The fact is most mainstream media is left leaning in the way it presents certain issues. There are some reporters who are more right leaning but they are a minority. There are a number of reasons for this but I won't go into them all here. To sum it up just because a news story does not call Bush 'The Great Pretender" does not mean it's in league with the White House.

There is one notable exception: talk radio. It is predominantly conservative or right wing simply because liberal or left wing talk shows don't command the ratings necessary to compete in the marketplace of radio. Again there are several good reasons for this but I won't get into them here.

Hopefully I have said something in the above paragraphs to inspire some sort of hate mail. Granted, I don't have the readership of some other very popular blogs but I was hoping at least one or two e mails or comments accusing me of being evil would have come in by now. If it weren't for the few I.P. addresses that trace back to federal government computer systems I would feel like i wasn't accomplishing anything at all with this blog & give up. :)

Friday, March 28, 2003

The U.S. airman Manuel Falquez who shot an armed burglar in his mothers house has had his arraignment moved to May 2nd. Like Ronald Dixon he is being charged not for the shooting itself which was ruled legitimate self defense, but for possessing an unregistered firearm. Also the respective DA's in Mr. Dixon's & Mr. Falquez' case have lessened the charges against them, not out of sympathy, but to deny them a trial by jury.
Well, it had to happen at some point in my lifetime. Three men in L.A. have learned that robbing a gun store is not the safest thing to do.

Also look here for a more blunt analysis of the attempted heist.

In Indiana Will Hutchins challenges a local ban of arms on public property.

"There are limitations on the Second Amendment, certainly they are for the public safety," [Hendricks County Attorney greg] Steuerwald said. "It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire."

I would refer Mr. Steuerwald to this & this to explain why his statement is incorrect.

Thursday, March 27, 2003

The New York Times: all the news that fits to print. This is an article by a gentelman who was asked to write an Op/ed for the NYT. In it Mr. Boris Johnson discusses the NYT's editorial process from direct experience.

"Booris,’ said Tobin, ‘we love it! Everybody loves it. But we have, uh, a few issues of political correctness that I have to go through with you'."

Read it. It's enlightening.
An article calls for us all to support Ron Paul ( R-Tx) as the Republican candidate for President in 2004, & more importantly convince Rep. Paul to run.

There is a website set up by third parties (pun intended) to promote Rep. Paul's run for office under an independant party as well as convince rep. Paul ro run.

There is a poll that asks who should be the next Libertarian presidential candidate in which Rep. Paul has approximately 51% of the 600 votes so far.

& finally a petition to draft Rep. Paul as the presidential candidate for all third parties.

If you are not familiar with Rep. Paul I recommend you rememdy that. He is one of the few people in government to seem to care more about the people than his pension. this is linked on the left side of this page but for your convenience I will re-link it here:'s collection of essays by Ron Paul.

Sure, it'd be a long shot for Rep. Paul to win. But if he runs I'll support him as I know very few politicians who dare agree with me that all federal firearms laws are unconstitutional. I could be wrong, but if all the libertarian/conservative pro-constitution/pro-Rights third parties put aside their differences & supported him, he may just have a chance.
When you hear of a proposed firearm law that is presented by Sen. Daschle & co-sponsored by Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, & Sen. Kennedy do you get the feeling it won't be pro-gun? If so you should go with your intuition.

S 22: The Justice Enhancement & Security Act of 2003..."was introduced on Jan. 7, 2003, by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), and a host of other anti-gun Democrats, including Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)"

Among other things it would establish ballistic fingerprinting of firearms, require locks & smart gun technology, practically eliminate gun shows,

Here is a summary from the GOA of all the firearms related bills introduced so far into the 108th Congress.

& lest ye think our freedoms are safe with republicans in control, here's GOA's ratings for each member of the current congress:

