Now I am not the first to tackle the problems with Miller: Brian Puckett wrote a piece entitled United States v. Miller and Short-Barreled Shotguns which I would encourage you to read. (He has more modern examples of shotgun use in the military - with pics!) I've previously touched on Miller here & here But for my own reference felt a more in depth refutation of Miller was necessary.
Many federal courts rely on U.S. v. Miller in which the Supreme Court remanded a case back to the District Court that had overturned the National Firearms Act of 1934. The District Court agreed with Miller that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court that the weapon in question, a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18?, was not known to the court to have use in the militia & therefore the NFA didn't conflict with the 2nd Amendment.
Most federal courts since then have misconstrued this to mean that unless a person was actually serving in a state militia with a state approved weapon then the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable to them. This is flawed simply because the findings in Miller did not state or even imply such a conclusion. In fact Miller went to great lengths to establish that "militia" meant every person capable of serving in the common defense.
Before I get into the Supreme Court's decision in Miller there are a few facts I would like to point out about the case. First of all a gentleman named Patrick L. Aultice compiled all the available information on Miller that he could find. It contains every document from the district court's grant of bail to the Supreme Court decision itself as well as a brief summation of Jack Miller himself.
It should be noted that Miller was indicted twice for the same violation of the NFA; once on June 2nd, 1938 & again on September 23rd, 1938. In the first instance a demurrer to the indictment listing 5 items was filed on June 11th, 1938 with a memo opinion from Judge Ragon on June 11th, 1938. In the second instance a demurrer to the indictment listing 6 items was filed on January 3rd, 1939 & a memo opinion was given by Judge Ragon on January 3rd, 1939. In Mr. Aultice's chapter on Jack Miller, he mentions that Miller originally plead guilty but the judge advised him to withdraw his plea & he appointed counsel for both him & Mr. Layton (who was indicted along with Miller). I think if you have an interest in the case you'll find all the documents & summaries provided by Mr. Aultice interesting, but I'll leave it to you to click on the link above for the detailed story.
This is Judge Ragon's opinion as stated on January 3rd, 1939:
"The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132 c, Title 26 U. S. C. A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Fire Arms Act.
The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
The demurrer is accordingly sustained."
That & the demurrer itself are all the Supreme Court had to go on from the defense. They did not submit a brief or attend oral arguments.
The briefs from the government in objection to the lower court's ruling were very detailed. Common law was cited as far back as 1686 in England to support the idea that restrictions on arms were justifiable. What they failed to do was demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment sought to adopt the common law of England in its restrictive view of the Right to Arms. But oddly enough the Supreme Court decision itself fills in many gaps that the government left in its briefs concerning militias.
This is an excerpt from Miller where Justice McReynolds states his overall findings concerning the case:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
He then goes on to explain the Congressional power concerning the militia that was granted in the Constitution & concludes that
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
He then continues about the militia:
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Justice McReynolds spends a great deal of time in discussing the history & purpose of a militia:
"Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'
'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-
'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'
Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."
He then continues with examples of regulations concerning militias in the states before he concludes:
"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed.
The cause will be remanded for further proceedings."
Justice McReynolds never mentions that Miller was not a member of a state militia & therefore had no standing. Rather he concludes that the weapon Miller had was not of a benefit to the militia, but he even left that open by mentioning that it was not within judicial notice.
Now once again here's the relevant passage of Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
Matters of fact are usually left to the trial court, unless it is something very obvious such as the capital of Oregon or the allegation that a river runs from the upper midwest to the Gulf of Mexico or that cars use gasoline. But what is curious is that the Supreme Court at the time had two justices with prior military experience, three if you count a newly appointed justice who recused himself from the case due to his missing the oral arguments. From this site the JPFO put together on Miller I found the following:
"...Two of the Court's members had seen military service, Justice Hugo Black as a Captain in the Field Artillery in 1918 and Justice Felix Frankfurter as a Major in the Army's Legal service. Justice William O. Douglas, who did not take part in the decision, had been a private in the U.S. Army in 1918."
So it should have been possible that at the least Justice Black had some exposure to the military's use of short barreled weapons. From the same article from the JPFO we see numerous examples of the military use of short barreled weapons.
"The British issued a Sea Service flintlock blunderbuss with a 16-inch brass barrel, circa 1760..."
Jumping to the Late Unpleasantness 'Twixt the States:
"The degree to which barrels were amputated depended upon the whim of the cavalryman, or was dictated by battle damage sustained by the gun. Thin gun barrels were often dented or bent. Since weapons were scarce, the damaged portion was simply cut-off to restore the gun to action. This resulted in the discovery that shortened guns were more controllable while mounted; therefore, they were better suited for fighting purposes."
& further:
"In 1861, the Federal government purchased 10,000 Austrian-made carbines (KammerKarabiner, Model 1842). This muzzle-loading .71 caliber firearm resembled a shotgun: it had a 14.5" rifled barrel and no bayonet...The government issued three types of ammunition for this carbine: buckshot and ball combined, ordinary buckshot, and round balls..."
& from WW1:
"...The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers..."
But it is entirely possible that none of the justices were aware that short barreled shotguns not only could be of use, but had & currently were in use by the U.S. military.
Now Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides in part for Congress to have the authority to:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."
A letter of marque is defined at Findlaw.com as: "a letter from a government formerly used to grant a private person the power to seize the subjects of a foreign state" & more specifically: "authority granted to a private person to fit out an armed ship to plunder the enemy (usu. used in pl.) (often used in the phrase letters of marque and reprisal)".
Private citizens were granted permission to engage an enemy nation on the seas. Now if any of you have ever spent time aboard any ship you'll understand what a commodity space is. A short barreled shotgun or rifle, not to mention a belt fed machine gun, would be the preferred weapons aboard any ship. I am sure that the U.S. Navy employed shot barreled weapons, including shotguns, aboard her vessels & it would be foolish to conclude that given the options we have today short barreled automatic weapons as well as shotguns would not have been coveted by the early American Navy.
The same part of the Constitution also states that Congress is empowered:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."
Up until the mid 1800's the military (including the militia) was expected to perform the same duties as police officers do today. & considering that in most states citizens have power of arrest when they see a felony or other dangerous crime being committed it would not be unreasonable to conclude that weapons similar to what the police departments use would be well suited to the private citizen. If you weren't aware police departments & other law enforcement agencies do use short barreled shotguns among other NFA weapons.
The justification used in Congress to pass the NFA was that certain weapons such as short barreled shotguns were particularly suited to criminal use. Criminals did use them on occasion. But this points to a another class of people at whom the sale of short barreled shotguns was targeted: law abiding citizens.
Miller was decided foremost on an inaccurate assumption of fact: that short barreled shotguns had no militia use. It's obvious to anyone with more than a moderate knowledge of firearms that literally any weapon is suited to militia use, just as any weapon is suited for criminal use, or police use. It is not the type or design of the weapon that determines their suitability to a specific class of person, but the intent of the individual wielding the weapon.
Moving on to Justice McReynolds finding of law, I cannot begin to fathom how he would have (if indeed he would have) justified the NFA once he was shown that the short barreled shotgun, as well as all other weapons covered by the NFA, do in fact have a use for the militia. But let's just forget that point of fact for the sake of argument.
Justice McReynolds states that, "...With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The preceding part of his statement merely recited the powers Congress was granted concerning the militia.
So the continuance & possibility of an effective militia was considered the reason for the amendment & all interpretations must be consistent with that goal. To which I must point out that the militia was to be called forth to "...execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Justice McReynolds states a little later on that "...The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." (emphasis added)
The same weapons useful for one of the purposes would be useful for the others, providing the wielder of said weapon was proficient with them. Naturally a belt fed machine gun would be useful in repelling an invasion, but also in suppressing a riot or to stop or discourage looters during a black out. & equally a short barreled shotgun would be useful in repelling invaders, as it would be in suppressing a riot or discouraging looters during a black out. The same could be said of any weapon as long it was used by someone who knew its strengths & limitations.
If a person one day finds himself behind a belt fed machine gun, or a short barreled shotgun in the course of his lawful duties within the militia the type of weapon he has will do him little good if he is not properly trained in its use. So if the 2nd Amendment must be interpreted with the goal of keeping a well trained militia capable of acting for the public defense, then the courts must strike down laws which impose burdensome fess or other restrictions on the individual obtaining & practicing with weapons suited to militia use. That would encompass all weapons as a militia may find itself in what we today would consider a military combat role; a military peacekeeping role; an irregular military role; a general police role; or a specialized police role (such as a SWAT team).
A militia was expected at the time to perform the duties of soldiers as well as policeman. Fighting an invading army is the most common thought of use for the militia, but fighting an oppressive government, suppressing insurrections, enforcing laws, controlling & dispersing riots, as well as helping an area during & after a natural disaster would all fall under the duties of the militia. That these duties have been neglected is bad for us not just because of the misunderstanding surrounding the 2nd Amendment, but because our obligations to our communities, states & country have been neglected along with them.
I believe Justice McReynolds own findings established that the militia is any able bodied person capable of acting in the public defense. But I will add a few quotes from those around at the time of the Revolution as well as some who lived to see the Constitution ratified:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169
"It is reported that the Governor has said, that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the People, than any Thing hitherto made known. It is conjectured 1st, that the Inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." - "ABC" (PSEUD., SAMUEL ADAMS)
"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775].
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
You get the idea: the militia was thought of as the body of the people that were capable of bearing arms. The law that currently defines the militia in the United States can be found at 10 U.S.C. § 311. While it only includes males between the ages of 17 & 45 I would say its safe to say that with the case law concerning equality between the sexes that women should not count themselves out of the militia just yet. & it should be noted that whether this age range is applicable depends entirely on the occasion for which the militia is called up; should a hurricane ravage a town along one of our coasts or an invading force attempt entry at our borders then I would think the tie honored definition of "any able bodied person capable of acting" would be what's required.