GOA Senator rating

GOA Representative rating

Note that there are only 18 Senators & 173 representatives who have a B- rating or higher. Any one rated C+ or below cannot be counted upon to support our Rights. So despite having a Republican controlled Congress it is important to realize that we still have an anti-gun majority.
A NYC police officer does the right thing, & is promptly punished for it. The officer felt there was no legal justification for the arrest of a homeless person, so after he refused to arrest the homeless man he was suspended without pay. He may be fired depending upon the results of a hearing.
Obviously what is of immediete concern is whether or not he did in fact disobey a lawful order. After that question is resolved then one is left with the question of whether or not a state or city has the authority to arrest people for being homeless if he is committing no other crime.
Aside from all that we have another issue to deal with: whether or not it is ever proper for a police officer to refuse to follow an order for the sake of conscience. It is general said that no civil servant or military officer is obligated to obey an unlawful order, such as one that would violate a persons' constitutionally acknowledged Rights. I know a lot of cops who swear that if they are ever ordered to confiscate all civilian weapons, they'll quit, yet they still enforce firearms laws which are blatently unconstitutional. It's relative to some what is unconstitutional. But here we have a case of an officer who refused to do something he thought was improper for him or any other cop to do & he is being punished for it. Yes, he will have a hearing but suspension without pay is a punishment, & a bit insulting when you hear of police misconduct that is potentially criminal that results only in paid leave or administrative duties untill a hearing or trial commences.
Admittedly I do not know all of the facts surronding this event, but on the surface it does seem like the NYPD is attempting to make an example of him simply because he chose to obey his conscience rather than his superior.
An ex-con in SC has learned a valuable lesson: only break into a little old lady's house if she's just remodeled!

To give away the punchline, "I would have used a shotgun, but I had just had new countertops done and I didn't want to tear up the kitchen."

Being from the south I can verify that this mindest is not uncommon.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Non gun owners. People who do not at least currently own or possess a firearm. Is it their decision whether to be armed or not? Yep. Should we force them to buy arms? Nope. Should they? In most cases yes.
Owning a firearm has certain advantages, & also certain responsibilities. Ultimately a firearm equals the playing field between the physical strong & weak. A certain amount of skill is involved in using a firearm but not so much as to be a hindrance to learning its proper use. Compare that to fencing, or archery & you'll understand that learning to use a firearm for self defense is relatively easy.
But you must be careful when you won a firearm. Always making sure your barrel isn't pointing at anything you don't want to shoot. Always identifying your target & what lies beyond it. Always securing your firearm when it's not in your direct control.
The benefits: I could wax on for hours about the joys of laying on my belly trying to judge the stinging wind in my face as I aim my rifle at an 18 inch circle around 600 yards distant, as I'm sure some could tell you of the joys of shooting bowling pin matches, or 1,00 yard competitions, & still other will tell you of the morning they shot two birds that rose out of the same covey, or that 400 steps they took to the deer they shot without using a rest.
But instead I will focus on one, perhaps the main benefit of owning a firearm - freedom.
Am I saying that just buy owning or possessing a firearm that will guarantee your freedom? Nope. Not in a long shot. But having a firearm coupled with knowledge & determination will preserve your freedom where knowledge & determination alone may not be enough.
There are many kinds of freedom. The one that will concern us is not the freedom to travel, or the freedom to speak, but the freedom to live. More specifically the freedom to live despite another’s efforts to deprive you of that freedom.
A man that's 6'2'' & weighs 200lbs may not be too worried that a man that's 6'1" & weighs 185 lbs might break into his house in the middle of the night, or try to mug him in the parking lot as he leaves the mall. But if that 6'1" man has a knife, or a club, then things change. & if he has a gun the physical advantage of our 6'2" man is negated. Likewise the same 6'1" man may not be threatening to the first man if both are unarmed, but instead of our 6'2" man let's substitute a 5'4" 105lb woman. Things get a little different. However, if that 5'4" woman has a pistol & knows how & when to use it, then the man could be 7' tall & it wouldn't change the outcome - the woman preserves her freedom.
It has always struck me as insane that most proponents of civilian disarmament are the ones who could have benefited the most from being armed. Women are the prime example. While a lot of anti-gun women rant about firearms in domestic violence situations lead to dead women, they rarely mention the times when a woman has used a firearm to stop her 'ex' from beating her up, or raping her. I firmly believe that if every other counseling session for battered women included a trip to the range then perhaps a lot of abusive men would realize the error of their ways, or at least not be able to cause any more harm.
To a somewhat lesser (or possibly just different) extent a lot of Jewish organizations & leaders are for civilian disarmament. I find this sad because if the Jews of Nazi Germany had access to arms, then Hitler wouldn't have been as successful in his attempt at genocide. In fact, Germany passed laws specifically forbidding Jews from having weapons before the cattle cars rolled into position. Yet even though they could have benefited from owning arms & one could argue that they suffered as a consequence of being denied arms, a lot of prominent Jewish people wish us all to be disarmed. As was said once when asked to explain this," These individuals must have some sort of gas chamber mentality". Crude yes? But accurate.
So individuals can benefit from owning arms for protection against criminal off the street & criminal in office as well. But there's another benefit to society in general:
When a segment of the population is armed it is logical to conclude that violent confrontational crime will not be as prominent. The logic is simply this: if you were a criminal, would you want to rob someone directly when they may be armed, or would you prefer to break into a car when nobody's looking? But what about rapists? They have to confront a person to accomplish their ends, so gun ownership probably wouldn't affect them right? Wrong. Have you ever heard that no matter how difficult it is to testify against a rapist to prevent him from raping again? Well testimony from a victim is not a guarantee that he'll be convicted. A number of things can make a jury or judge find him innocent, & occasionally the wrong man will be on trial. But if every had the mindset that if a person is going to rape you there's no guarantee they won't kill you when or before they're done so complying accomplishes nothing & resisting may save your life then we come across a benefit of owning arms in addition to the deterrent effect: if a man attacks you & you shoot him in the upper right shoulder, ID'ing him is much more simplified. For this same reason if women are for some inexcusable reason unarmed they should claw, bite, and do anything they can to leave a permanent mark on their assailant. But even if the assailant is not killed by a woman using a pistol to defend herself, it makes identification easier & therefore conviction easier. So the benefits are not just to yourself but to society as a whole. Even if he is not caught after you shoot him, chances are he won't be in any condition to attack anyone else for a while, & there's a good chance he die from his injury if he doesn't seek medical attention. So he either ends up dead & not a threat to you or any other women, or he ends up in the hospital with a bunch of doctors & policemen asking him to explain again how he got the gunshot wound in his shoulder.