& I'll beg your forgiveness as the next bit of information I was going to present isn't where I thought it was. It's a case the Supreme Court decided in the early 1900's or possibly the last decade of the 1800'2. The name escapes me but it was a tax case & it more or less held that taxation must not be for any regulatory purpose but solely for raising revenue. I'd kindly ask for anyone who recalls the name of this case to drop me a note as I don't expect anyone to merely rely on my word that such a case exists or that it found what I say it found. So if you'll pardon the lack of citation I'll submit that a taxing measure must not be for regulation: its sole purpose must be to generate revenue.
I must ask, is a $200 tax on a short barreled shotgun (which prior to the NFA sold for between $10 & $40) something that you would do to generate revenue? I could possibly see a tax of 10% or even 50% of certain items, but 200%? & instead of requiring a tax stamp that is transferable without any further oversight, a request for permission for the tax stamp, as well as much paperwork must be delivered to the government & your request could very well be denied. Further in 1968 all weapons in existence that fell under the NFA & that were not registered & taxed were declared contraband & wouldn't be able to be registered after a grace period ended. In 1986 all newly manufactured weapons were prohibited from being added to the registration. I realize these last two things happened long after Miller was decided, but can there be any doubt about the NFA's purpose being one other than taxation?
To further that I offer you this testimony from the congressional debate concerning the NFA in April & May of 1934. In it Mr. Frederick (President of the NRA) discusses his views on the proposed NFA. Several times it is mentioned that the purpose of the bill is a regulatory measure under the guise of a revenue measure & towards the end there is open discussion about the goals of the legislation, which is to target gangsters.
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania it was found that:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."
So even if on the surface the NFA was a revenue raising measure it would not be applicable to possession of firearms. I would offer that a sales tax as is common to other items similar in value & collectible at the retail purchase of a firearm would not fall under the provision of Murdock, but I cannot see how a $200 tax on items that at the time were as cheap as $2 (sound suppressors) & currently could still be half the value of the tax (single barrel shotguns are commonly available for $100) would not run afoul of Murdock.
The militia is comprised of the people which would include anyone capable of acting in the militia. To preserve that militia the individuals who comprise it must be able to own & train with suitable weapons. Given the wide range of duties the militia may be called up for any weapon may have valid militia use. Short barreled shotguns & all other NFA weapons would have militia use & are in current use with the military & police forces of the U.S. A tax law must be designed with the sole purpose of revenue & not regulation. A Right guaranteed by the Constitution may not be taxed or licensed.
Because of these conclusions the finding of the lower courts that the 2nd amendment relates to a collective, rather than an individual Right & that Congress has the authority to regulate firearms is absurd & is not supported by the facts or the law.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
More about Mr. Lancaster.
The Nashville Files has published a little more on the background of Mr. Lancaster, specifically dealing with the motives behind the ATF & their informants:
"Someone (who I can't name) that works for the Federal government added an interesting perspective to this entire issue. He said that the BATF might be in the hot chair. The BATF spent lots of money going after Lancaster, and if they don't get a good sentence out of it, it will look bad on paper...
When Lancaster was arrested, there were approximately 15 law enforcement people of various capacities at his residence, and there was at least one and possibly two experts flown from D.C. It takes a lot of money to undertake a raid and investigation like this. In fact, the source listed above said it probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars.""
This seems likely because it appears to be a pattern with the ATF. They spend X amount of time & money on an "investigation" & they feel obliged to produce "results" to justify their expenditure & provide arguments for increasing their expenditure. & considering they just asked for another budget increase I can see how important any & every conviction would be for them. Never mind that they don't bother to differentiate between the arrest of violent people & those with no prior criminal records who made some error relating to paperwork or mere possession as that wouldn't endear them to the hearts of congress now would it? Too bad Rep. Ron Paul isn't on the committee that Acting Director Domenech addressed his statement to. Course I can't let that pass: considering this report on the ATF's practices, I'd say they didn't just need an acting director, but acting lessons.
If you're interested in learning more about how the ATF does its thing to the people, look here.
& in answer to a complaint of mine Blake goes on to give some details of what & who started this mess:
"First off, this entire fiasco started because of a church budget. And you thought that your church had rought budget battles. Two associate pastors were going to be getting big raises (we're talking in the 20% range). A large group of members couldn't understand why and they wanted to get answers, and Lancaster took the side of the people wanting answers...
We know for certain the names of two of the Confidential Sources of Information listed in the affidavit for the search warrant. According to the affidavit, an annonymous caller tipped the BATF off (with confirmed lies about Lancaster being a Nazi sympathizer, manic depressive, dangerous, and having explosives). During the supression hearing, it was learned that an associate pastor at the church (James Mason...one of the ones getting a raise in the budget) made that call to the BATF and was also CSI2 in the affidavit (on a side note, Mason was later arrested for beating his wife...his wife has since fled while he is out free)...
CSI3 gave the most information, but he was essentially coerced into talking (because of the coersion, I will not give his name here). The BATF apparently threatened him with jail time if he didn't talk, and James Mason was also present during part of the questioning (CSI3 would have been considered a subordinate of Mason at that time)."
So because of a church budget battle members of that church ratted out Mr. Lancaster to the feds & he's looking at federal time????? Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Romans & Chief Priests for his own profit. You'd have thought that members & especially leaders of a church would have remembered this story. Not that Mr. Lancaster was the equivilent of Jesus, but that Judas' crime would have been just as treacherous no matter the state of his victim: the betrayal of someone who has done you no harm in exchange for your own profit.
Now I grew up in Charlotte, NC back when tele-evangalism was getting popular. I couldn't tell you the number of times my living room was standing-room-only 'cause everyone wanted to watch Billy Graham together. Coming from the same area as Jim & Tammy Baker I know a little something about how vicious conflicts within the church can be. But turning a person over to the feds so you can get a 20% raise? Did James Mason ever bother to read any of the literature inside the church? I'm positive there had to be a New Testament lying around somewhere. & in that New testament the Gospels tell us repeatedly about how Jesus condemned the religious leaders as hypocrites. Ratting someone out who has never harmed anyone while you're slappin' your old lady around would qualify as hypocritical in most people's minds. There are also numerous condemnations of betraying someone in the Gospels, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible.
Turning someone in to the ATF is not drastically different than turning someone in to Tomas de Torquemada. Despite not having caused any harm to any person, they are persecuted with the might of a government & could suffer anything from loss of property to imprisonment to death. We look back on the Spanish Inquisition as a gross injustice that not only harmed innocents but contradicted the goals sought by the Inquisition (a conversion of all to Catholocism). One's only hope in either case was to admit to & repent of acts which you may not have been guilty of or caused no harm to others, or to turn in other people.
& to make it worse on a different level, James Mason & his companions in treachery turned in a good church going fella to the damn revenuers! I know that this events didn't take place in Appalachia, but wouldn't they be close enough to realize how lod down this sort of behavior is? But I guess if you can't expect Christian charity you can't be surpised at a lack of down home ethics.
I'm much obliged to The Nashville Files for posting this information. I can understand how someone would feel that someone who is coerced shouldn't bear the blunt of public disapproval for their actions. However I will point out that what this does is give a free pass to anyone who claims they did it to save their own skins. The ATF routinely theatens people into infroming on others with the promise of dropping some BS charge they claim they have on them. More gun owners inform for the ATF than non gun owners & because of this I'd be more inclined to hold them as accountable as those who inform for some other motive. don't get me wrong - the bastards at the ATF who use this strategy should all be forced to serve out the sentences of those they seek to charge, but unfortunately there's enough blame to go around.
& I'm still disappointed that a very large group of concerned citizens haven't demanded Mr. Lancaster's release & kicked the statist bastards that did this to him out of the state. At the very least I hope James Mason, Special Agent Patrick W. Hand & all others who advocated Mr. Lancaster being punished for violationg an unconstitutional law will be treated as persona non grata wherever they go.
The Nashville Files has published a little more on the background of Mr. Lancaster, specifically dealing with the motives behind the ATF & their informants:
"Someone (who I can't name) that works for the Federal government added an interesting perspective to this entire issue. He said that the BATF might be in the hot chair. The BATF spent lots of money going after Lancaster, and if they don't get a good sentence out of it, it will look bad on paper...
When Lancaster was arrested, there were approximately 15 law enforcement people of various capacities at his residence, and there was at least one and possibly two experts flown from D.C. It takes a lot of money to undertake a raid and investigation like this. In fact, the source listed above said it probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars.""
This seems likely because it appears to be a pattern with the ATF. They spend X amount of time & money on an "investigation" & they feel obliged to produce "results" to justify their expenditure & provide arguments for increasing their expenditure. & considering they just asked for another budget increase I can see how important any & every conviction would be for them. Never mind that they don't bother to differentiate between the arrest of violent people & those with no prior criminal records who made some error relating to paperwork or mere possession as that wouldn't endear them to the hearts of congress now would it? Too bad Rep. Ron Paul isn't on the committee that Acting Director Domenech addressed his statement to. Course I can't let that pass: considering this report on the ATF's practices, I'd say they didn't just need an acting director, but acting lessons.
If you're interested in learning more about how the ATF does its thing to the people, look here.
& in answer to a complaint of mine Blake goes on to give some details of what & who started this mess:
"First off, this entire fiasco started because of a church budget. And you thought that your church had rought budget battles. Two associate pastors were going to be getting big raises (we're talking in the 20% range). A large group of members couldn't understand why and they wanted to get answers, and Lancaster took the side of the people wanting answers...
We know for certain the names of two of the Confidential Sources of Information listed in the affidavit for the search warrant. According to the affidavit, an annonymous caller tipped the BATF off (with confirmed lies about Lancaster being a Nazi sympathizer, manic depressive, dangerous, and having explosives). During the supression hearing, it was learned that an associate pastor at the church (James Mason...one of the ones getting a raise in the budget) made that call to the BATF and was also CSI2 in the affidavit (on a side note, Mason was later arrested for beating his wife...his wife has since fled while he is out free)...
CSI3 gave the most information, but he was essentially coerced into talking (because of the coersion, I will not give his name here). The BATF apparently threatened him with jail time if he didn't talk, and James Mason was also present during part of the questioning (CSI3 would have been considered a subordinate of Mason at that time)."
So because of a church budget battle members of that church ratted out Mr. Lancaster to the feds & he's looking at federal time????? Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Romans & Chief Priests for his own profit. You'd have thought that members & especially leaders of a church would have remembered this story. Not that Mr. Lancaster was the equivilent of Jesus, but that Judas' crime would have been just as treacherous no matter the state of his victim: the betrayal of someone who has done you no harm in exchange for your own profit.
Now I grew up in Charlotte, NC back when tele-evangalism was getting popular. I couldn't tell you the number of times my living room was standing-room-only 'cause everyone wanted to watch Billy Graham together. Coming from the same area as Jim & Tammy Baker I know a little something about how vicious conflicts within the church can be. But turning a person over to the feds so you can get a 20% raise? Did James Mason ever bother to read any of the literature inside the church? I'm positive there had to be a New Testament lying around somewhere. & in that New testament the Gospels tell us repeatedly about how Jesus condemned the religious leaders as hypocrites. Ratting someone out who has never harmed anyone while you're slappin' your old lady around would qualify as hypocritical in most people's minds. There are also numerous condemnations of betraying someone in the Gospels, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible.
Turning someone in to the ATF is not drastically different than turning someone in to Tomas de Torquemada. Despite not having caused any harm to any person, they are persecuted with the might of a government & could suffer anything from loss of property to imprisonment to death. We look back on the Spanish Inquisition as a gross injustice that not only harmed innocents but contradicted the goals sought by the Inquisition (a conversion of all to Catholocism). One's only hope in either case was to admit to & repent of acts which you may not have been guilty of or caused no harm to others, or to turn in other people.
& to make it worse on a different level, James Mason & his companions in treachery turned in a good church going fella to the damn revenuers! I know that this events didn't take place in Appalachia, but wouldn't they be close enough to realize how lod down this sort of behavior is? But I guess if you can't expect Christian charity you can't be surpised at a lack of down home ethics.
I'm much obliged to The Nashville Files for posting this information. I can understand how someone would feel that someone who is coerced shouldn't bear the blunt of public disapproval for their actions. However I will point out that what this does is give a free pass to anyone who claims they did it to save their own skins. The ATF routinely theatens people into infroming on others with the promise of dropping some BS charge they claim they have on them. More gun owners inform for the ATF than non gun owners & because of this I'd be more inclined to hold them as accountable as those who inform for some other motive. don't get me wrong - the bastards at the ATF who use this strategy should all be forced to serve out the sentences of those they seek to charge, but unfortunately there's enough blame to go around.
& I'm still disappointed that a very large group of concerned citizens haven't demanded Mr. Lancaster's release & kicked the statist bastards that did this to him out of the state. At the very least I hope James Mason, Special Agent Patrick W. Hand & all others who advocated Mr. Lancaster being punished for violationg an unconstitutional law will be treated as persona non grata wherever they go.
Angel Shamaya wrote an article about concealed carry that's been published in the Ft.-Wayne News-Sentinel. I understand they contacted Mr. Shamaya & asked him to write a piece for them to print after one of their own reporters admitted to having a concealed carry permit.
So I'll give them credit for trying to display both sides of the issue. Mr. Shamaya tells me that the article is completely unedited so again I must say I they've acted admirably in this instance. Other papers could learn from them.
Give it a read.
So I'll give them credit for trying to display both sides of the issue. Mr. Shamaya tells me that the article is completely unedited so again I must say I they've acted admirably in this instance. Other papers could learn from them.
Give it a read.
Monday, March 29, 2004
NJ is following NYC's example.
"It is just a big mess,' Bogdan said. 'This is definitely out of the ordinary. He (Garcia) was in the wrong for shooting at him. The other guy was in the wrong for stealing the van and the other guy was in the wrong for having a gun."
That was from NJ Trooper David Bogdan regarding a situation where a man (Horn) stole a van that had another man (Garcia) sleeping in the back seat . Garcia was awakened when his friend (Jimenez) discovered the van missing as he came out of the truck stop & called Garcia on his cell phone. Garcia pulled a gun, made Horn pull over & kicked him out of the van. Then Garcia fired a shot in Horn's direction but didn't hit him. Meanwhile back at the rest stop Jimenez had called the cops to report a stolen van. So when Garcia arrived back at the rest stop the troopers searched the van & arrested Garcia & Jimenez as well as Horn. The charges?
"Horn was charged with carjacking, burglary and theft.
Garcia was charged with possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, aggravated assault and possession of hollow-point bullets.
Jimenez was charged with possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.
All three were being held Friday at the Warren County Jail."
I'll agree that barring some circumstances we do not know about from the article that Garcia shouldn't have fired at Horn & should be charged for it. But charging either of them for mere possession of a firearm or a certain kind of ammunition that the state troopers had in their guns is outrageous.
So I would add to Trooper Bogdan's quote above that he (Bogdan) was in the wrong for arresting anyone for mere possession of a weapon or ammo & his fellow troopers were in the wrong for not arresting Bogdan for flagrantly violating at least two people's Right to Arms.
The usual applies: if you see Trooper Bogdan or any other NJ law enforcement agent who you know would arrest someone for mere possession of arms or ammo then explain to him why he can't do business or interact socially with you until he changes his evil ways.
"It is just a big mess,' Bogdan said. 'This is definitely out of the ordinary. He (Garcia) was in the wrong for shooting at him. The other guy was in the wrong for stealing the van and the other guy was in the wrong for having a gun."
That was from NJ Trooper David Bogdan regarding a situation where a man (Horn) stole a van that had another man (Garcia) sleeping in the back seat . Garcia was awakened when his friend (Jimenez) discovered the van missing as he came out of the truck stop & called Garcia on his cell phone. Garcia pulled a gun, made Horn pull over & kicked him out of the van. Then Garcia fired a shot in Horn's direction but didn't hit him. Meanwhile back at the rest stop Jimenez had called the cops to report a stolen van. So when Garcia arrived back at the rest stop the troopers searched the van & arrested Garcia & Jimenez as well as Horn. The charges?
"Horn was charged with carjacking, burglary and theft.
Garcia was charged with possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, aggravated assault and possession of hollow-point bullets.
Jimenez was charged with possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.
All three were being held Friday at the Warren County Jail."
I'll agree that barring some circumstances we do not know about from the article that Garcia shouldn't have fired at Horn & should be charged for it. But charging either of them for mere possession of a firearm or a certain kind of ammunition that the state troopers had in their guns is outrageous.
So I would add to Trooper Bogdan's quote above that he (Bogdan) was in the wrong for arresting anyone for mere possession of a weapon or ammo & his fellow troopers were in the wrong for not arresting Bogdan for flagrantly violating at least two people's Right to Arms.
The usual applies: if you see Trooper Bogdan or any other NJ law enforcement agent who you know would arrest someone for mere possession of arms or ammo then explain to him why he can't do business or interact socially with you until he changes his evil ways.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Kevin of The Smallest Minority has a thoughtful post up regarding the 5th Circuit's decision on the 4th amendment from last week. In case you haven't heard the 5th Circuit decided that a warrant, consent or even probable cause aren't needed to conduct a cursory search of a person's home if done it under the guise of "officer safety". The majority opinion was 32 pages & there are a further 30 pages of dissent. 3 judges dissented & 1 dissented in part from the majority opinion; that's out of 16 judges who heard this case. 3 to 1 odds against protecting a constitutionally enumerated Right. Not heartening is it?
Kevin does a good job of discussing the case & its implications. Go read what he has to say.
Kevin does a good job of discussing the case & its implications. Go read what he has to say.
There's been some bad news from the courts this week.
For starters Mark Lancaster had a sentencing hearing on Friday (for some background on Mr. Lancaster's circumstances I refer you to this previous post). The blog Nashville Files provides an account of what happened at the hearing. Bottom line is Mr. Lancaster is facing 30 to 33 months in jail & that will be decided after a ten day wait so the respective attorneys can file arguments for or against a shorter sentence. All this because he didn't have the correct paperwork for the machineguns found in his home. Chief District Judge Robert L. Echols wouldn't allow Mr. Lancaster to change his plea from guilty to not guilty despite the recent 9th Circuit decision where they held that home made firearm were not subject to the NFA.
Another name y'all should remember is that of ATF Special Agent in Charge James Cavanaugh. He was the statist bastard who organized the raid & arrest of Mr. Lancaster. Ditto for BATF Agent Hand who, according to the Nashville Files account, was sitting with thestatist bastards persecutor prosecutor during the trial.
What is not mentioned are the names of the "informants" who ratted Mr. Lancaster out to the ATF. All I can tell you is to be careful of whom you trust. The ATF has a long history of "recruiting" informants who are actively looking to save their own hides from a federal weapons charge.
No Quarters tells us that Francis Warin was sentenced to 33 months earlier this week. Mr. Warin is a U.S. citizen that emigrated from France & started challenging federal firearms laws in the 1970's. His latest conviction is for mailing & possessing NFA firearms w/o having the proper permission slips, as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm (his felony conviction came from earlier attempts to challenge the NFA). For more details on Mr. Warin's history please look at this previous post as well as this post from Say Uncle which links to his previous posts on Mr. Warin.