There are places where self defense is for all practical purposes illegal. DC, NYC & Chicago come to mind as the most hideous examples. If you live in one of these places you have my sympathy. Hopefully things will change. But if you cannot move then I would heartily recommend breaking any laws that interfere with your Right to self defense. True, you may wind up in trouble with an unjust & corrupt legal system, but the alternative could be the loss of your life.
So individuals who own guns make it safer for those who do not in a few ways. Some have even gone so far as to say that those who don't own guns are leaching off the security provided by those that do. Technically that's correct but to me it doesn't matter. If someone is truly uncomfortable with firearms & absolutely doesn't want to own or posses one then I won't belittle them for it. & I don't mind them enjoying the benefits that are created by those that do own & possess firearms. I would just ask they would respect my Right to be armed as I respect their Right to be defenseless. After all, they are beneficiaries of my Rights, & we all would be considerably less safe if they were not respected.

& I would recommend anyone who has not participated in some form of target shooting to give it a try. There are many different varieties of target shooting, from informal plinking at tin cans to trap shooting to 1,000 yard bench rest competitions to dressing up like cowboys or mountain men while shooting black powder guns. You might just like it.

Monday, March 24, 2003

As a refreshing aside, there is something positive to blog about concerning arms.
If you happen to be in the area of Cheyenne Wells, Colorado (about 185 miles south of Denver) on April 25th, 26th, 27th, or any combination thereof there's going to be a .50 caliber/machine gun shoot. The link has some pics from previous shoots. In case you're wondering what exactly occurs it's basically just a get together that's open to the public. It takes place at a shooting range & people with various weapons register in advance & reserve a place on the firing line. The targets shot at include but are not limited to junked out cars w/ or w/o propane tanks in the back & blasting dynamite in 5 gallon buckets. The weapons? It varies but you can count on at least a few .50 bolt action & semi-automatic rifles, ..30 & .50 belt fed machine guns, assault rifles (real ones) submachine guns & machine rifles. I went to the one last year & saw various Browning belt fed machine guns in .30 & .50 caliber, fully automatic AK-47's, M-16's, BAR's, Uzi's Mac-10's, etc.. In fact I saw the cutest little silenced full auto Mac-10: so quiet you could only hear the bolt working as it fired. There was also a few 20mm ( Solothurns & Lahti's) a 25mm Hotchkiss & a 37mm Bofars. There was a mortar that shot bowling balls, & a muzzle loading musket that shot bowling pins. Plenty of historical pieces, from german arms of WW2 to Russian arms of WW2 to US arms of WW2.
The best part is that most people who have reserved spaces on the firing line will rent out a weapon to you. It's usually pay per round & for example the .50's go for around $3 a pop so $20 goes by real quick in a belt fed! But some of the more common calibers they just charge you by the magazine. I think it was around $10 for a 30 round mag of 9mm or 5.56x45 or 7.62x39.
So if you don't have any plans that weekend & always wanted to try out a fully automatic M-16 or an obscure piece like the Russian PPSH then this is the thing for you.
Did I mention the tracer shoot right after dusk on Saturday? Just as it gets dark the firing line opens up with assorted tracers (every 5th or 7th round or so leaves a visible trail) as they shoot at junked cars filled with gasoline & propane at 800 yards or so.