Of note is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Weldon thought it was a just sentence according to this article. U.S. District Judge David Katz sentenced Mr. Warin to much less than the maximum he could have, but he also fined Mr. Warin $2,500 & 2 years of supervised probation after he's released. ATF Agent Dennis Bennett testified against Mr. Warin according to this article.
Ravenwood tells us of a raid where the cops confiscated a person's firearms & involuntarily committed him to a mental institution for observation. When he was released (as his sanity wasn't questionable & he'd committed no crime) they refused to return his firearms because he had been involuntarily committed! This was the work of a special "firearms unit" set up to handle the tips from the D.C. Sniper incident in 2002. Yep, the bastards got so many tips they decided to keep the special unit that focused on firearms. Lt. Michael Mancuso and Sgt. Kenneth Berger are two of the thugs & are pictured in this article.
FreedomSight has a post up about the 10th circuit's collective right interpretation of the 2nd amendment as handed down earlier in the week. The case was U.S. v Parker. Paul M. Warner and Diana Hagen were the U.S. Attorneys who argued against an individual interpretation & Kelly, McWilliams and Briscoe were the presiding circuit judges. Judge Kelly dissented in part to their reasoning regarding the 2nd amendment but concurred with them in their decision. It was decided that no oral arguments were necessary & the case was decided purely on the briefs. Mr. Parker accidentally carried a pistol onto a military base & it was found under the seat of his truck. This was an offense under the Assimilative Crimes Act which allows federal prosecution for violating state firearms laws on federal property. It was a misdemeanor & he was fined around $100. He appealed on 2nd & 10th amendment grounds. While they agreed he had standing to bring a 2nd amendment claim they denied his having 10th amendment grounds to argue his case. they then explained why the 2nd amendment confers only a collective right to arms & repeated a 4 part test (originally used in U.S. v Haney) that must be met to have a successful 2nd amendment case. More or less it'd take a note from the governor to have a valid 2nd amendment Right according to those bastards.
I'll try to examine the court decisions more in depth in a later post.
What I do want to stress is this: gun owners don't have many friends apart from other gun owners. There are a few who are on our side on general principles but don't own guns themselves, but the majority of people you will see that believe in an individual having the Right to Arms are gun owners. & hell, even some gun owners aren't our friends. We do have a lot of enemies, both in ideology & fact.
So what I would recommend is if you know anyone who advocates civilian disarmament or who actively advances it (such as those people named above) then politely try to change their minds. Convince them that what they're doing or encouraging hurts not only themselves but everyone in our society. If you honestly attempt to sway them & they still persist in their encouragement of civilian disarmament then politely but firmly tell them that you've got no choice but to take it personally & as such you'll be disassociating yourself from them. Don't do business with them; don't go to social events with them; don't invite them to dinner, etc. Leave an invitation open to discuss their views on civilian disarmament but make it clear that that's it.
A little harsh you might think? No. After all if you're neighbor was actively lobbying for your taxes to be jacked up by 20% more than you're paying now & he was behind organizing special audit teams in the IRSS to check on people like you then you wouldn't think snubbing them socially or professional was too harsh at all, now would ya? If you're neighbor was advocating a Nazi-like "solution" to a minority group that you were a member of then ostracizing them wouldn't even be a question would it?
& I don't see why it should be any different for gun owners. Gun control proponents are in favor of disarming you; they wish to make it illegal for you to have the means to defend yourself & your family. I'd say that is pretty harsh - far harsher than making them find a new golf partner or buying their groceries from another store. & remember that this is a practical decision as well: if a law was passed banning a certain type of firearm & your anti-gun neighbor/co-worker knew you had one of those banned weapons it'd be more consistent for him to rat you out than someone who thought the law was unjust (well, except for those ATF "informants" who are usually given the choice between facing criminal charges or "informing" on someone else to be prosecuted in their place).
So try to convince people that civilian disarmament is a bad thing. But if they still persist then cut them out of your professional & personal life. It's sad that it might be necessary to do this but I'm afraid it is necessary.
For starters Mark Lancaster had a sentencing hearing on Friday (for some background on Mr. Lancaster's circumstances I refer you to this previous post). The blog Nashville Files provides an account of what happened at the hearing. Bottom line is Mr. Lancaster is facing 30 to 33 months in jail & that will be decided after a ten day wait so the respective attorneys can file arguments for or against a shorter sentence. All this because he didn't have the correct paperwork for the machineguns found in his home. Chief District Judge Robert L. Echols wouldn't allow Mr. Lancaster to change his plea from guilty to not guilty despite the recent 9th Circuit decision where they held that home made firearm were not subject to the NFA.
Another name y'all should remember is that of ATF Special Agent in Charge James Cavanaugh. He was the statist bastard who organized the raid & arrest of Mr. Lancaster. Ditto for BATF Agent Hand who, according to the Nashville Files account, was sitting with the
What is not mentioned are the names of the "informants" who ratted Mr. Lancaster out to the ATF. All I can tell you is to be careful of whom you trust. The ATF has a long history of "recruiting" informants who are actively looking to save their own hides from a federal weapons charge.
No Quarters tells us that Francis Warin was sentenced to 33 months earlier this week. Mr. Warin is a U.S. citizen that emigrated from France & started challenging federal firearms laws in the 1970's. His latest conviction is for mailing & possessing NFA firearms w/o having the proper permission slips, as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm (his felony conviction came from earlier attempts to challenge the NFA). For more details on Mr. Warin's history please look at this previous post as well as this post from Say Uncle which links to his previous posts on Mr. Warin.
Of note is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Weldon thought it was a just sentence according to this article. U.S. District Judge David Katz sentenced Mr. Warin to much less than the maximum he could have, but he also fined Mr. Warin $2,500 & 2 years of supervised probation after he's released. ATF Agent Dennis Bennett testified against Mr. Warin according to this article.
Ravenwood tells us of a raid where the cops confiscated a person's firearms & involuntarily committed him to a mental institution for observation. When he was released (as his sanity wasn't questionable & he'd committed no crime) they refused to return his firearms because he had been involuntarily committed! This was the work of a special "firearms unit" set up to handle the tips from the D.C. Sniper incident in 2002. Yep, the bastards got so many tips they decided to keep the special unit that focused on firearms. Lt. Michael Mancuso and Sgt. Kenneth Berger are two of the thugs & are pictured in this article.
FreedomSight has a post up about the 10th circuit's collective right interpretation of the 2nd amendment as handed down earlier in the week. The case was U.S. v Parker. Paul M. Warner and Diana Hagen were the U.S. Attorneys who argued against an individual interpretation & Kelly, McWilliams and Briscoe were the presiding circuit judges. Judge Kelly dissented in part to their reasoning regarding the 2nd amendment but concurred with them in their decision. It was decided that no oral arguments were necessary & the case was decided purely on the briefs. Mr. Parker accidentally carried a pistol onto a military base & it was found under the seat of his truck. This was an offense under the Assimilative Crimes Act which allows federal prosecution for violating state firearms laws on federal property. It was a misdemeanor & he was fined around $100. He appealed on 2nd & 10th amendment grounds. While they agreed he had standing to bring a 2nd amendment claim they denied his having 10th amendment grounds to argue his case. they then explained why the 2nd amendment confers only a collective right to arms & repeated a 4 part test (originally used in U.S. v Haney) that must be met to have a successful 2nd amendment case. More or less it'd take a note from the governor to have a valid 2nd amendment Right according to those bastards.
I'll try to examine the court decisions more in depth in a later post.
What I do want to stress is this: gun owners don't have many friends apart from other gun owners. There are a few who are on our side on general principles but don't own guns themselves, but the majority of people you will see that believe in an individual having the Right to Arms are gun owners. & hell, even some gun owners aren't our friends. We do have a lot of enemies, both in ideology & fact.
So what I would recommend is if you know anyone who advocates civilian disarmament or who actively advances it (such as those people named above) then politely try to change their minds. Convince them that what they're doing or encouraging hurts not only themselves but everyone in our society. If you honestly attempt to sway them & they still persist in their encouragement of civilian disarmament then politely but firmly tell them that you've got no choice but to take it personally & as such you'll be disassociating yourself from them. Don't do business with them; don't go to social events with them; don't invite them to dinner, etc. Leave an invitation open to discuss their views on civilian disarmament but make it clear that that's it.
A little harsh you might think? No. After all if you're neighbor was actively lobbying for your taxes to be jacked up by 20% more than you're paying now & he was behind organizing special audit teams in the IRSS to check on people like you then you wouldn't think snubbing them socially or professional was too harsh at all, now would ya? If you're neighbor was advocating a Nazi-like "solution" to a minority group that you were a member of then ostracizing them wouldn't even be a question would it?
& I don't see why it should be any different for gun owners. Gun control proponents are in favor of disarming you; they wish to make it illegal for you to have the means to defend yourself & your family. I'd say that is pretty harsh - far harsher than making them find a new golf partner or buying their groceries from another store. & remember that this is a practical decision as well: if a law was passed banning a certain type of firearm & your anti-gun neighbor/co-worker knew you had one of those banned weapons it'd be more consistent for him to rat you out than someone who thought the law was unjust (well, except for those ATF "informants" who are usually given the choice between facing criminal charges or "informing" on someone else to be prosecuted in their place).
So try to convince people that civilian disarmament is a bad thing. But if they still persist then cut them out of your professional & personal life. It's sad that it might be necessary to do this but I'm afraid it is necessary.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
In the comments to the post below I found the following from Linda Seebach:
"I am distressed when people I generally agree with behave in a disgraceful manner to advance our shared views.
Threatening the newspaper's staff members, most of whom have nothing to do with the decision, if it publishes something you do not approve of is beneath contempt.
As you probably know, the Rocky supported making Colorado a shall-issue state, so we have no animus toward guns. And as far as I know, no one here has ever contemplated putting the state's list of concealed-carry permit holders online. We have, however, opposed measures to make the permit list secret (in furtherance of the principle that government records should be open whenever possible). And we opposed a bill to end the sharing of permit data between counties (it lost).
You could threaten us with harm for some of our positions, and the anti-gun people could threaten us for the rest. In either case, the tactic would be thuggery. It discredits your views."
There are a few factual discrepancies that keep me from agreeing with her admonition.
For starters the idea that I or any other blogger threatened a newspaper's staff because they were going to publish something I or we didn't like is an oversimplified & inaccurate representation of what happened. I point this out because of the typical negative connotation of ?threat? which I don't believe applies: in the sense that a threat is a warning then it could be used accurately, but I think "ultimatum" better describes what was relayed than to say we "threatened" anyone.
If an ultimatum or threat was offered solely because a newspaper's intended content would offend, then I would agree that using any coercion beyond persuasive logic or consumer retaliation (a boycott) would be unacceptable in that circumstance. A punitive response (other than the boycott) wouldn't be generally acceptable if the issue was only a papers' intellectual content.
But the issue wasn't about publishing an opinion that I don't agree with; it was about publishing a list of names which in a pragmatic sense could be directly harmful to those whose names are published & in a principled sense would cause harm to the people's privacy. That differs greatly from an op-ed that calls for more gun control. One affects everyone who may or may not agree; the other affects a specific group of people who have no choice in the matter.
Put another way: I don't agree with wearing sandals with socks. I also don't agree with unprovoked violence against an elderly person. It would be unacceptable if I smacked down someone just because of a serious lack of judgment in footwear options, but justifiable if I smacked down someone who was beating up their grandmother. What the Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel was about to do was much closer to beating up their grandmother than it was to making a fashion faux pa. & since I don?t think it's "thuggery" to stop someone from beating up their grandmother I have to disagree with that characterization of my actions as well.
Now what was "threatened" would not cause any harm to the newspaper staff if their reasoning about publishing the list of permit holders was valid. After all, if publishing public records is no cause for concern then publishing legally obtainable info on the staff of a paper shouldn't cause a problem right?
But we all know this is not the case. What would be substantive is the loss of privacy suffered by both parties. Now to say that it's acceptable to compromise the privacy of gun owners because the law allows it is bullshit pure & simple. To go further & say that finding legally obtainable info on a newspapers staff is somehow different is also bullshit. There simply is no difference in publishing permit holder's info & publishing newspaper staff info. Neither was accused of any crime or claimed to be a threat to the public & the public can gain no useful insight in finding out how & who doesn't have permission to carry a concealed weapon.
Why would I have done it if the actions in general aren't cool? By publishing names they would have crossed the line from making flawed policy recommendations into causing substantive harm to gun owners. The only way to counter such a direct affront is in kind.
My goal was not to publish the info of the staff out of spite or vindictiveness, but to make the paper aware that if their actions were acceptable then I wouldn't have qualms about stooping to their level. In doing that I hoped the paper would see that if it's wrong for me to publish the info of their staff then it'd be at least equally wrong for them to publish the names of the permit holders.
There simply is no public interest whatsoever in publishing a list of people who have concealed carry permits. The only things such a list could be used for would be to discriminate against people with such a permit & to discourage the more privacy conscience people from applying for a permit. I can see no pragmatic argument which outweighs the privacy & safety concerns of permit holders. & in principle what they were advocating is making a list public of those who would exercise a distortion of a Right. I cannot fathom that a list of library card holders or church members would be seen as "newsworthy" by any paper in this country. Despite at least one reporter missing the point entirely, y'all wouldn't dream of publishing info that's perceived as being available through the Patriot Act, would ya? & despite the name & photo of Kobe Bryant's accuser being widely available on line & in the tabloids the Rocky wouldn't publish it would they? That's cause despite the info being available to the public it would serve no public interest to make that info available in a paper & could possibly cause harm to those whose info was published. So again I come back to an attempt to discourage & demonize permit holders as the only valid reasons for publishing such a list.
Luckily, everybody won: the permit holder's info was not published by the paper & I didn't feel i had to publish the info of their staff. They decided (quite correctly) that their actions would be inappropriate. Whatever the cause I'm glad for all concerned that no info was published.
Now about the Rocky Mountain News:
I'm usually much more severe with their sister publication* the Denver Post. That doesn't mean the Rocky is without fault - not by a longshot.
Now have you or anyone at the Rocky staff really examined the "shall Issue" law we have in Colorado? Have you ever studied the law it replaced? Or did an in depth look at proposals to replace both of them? I have & you're more than welcome to view my conclusions here. The short story is that the "shall issue" CCW is a step backwards from the "may issue" law it replaced. & both were inferior to a proposed but quickly tabled CCW law that was introduced around the same time. & All three are inferior to the Vermont/Alaska style law that was proposed but killed in committee a little over a month ago.
The NRA backed the "Shall Issue" law & opposed the others so to most people they assume that the "Shall Issue" law was a good idea. But as far as the interests of gun owners are concerned the NRA is falling short in a lot of areas. You're welcome to view my previous posts on the NRA here. In fact I'll go so far as to advice you or any other newspaper that if you want to make the NRA look bad in a story you're wasting your time with the anti-gun groups. You'd be far more effective talking to gun owners who are disgruntled with the NRA's tactics & strategy.
But all this is to say that equating support for Colorado's current "Shall Issue" law is not effective proof that the Rocky is not hostile towards guns or gun owners.
You go on further to state your opposition to making the list of permit holders "secret". Now here's the deal: I am not a fan of CCW permit laws. They compromise what should be considered a Right & place undue burdens on those who would simply want to protect themselves w/o having to run afoul of the cops. They're nothing more than prior restraint based laws designed to desensitize a populace as to their Rights. That being said I disagree wholeheartedly that a list of any gun owner who is not a violent habitual felon should be publicly accessible. It's making public a system of gun owner registration & were the objects of said registration exercising any other Right enumerated in the federal & state constitutions respectively then there'd be all kind of hell raised at the idea of it being part of a law.
Let's suppose a law was passed that required all newspaper staff to be licensed. Would you honestly say that this information should be a matter of public record? How about a license to belong to a religious organization? Again, would a public record of whose Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic or Hindu be acceptable? Would there be any valid reason whatsoever for you to be able to look at a record & determine whether your neighbor works for a newspaper & what religion they practice considering the state ran a background check & determined them to be okay people?
& the law you refer to about sharing permit holder information is described inaccurately. I assume you were referring to Rep. Crane's HB1205. The bill would not have ended the "...sharing of permit data between counties...": rather it would have eliminated a statewide gun owner data base. Now in the "Shall Issue" law we now have a sheriff may at his/her discretion share info with another law enforcement agency for the purpose of confirming the validity of a permit. That wouldn't have been changed. What would have changed is that instead of 2007 as originally specified in the law, the date would be moved to 2004 to abolish a statewide database on permit holders.
Now why the hell would you oppose a bill that merely moves the abolishment of a statewide database up 3 years but still allows for confirmation that a permit is valid? Did you or anyone at the Rocky staff actually read the bill & attempt to understand what it means? The language is very plain & fairly simple. It's a two page bill that changes the law by invalidating one sentence in one paragraph & changing the year from 2007 to 2004 in another paragraph.
The only reason for opposition to said bill would be if you were also opposed to the statewide database of law abiding gun owners being done away with in 2007. So in 2006 are we going to argue the merits of gun owner registration all over again, or did the Rocky simply make a knee-jerk reaction to what it perceived to be a pro-gun law?
As I've said the Rocky is by comparison a decent paper as far as gun issues go, but it's by no means perfect & I'd spend more time on the Rocky's errors if the Denver Post weren't as bad as they are.
But I'll make you an offer (don't get all happy I make the offer to any & every paper that will listen) if you wish to discuss the situation with publishing the names of CCW holders, Colorado's gun laws or any & every other firearm related issue I'll be more than happy to accommodate you. I can meet you in person, call you, have you call me, or simply exchange e-mails. It can be on the record, off the record or anything in between. I'll be more than happy to publish anything that we discuss here unedited. This is open to you or anyone at the Rocky or any other newspaper so your anonymity can be preserved. & I'll even go so far as to grant you amnesty if your paper publishes CCW holder names & I respond in kind (well as long as you're not the one pushing for it). & to make the offer even sweeter I'll be more than happy to take you or any other newspaper employee to a range & teach you &/or them about safe firearms handling, marksmanship & perhaps most important to your line of work the actual differences between types of firearms.
& in case you're wondering what's in it for me, it ain't the publicity. The way I see it if I can make some headway into changing the attitudes of one reporter in a (& I'm being generous here) paper that's only moderately biased &/or ignorant about firearms then perhaps it'll cause factual articles to be published at least occasionally instead of the usual gun control organizations press releases being printed as news articles.
Update:
*Ms. Seebach has informed me that I am mistaken in the nature of the relationship between the Rocky Mountain News & the Denver Post:
"...the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post are not 'sister papers.' They are owned by different companies and fiercely competitive in the field of journalism. Only the non-journalism part, advertising, circulation, printing and the like are shared, but all that is outsourced to a third company, the Denver Newspaper Agency, which is in turn jointly owned by the companies that own the papers."
So I stand corrected.
Another thing that was brought up was that my attempts to differentiate between "ultimatum" & "threat" were unconvincing to Ms. Seebach. Hopefully this will make it clearer:
The word "threat" is usually perceived as an unprovoked & unjustifiable preemptive measure (i.e. "I'm gonna kick your ass"). The word "ultimatum" is generally perceived as a retaliatory warning dependent upon another's action (i.e. "if you don't drop the gun I'll shoot you"). I simply feel that because my actions were an attempt to respond in kind to what the paper in question was considering that the word "threat" was an inappropriate description in the context Ms. Seebach meant it. (The dictionary will point out that "threat" can be defined as merely "an indication of something impending" with no other implications, but from her later use of "thuggery" I assume Ms. Seebach was not referring to "threat" in that sense).