Here's a link for your realplayer of some assorted footage taken at the last shoot.
& here's a link to some more photos of last years shoot.
I've been trying to keep this blog semi-nuetral on the war issue. Not because I'm not opinionated about it but because there are many many other fine blogs that are covering the war & to be honest there is just too much for me to write about as it is.
However I did find this amusing. I found it via Asparagirl who found it via Instapundit. It's a psuedo-debate on a talk show between an Iraqi now living in the U.S. & an anti war guest on the talk show. To be fair I'd find fault in this situation if the shoe was on the other foot, but it seems to me that every anti-war activist I hear ignores direct questions & instead tries to revert back to pre-written policy statements. There are some good arguements for being anti-war ( whether you agree with them or not) & it would be refreshing to hear someone articulate them in a debate setting. Instead though we are stuck with the above.
This is from New Jersey's counter-terrorism chief: "...If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home..."

Read the article. It's short. Then check your state to see if it has a similar plan. If so, please call or write the appropriate individuals & inform them to rethink the way they live.

Sunday, March 23, 2003

In an effort to reduce lost &/or stolen guns a NY Assemblyman John Lavelle proposes a one year wait to replace any guns lost or stolen. The 'reasoning' is that if a person knows it'll be a one year wait to replace something, he'd be more careful not to lose it or allow it to be stolen. However cops would be exempt from this law.

"It's really not going to hurt the bad guys,' said one Staten Island police officer, who noted illegal guns cause the biggest problems on the streets."
"Another Island cop said it could take up to a year to replace a lost or stolen gun in any case, given the red tape involved. But he said such a law could potentially force someone to buy a gun illegally."
"Lavelle, in defending his legislation, argued, 'If you purchase a weapon, you have a responsibility to secure it. This is a penalty -- and it's not that severe a penalty'."

Let's see... a person has his gun locked up for fear of it being stolen, thus rendering his only means of defense inaccesible in an emergency. Suppose the gun is stolen anyway, say in the course of a break in while he's away. That would mean he would have to wait one year before he could replace his only means of self defense. So 365 days of praying that no one tries to harm you because you don't have the means to protect yourself is considered by Assemblyman Lavelle as being an acceptable penalty for having the bad luck of being a crime victim? Hmm, that would mean it's an acceptable punishment to not allow someone to replace a car that was stolen, money that was stolen & certain airlines should not be allowed to replace aircraft that were hijacked & used in terrorist attacks. Fascinating.

Two NJ police officers have filed suit against a retailer & a manufacturer of firearms. They claim faulty distribution practices allowed a career criminal to obtain the gun used to shoot them. A West Virginia trial judge, Irene Berger refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

"Gun manufacturers and gun dealers have known for years that their negligent conduct is the key that opens the door to the lucrative illegal trade in firearms,' said Jonathan Lowy, Senior Attorney with the Brady Center's Legal Action Project."

Actually what makes the 'illegal' firearms trade lucrative is the law itself. When you outlaw or otherwise restrict any consumer good then you inflate the price of those goods that are purchased & distrubuted outside the law. I have heard of 100% to 400% inflation on the 'street prices' of guns compared to comparable moedls sold by federally licensed dealers.

"Judge Berger emphasized that guns are particularly dangerous products and that it is reasonable to place the burden on gun manufacturers and sellers to reduce the risk of sales into the illegal market."

Actually the burden of preventing crime should be on law enforcement & the judiciary, not businesses that sell a legal product according to mandates layed out for them by federal law.

By allowing this case to proceed the judge does a disservice to to us all. As pointed out over at the Volokh Conspiracy if alcohol were the product in question perhaps the case would have been dismissed.