An Indiana newspaper was thinking about publishing a list of CCW permit holders. For some background please see this previous post by Nicki & this previous post by me. The Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel decides to do the right thing.
"After listening to many of you and reading pages and pages of e-mails, as well as consulting experts in ethics and law enforcement, we've decided not to provide easier access to this public record on our Web site. The prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good. Those who want the information will have to request it from the State Police and pay $25 for it."
About 3,000 people contacted them & the vast majority of them opposed making the list public. What they didn't mention was that some bloggers contacted them & said if any CCW permit holders names are published then all the legally obtainable information of the newspapers staff will be posted on the net in blogs, message forums & any other venue that it can be posted in. I have no idea if that had any effect at all on their decision but I'd like to think so.
There were a few disturbing things mentioned in this paragraph towards the end of the article:
"While we reached this conclusion after much thought and discussion, anyone with programming skills could purchase the list from the state and provide searchable access to it online. So, while the debate over what The News-Sentinel does with the list is over, perhaps we've started a useful conversation about who should have easy access to this information. Twenty-one states allow the public at least some access to this data, and 23 close the records, while six states issue no permits, according to research by The Plain Dealer in Cleveland."
The Cleveland Plain Dealer is a paper in Ohio that threatened to do the same thing & bloggers responded appropriately. But that there's contact between the two papers is interesting.
But the first two sentences could be taken as a request from the newspaper for an anonymous individual to post the list on the net. Hell, I'm damn sure it is. If they feel that they shouldn't publish the list because the "...prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good..." then why are they suggesting that some other person or entity could post the list? It seems to me that they just want to avoid the responsibilty & consequences of publishing the list but they'd still like to see the list published.
They did list some of the more compelling pragmatic arguments for not publishing the list (while ignoring the principled ones) but then they turn around & mention that anyone with some basic computer knowledge could publish the list & perhaps the topic is still open for public discussion.
I'm glad (for a number of reasons) that they decided not to publish the list, but I am disappointed in their veiled plea for someone else to publish it for them.
"After listening to many of you and reading pages and pages of e-mails, as well as consulting experts in ethics and law enforcement, we've decided not to provide easier access to this public record on our Web site. The prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good. Those who want the information will have to request it from the State Police and pay $25 for it."
About 3,000 people contacted them & the vast majority of them opposed making the list public. What they didn't mention was that some bloggers contacted them & said if any CCW permit holders names are published then all the legally obtainable information of the newspapers staff will be posted on the net in blogs, message forums & any other venue that it can be posted in. I have no idea if that had any effect at all on their decision but I'd like to think so.
There were a few disturbing things mentioned in this paragraph towards the end of the article:
"While we reached this conclusion after much thought and discussion, anyone with programming skills could purchase the list from the state and provide searchable access to it online. So, while the debate over what The News-Sentinel does with the list is over, perhaps we've started a useful conversation about who should have easy access to this information. Twenty-one states allow the public at least some access to this data, and 23 close the records, while six states issue no permits, according to research by The Plain Dealer in Cleveland."
The Cleveland Plain Dealer is a paper in Ohio that threatened to do the same thing & bloggers responded appropriately. But that there's contact between the two papers is interesting.
But the first two sentences could be taken as a request from the newspaper for an anonymous individual to post the list on the net. Hell, I'm damn sure it is. If they feel that they shouldn't publish the list because the "...prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good..." then why are they suggesting that some other person or entity could post the list? It seems to me that they just want to avoid the responsibilty & consequences of publishing the list but they'd still like to see the list published.
They did list some of the more compelling pragmatic arguments for not publishing the list (while ignoring the principled ones) but then they turn around & mention that anyone with some basic computer knowledge could publish the list & perhaps the topic is still open for public discussion.
I'm glad (for a number of reasons) that they decided not to publish the list, but I am disappointed in their veiled plea for someone else to publish it for them.
NYC is at it again. No, they weren't handing out tickets to people helping with traffic control in an emergency again.They didn't arrest another person & his 1 month old friggin' kitten again. They didn't scare anyone else literally to death in a no-knock raid again. They didn't even suspend a cop because he refused to obey an unlawful order again. They have done this kind of thing before, most notably in the Bronx to Mr. Dixon. This time the bastards in Queens are prosecuting a person solely because he had the means to defend himself.
"Devin Keitt, 26, allegedly tried to rob at gunpoint the Ramon Food Market on 107th Avenue in Ozone Park at 8 p.m., cops said.
But he was foiled by Edwin Marte, 35, who shot Keitt once in the head with an unlicensed gun, police sources said."
So a guy shoots someone that's robbing him at gunpoint. But instead of being lauded or at the least left alone guess what happens to the good citizen:
"Police sources said Marte is facing a weapons charge and Keitt is facing attempted robbery and weapons charges."
WTF??? The guy was defending himself but because he did it without having his papers in order he facespersecution prosecution. I'll grant that NYC isn't as bad as England yet but you have to remember England didn't just morph overnight into a place where exercising a basic human Right was verboten; they got there through incremental policies that eventually culminated into what it is today: a victim disarmament/criminal encouragement zone.
Now I'll grant that there could be more to the story than was reported, but unless the clerk was holding the guy's infant at gunpoint immediately prior to the robbery then I just don't see how it'll make this anything less than a sick & twisted version of what should have happened.
As I was searching for contact info I happened upon this page from the NYPD site. If you'll note at the bottom they have a banner ad offering a $1000 reward for anyone who rats out a person with an "illegal" handgun. The phrase "self-serving, elitist, statist bastards" comes to mind but more importantly it probably guarantees they'll be less than sympathetic. In fact, here's an interview Angel Shamaya had with a NYPD officer about this bounty on unlicensed self defense tools. Now to shed some more light on this I refer you to this page which is nothing more than an advertisement for the NYPD's rent-a-cop program! Those elitist bastards have a vested financial interest in making sure the populace is disarmed: $30 per hour for the cop plus an additional 10% of the total to NYC.
& on top of that, the NYPD gets the cash from the handgun licenses:
"$255.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order.
$99.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order."
Capone wished he had it so good.
In NYC you're forced by law to obtain a permit to have a handgun in your own home or place of business. The permit process is expensive, invasion & time consuming. I can't speak for most of New Yorkers but if I was paying damn near $8 a pack for smokes I sure as hell couldn't afford the $400 for a permit. & that's even if you find some way of justifying licensing a Right. This previous post on concealed carry permits explains some of the reasons why permits in general are violative of our Rights. Though it's focus is concealed carry I don't see much difference between the situation with NYC's handgun possession permits.
But if you won't believe me then perhaps you'll believe SCOTUS:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
What should happen is for the officers making the arrest & subsequent theft of Mr. Marte's property be arrested themselves for the violation of Mr. Marte's Right to Arms. And any DA who gave the word to press charges against anyone for exercising their Right to Arms without the required government permission slip should likewise be arrested along with any of their inferiors who carried out their orders. But at the very least Mr. Marte's property should be returned to him & all charges dropped immediately.
I encourage each & every one of you to take a few minutes & let the statist bastards government officials of NYC know that you, as a potential tourist, aren't making any plans to visit as long as they disrespect the Rights of U.S. citizens.
Now I'm not exactly sure how things work in NYC so if anyone has any advice on how to streamline the following list to be more effective feel free to let me know.
What I can give you is the following info:
Queens Police Dept contact page
Queens DA Richard Brown's contact page
E-mail: pbclark@queensda.org
(718) 286-6000
Mayor Bloomberg's contact page
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
FAX (212) 788-2460
E-MAIL:
http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
NYPD Police Commissioner Kelly's site (Kelly is a Vietnam vet Col. USMCR)
I would assume that the mayor & the Queens DA would be the people who could potentially get things done, but I could be mistaken.
Call them & demand that A: Mr. Marte's weapon be returned (as I assume they'vestolen confiscated it) & B: they drop all charges based on any weapons possession laws. Then tell them that you & your family (remember they'll probably think we're all inbred interrelated so let's use it to our advantage) will not set foot or spend any cash in NYC until flagrant infringements of a person's Right to Arms are stopped.
Update: I received the following from a fellow over at Brutal Hugs
"One person you might want to add to the list of people to contact is City Council Speaker Gifford Miller - he's planning on running for mayor. As for somebody that might actually
do something to help this guy, I'd suggest Helen Marshall, Queens Borough
President. Intervention in situations like these is pretty much the kind of thing she's in office for."
If anyone has contact info for these people lemme know & I'll post it here. & much thanks to the guys at Brutal Hugs for dropping the info to me.
Further Update:
Brutal Hugs is on the ball again. Here's the contact info they sent.
Helen Marshall is at 718-286-3000 Her website is
http://www.queensbp.org/
Miller's contact info:
District Office
336 East 73rd Street (Suite C)
New York, New York 10021
Tel: (212) 535-5554
Fax: (212) 535-6098
e-mail: miller@council.nyc.ny.us
City Hall Office
City Hall
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 788-7210
Fax: (212) 788-7207
"Devin Keitt, 26, allegedly tried to rob at gunpoint the Ramon Food Market on 107th Avenue in Ozone Park at 8 p.m., cops said.
But he was foiled by Edwin Marte, 35, who shot Keitt once in the head with an unlicensed gun, police sources said."
So a guy shoots someone that's robbing him at gunpoint. But instead of being lauded or at the least left alone guess what happens to the good citizen:
"Police sources said Marte is facing a weapons charge and Keitt is facing attempted robbery and weapons charges."
WTF??? The guy was defending himself but because he did it without having his papers in order he faces
Now I'll grant that there could be more to the story than was reported, but unless the clerk was holding the guy's infant at gunpoint immediately prior to the robbery then I just don't see how it'll make this anything less than a sick & twisted version of what should have happened.
As I was searching for contact info I happened upon this page from the NYPD site. If you'll note at the bottom they have a banner ad offering a $1000 reward for anyone who rats out a person with an "illegal" handgun. The phrase "self-serving, elitist, statist bastards" comes to mind but more importantly it probably guarantees they'll be less than sympathetic. In fact, here's an interview Angel Shamaya had with a NYPD officer about this bounty on unlicensed self defense tools. Now to shed some more light on this I refer you to this page which is nothing more than an advertisement for the NYPD's rent-a-cop program! Those elitist bastards have a vested financial interest in making sure the populace is disarmed: $30 per hour for the cop plus an additional 10% of the total to NYC.
& on top of that, the NYPD gets the cash from the handgun licenses:
"$255.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order.
$99.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order."
Capone wished he had it so good.
In NYC you're forced by law to obtain a permit to have a handgun in your own home or place of business. The permit process is expensive, invasion & time consuming. I can't speak for most of New Yorkers but if I was paying damn near $8 a pack for smokes I sure as hell couldn't afford the $400 for a permit. & that's even if you find some way of justifying licensing a Right. This previous post on concealed carry permits explains some of the reasons why permits in general are violative of our Rights. Though it's focus is concealed carry I don't see much difference between the situation with NYC's handgun possession permits.
But if you won't believe me then perhaps you'll believe SCOTUS:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
What should happen is for the officers making the arrest & subsequent theft of Mr. Marte's property be arrested themselves for the violation of Mr. Marte's Right to Arms. And any DA who gave the word to press charges against anyone for exercising their Right to Arms without the required government permission slip should likewise be arrested along with any of their inferiors who carried out their orders. But at the very least Mr. Marte's property should be returned to him & all charges dropped immediately.
I encourage each & every one of you to take a few minutes & let the
Now I'm not exactly sure how things work in NYC so if anyone has any advice on how to streamline the following list to be more effective feel free to let me know.
What I can give you is the following info:
Queens Police Dept contact page
Queens DA Richard Brown's contact page
E-mail: pbclark@queensda.org
(718) 286-6000
Mayor Bloomberg's contact page
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
FAX (212) 788-2460
E-MAIL:
http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
NYPD Police Commissioner Kelly's site (Kelly is a Vietnam vet Col. USMCR)
I would assume that the mayor & the Queens DA would be the people who could potentially get things done, but I could be mistaken.
Call them & demand that A: Mr. Marte's weapon be returned (as I assume they've
Update: I received the following from a fellow over at Brutal Hugs
"One person you might want to add to the list of people to contact is City Council Speaker Gifford Miller - he's planning on running for mayor. As for somebody that might actually
do something to help this guy, I'd suggest Helen Marshall, Queens Borough
President. Intervention in situations like these is pretty much the kind of thing she's in office for."
If anyone has contact info for these people lemme know & I'll post it here. & much thanks to the guys at Brutal Hugs for dropping the info to me.
Further Update:
Brutal Hugs is on the ball again. Here's the contact info they sent.
Helen Marshall is at 718-286-3000 Her website is
http://www.queensbp.org/
Miller's contact info:
District Office
336 East 73rd Street (Suite C)
New York, New York 10021
Tel: (212) 535-5554
Fax: (212) 535-6098
e-mail: miller@council.nyc.ny.us
City Hall Office
City Hall
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 788-7210
Fax: (212) 788-7207
Well I can finally say that I've heard "Ready on the right; ready on the left; all ready on the firing line" shouted over Camp Perry as the National Matches begin. Granted it was said something close to 60 years ago & I've never actually been to Camp Perry, Ohio but beggars can't be choosers.
From this post at No Quarters I found a site that has thousands of downloadable & streaming movies. (No - not those kind of movies!) The majority of them aren't feature films but if you dig a little you can find soem that are entertaining.
For example I stumbled across a movie that shows kids using guns.< sarcasm > Kids, I tell you! < /sarcasm > It features a boy named Jimmy & his sister Mary. I'd assume Mary is about 16 or 17 but Jimmy is at most 15. < sarcasm > It was made around 1946 by those evil gunmakers. Imagine, even way back then subjecting a porr innocent teen to the horrors of firearms! < / sarcasm >
In truth it was made by SAAMI & shows a boy whose father sends him to various shooting tournaments to gain instruction from some of the top shooters of the day & then the father takes the kid hunting. It's called Making of a Shooter. The journey includes (but is not limited to) the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio where his sister Mary is shooting in the rimfire class. ( sweet little innocent Mary - forced to hold & use one of those evil objects! have they no shame? < /sarcasm > The main focus of the film is gun safety but seeing the matches back then was what made it worth it to watch.
There's another one that looks interesting called Bird Dogs. I haven't watched it yet But I definitely will after I get done posting. I had some cousins back home who raised bird dogs & as a result have a weakness for watching bird dogs in action. To give you an idea how bad I am I have watched Biscuit Eater every time I've seen it was playing.
There's another oen I have yet to see called Man to Man. It was made by Remington Arms Company Inc. & Peters Cartridge Company in 1947 & is supposed to be about "Salesmanship and psychology instruction for gun dealers".
There's a section which has newsreel-type films of the Korean War & both World War 1 & World War 2 as well as actual newsreels.
There are also sections about the military, the atomic bomb tests, patriotism, political campaigns & elections, political science, & propaganda (mainly U.S. WW2 era films).
The ones that look most interesting to me are The Truth About Taxes which is described as "Republican party campaign film on behalf of Wendell Willkie for U.S. president in the 1940 elections"; Despotism, which measures where a society stands between democracy & despotism; The Powers of Congress in which "Mr. Williams drops off to sleep for a few minutes to find himself confronted with a world in which Congress has been suspended and federal authority dissolved"; & a Newsreel film that's listed as [Knife-Thrower and Children] where a Texas knife thrower gets his kids into the act - well sort of. The last one seems interesting just because it should give a massive coronary to any of those people who think anything less of complete nannyism is child endangerment. < sarcasm > Ya think ya know about child endangerment? well we got your child endangerment right here & it ain't got nothing to do with their "feelings" < /sarcasm >
But hit the main site & browse around if you want to see some rather interesting old flicks without turning off the PC.
From this post at No Quarters I found a site that has thousands of downloadable & streaming movies. (No - not those kind of movies!) The majority of them aren't feature films but if you dig a little you can find soem that are entertaining.
For example I stumbled across a movie that shows kids using guns.< sarcasm > Kids, I tell you! < /sarcasm > It features a boy named Jimmy & his sister Mary. I'd assume Mary is about 16 or 17 but Jimmy is at most 15. < sarcasm > It was made around 1946 by those evil gunmakers. Imagine, even way back then subjecting a porr innocent teen to the horrors of firearms! < / sarcasm >
In truth it was made by SAAMI & shows a boy whose father sends him to various shooting tournaments to gain instruction from some of the top shooters of the day & then the father takes the kid hunting. It's called Making of a Shooter. The journey includes (but is not limited to) the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio where his sister Mary is shooting in the rimfire class. (
There's another one that looks interesting called Bird Dogs. I haven't watched it yet But I definitely will after I get done posting. I had some cousins back home who raised bird dogs & as a result have a weakness for watching bird dogs in action. To give you an idea how bad I am I have watched Biscuit Eater every time I've seen it was playing.
There's another oen I have yet to see called Man to Man. It was made by Remington Arms Company Inc. & Peters Cartridge Company in 1947 & is supposed to be about "Salesmanship and psychology instruction for gun dealers".
There's a section which has newsreel-type films of the Korean War & both World War 1 & World War 2 as well as actual newsreels.
There are also sections about the military, the atomic bomb tests, patriotism, political campaigns & elections, political science, & propaganda (mainly U.S. WW2 era films).
The ones that look most interesting to me are The Truth About Taxes which is described as "Republican party campaign film on behalf of Wendell Willkie for U.S. president in the 1940 elections"; Despotism, which measures where a society stands between democracy & despotism; The Powers of Congress in which "Mr. Williams drops off to sleep for a few minutes to find himself confronted with a world in which Congress has been suspended and federal authority dissolved"; & a Newsreel film that's listed as [Knife-Thrower and Children] where a Texas knife thrower gets his kids into the act - well sort of. The last one seems interesting just because it should give a massive coronary to any of those people who think anything less of complete nannyism is child endangerment. < sarcasm > Ya think ya know about child endangerment? well we got your child endangerment right here & it ain't got nothing to do with their "feelings" < /sarcasm >
But hit the main site & browse around if you want to see some rather interesting old flicks without turning off the PC.
Monday, March 22, 2004
SCOTUS heard oral arguments today on Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada. I posted previously about Mr. Hiibel's case but the short version is that a cop asked him for his I.D. & he refused to give it. He & his daughter were subsequently arrested. Her charges were dismissed when it was brought up that her resisting arrest was legally impossible since she committed no offence to be arrested on in the first place. Mr. Hiibel however was found guilty of "delaying a piece officer". Through the wonders of modern technology you don't have to take my or anyone else's word for what happened; Mr. Hiibel has a site that has video, audio & a transcript of the arrest as well as copies of the legal documents involved.
Now let's look at some of the things reported from the oral arguments:
"Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen told justices that 'identifying yourself is a neutral act' that helps police in their investigations and doesn't - by itself - incriminate anyone."
The smart ass in me would be quick to point out that prostrating yourself while chanting, "Hail ye blue defender of the state for you are armed" is a neutral act, yet I'd love to see a judge foolish enough to uphold a law requiring it in this country.
But the more reasoned approach is to point out that identifying yourself is not a neutral act. Hell, the statement he made contradicts itself. How can an act be neutral if it helps an investigation? & suppose the cops have an outstanding warrant for you: identifying yourself would lead to incrimination now wouldn't it? Going a little further let's say you're a gun owner who has a CCW permit in a state where the CCW records are available to the cops. By identifying yourself you're letting the cop know you have more than a reasonable chance of being armed. Now if you're in a school zone or other safehaven for criminals where being armed is a no-no, then you've just provided Officer Friendly with probable cause for a search. So by identifying yourself you are giving the state a leg up if it decides it wants to prosecute you.
Also let's be clear: the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in it's relevant part "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
This is erroneously referred to as the clause against self incrimination. While the purpose of the clause may be to prevent compelled testimony which may be used against a person in a court of law it's a misnomer to use "incrimination" in the description. Here's why:
If we assume the protection to be solely concerned with preventing compelled testimony that will incriminate a person, then we have to have a presumption of wrongdoing on the person's part. In effect no one would use this unless they were guilty & it would be taken as an admission of guilt. But the wording is clear in that it simply refers to testimony without making any distinction between incriminating testimony & general testimony.
The whole idea is that you may testify about yourself & by doing so give the state justification for prosecuting you even if you were not aware you could be prosecuted. A perfect example is if you're asked to testify about your whereabouts on a particular day at a particular time. If you respond that you were in a certain area alone around a certain time then you could be made a suspect in the investigation of a crime committed by a person that meets your general physical description. Now you would not have to be aware that the crime happened at all but by providing testimony you could have given the state enough cause to prosecute you for that crime despite your being innocent.
If "self incrimination" were taken to heart then you could be compelled to testify because you would not (in the example above) be aware that your testimony could incriminate you & you wouldn't think you could assert the 5th amendment as a reason to not testify.
& any use of the clause against "self incrimination" would render any pleadings of "not guilty" irrelevant: if only those guilty of the stated charge could refuse to answer, then what juror wouldn't see this as anything less than an admission of guilt to that act?
So it's more appropriate to understand that a clause preventing compelled self incrimination would be a self defeating clause since only those that are actually guilty may use its protection & by consequence it would offer no protection at all for anyone.
Findlaw.com has a much more in depth examination of the clause against self testimony & you should give it a read if you want to know more about its history & the way the courts currently treat it.
Responses in a different vein were supplied to the deputy attorney generals statements:
"But if that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Telephone number? E-mail address? What about a national identification card?
'The government could require name tags, color codes,' Hiibel's lawyer, Robert Dolan, told the court. "
Now Dolan's response was good simply because of its subtlety: he didn't come right out & say that this was the tip of a slippery slope that would led America to resemble Nazi Germany, but I have little doubt that visions of a yellow star with the word "Jude" written on them didn't pop in the minds of all who were present.
Unfortunately the deputy attorney general from Nevada wasn't the only one making arguments for compelled self identification:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, however, expressed doubts. He said officers faced with suspicious people need authority to get the facts.
'I cannot imagine any responsible citizen would have objected to giving the name,' Scalia said."
Justice Scalia probably can't imagine a lot of things. I'm sure he can't imagine that despite his being a constructionist & openly opposed to the arguments in favor of a "living constitution" that a lot of freedom loving people would question his judgment because of statements like the one above. Justice Scalia is probably the best friend that gun owners have in SCOTUS right now, but that is more because of the assumed anti-gun/pro-government make-up of the court rather than his purity when it comes to the Right to Arms. It would have been interesting to hear if he wanted to grant cert to Silveira or not & the reasons why, but odds are that won't happen anytime soon.
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history."
Though her statements seem cool on the surface (at least the first one) if you look closer you'll see that she sees no problem with compelling identification if there is probable cause of a crime or for a general records search. In can be inferred that she does not view self identification as being protected by the 5th amendment, since the 5th would apply even in the face of probable cause. Her last statement assures us that she feels compelled identification can be justified. But if the court were to apply a probable cause standard for compelled self identification then I assume identification would still fall under the 4th amendment's protection.
Needless to say I disagree with Justice O'Conner's statements. Identifying yourself is a form of testimony & falls under the 5th amendment's protection against self testimony. To attempt to nullify the 5th amendment arguments yet support the 4th amendment arguments is simply inconsistent with the nature of providing I.D. One could argue that a warrant could be issued in accordance with the 4th amendment that requires a person to I.D. themselves but compelled self testimony concerning identity would do an end run around that. Then again the courts have ruled that giving fingerprints aren't a form of self testimony so this isn't a big surprise. (Needless to say I disagree with that as well). The only way an argument based on the 4th but negating the 5th could work is if an I.D. is not a form of testimony & to arrive at that conclusion we'd have to simply ignore the arguments where a data base error leads to prosecution, or a list of warrants leads to an arrest, or where a license of some sort in that person's name (such as an occupational license or a firearms license) gives probable cause.
Oh, lest I forget, guess who was on Nevada's side in this case:
"Nevada is supported by the Bush administration and two criminal justice groups..."
Bush opposed Haney, Bean & Emerson but supports a case that penalizes those who don't have their papers in order. Wait, that's a common thread, not a distinction isn't it?
I don't really want to make any predictions in this case. I'll leave that to the various lawyer-bloggers who care to comment on this. But I will say that I don't have much more faith in the courts to respect our Rights than I do in the legislature. So let's just leave it at my being more than a bit concerned about the outcome.
Now let's look at some of the things reported from the oral arguments:
"Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen told justices that 'identifying yourself is a neutral act' that helps police in their investigations and doesn't - by itself - incriminate anyone."
The smart ass in me would be quick to point out that prostrating yourself while chanting, "Hail ye blue defender of the state for you are armed" is a neutral act, yet I'd love to see a judge foolish enough to uphold a law requiring it in this country.
But the more reasoned approach is to point out that identifying yourself is not a neutral act. Hell, the statement he made contradicts itself. How can an act be neutral if it helps an investigation? & suppose the cops have an outstanding warrant for you: identifying yourself would lead to incrimination now wouldn't it? Going a little further let's say you're a gun owner who has a CCW permit in a state where the CCW records are available to the cops. By identifying yourself you're letting the cop know you have more than a reasonable chance of being armed. Now if you're in a school zone or other safehaven for criminals where being armed is a no-no, then you've just provided Officer Friendly with probable cause for a search. So by identifying yourself you are giving the state a leg up if it decides it wants to prosecute you.
Also let's be clear: the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in it's relevant part "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
This is erroneously referred to as the clause against self incrimination. While the purpose of the clause may be to prevent compelled testimony which may be used against a person in a court of law it's a misnomer to use "incrimination" in the description. Here's why:
If we assume the protection to be solely concerned with preventing compelled testimony that will incriminate a person, then we have to have a presumption of wrongdoing on the person's part. In effect no one would use this unless they were guilty & it would be taken as an admission of guilt. But the wording is clear in that it simply refers to testimony without making any distinction between incriminating testimony & general testimony.
The whole idea is that you may testify about yourself & by doing so give the state justification for prosecuting you even if you were not aware you could be prosecuted. A perfect example is if you're asked to testify about your whereabouts on a particular day at a particular time. If you respond that you were in a certain area alone around a certain time then you could be made a suspect in the investigation of a crime committed by a person that meets your general physical description. Now you would not have to be aware that the crime happened at all but by providing testimony you could have given the state enough cause to prosecute you for that crime despite your being innocent.
If "self incrimination" were taken to heart then you could be compelled to testify because you would not (in the example above) be aware that your testimony could incriminate you & you wouldn't think you could assert the 5th amendment as a reason to not testify.
& any use of the clause against "self incrimination" would render any pleadings of "not guilty" irrelevant: if only those guilty of the stated charge could refuse to answer, then what juror wouldn't see this as anything less than an admission of guilt to that act?
So it's more appropriate to understand that a clause preventing compelled self incrimination would be a self defeating clause since only those that are actually guilty may use its protection & by consequence it would offer no protection at all for anyone.
Findlaw.com has a much more in depth examination of the clause against self testimony & you should give it a read if you want to know more about its history & the way the courts currently treat it.
Responses in a different vein were supplied to the deputy attorney generals statements:
"But if that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Telephone number? E-mail address? What about a national identification card?
'The government could require name tags, color codes,' Hiibel's lawyer, Robert Dolan, told the court. "
Now Dolan's response was good simply because of its subtlety: he didn't come right out & say that this was the tip of a slippery slope that would led America to resemble Nazi Germany, but I have little doubt that visions of a yellow star with the word "Jude" written on them didn't pop in the minds of all who were present.
Unfortunately the deputy attorney general from Nevada wasn't the only one making arguments for compelled self identification:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, however, expressed doubts. He said officers faced with suspicious people need authority to get the facts.
'I cannot imagine any responsible citizen would have objected to giving the name,' Scalia said."
Justice Scalia probably can't imagine a lot of things. I'm sure he can't imagine that despite his being a constructionist & openly opposed to the arguments in favor of a "living constitution" that a lot of freedom loving people would question his judgment because of statements like the one above. Justice Scalia is probably the best friend that gun owners have in SCOTUS right now, but that is more because of the assumed anti-gun/pro-government make-up of the court rather than his purity when it comes to the Right to Arms. It would have been interesting to hear if he wanted to grant cert to Silveira or not & the reasons why, but odds are that won't happen anytime soon.
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history."
Though her statements seem cool on the surface (at least the first one) if you look closer you'll see that she sees no problem with compelling identification if there is probable cause of a crime or for a general records search. In can be inferred that she does not view self identification as being protected by the 5th amendment, since the 5th would apply even in the face of probable cause. Her last statement assures us that she feels compelled identification can be justified. But if the court were to apply a probable cause standard for compelled self identification then I assume identification would still fall under the 4th amendment's protection.
Needless to say I disagree with Justice O'Conner's statements. Identifying yourself is a form of testimony & falls under the 5th amendment's protection against self testimony. To attempt to nullify the 5th amendment arguments yet support the 4th amendment arguments is simply inconsistent with the nature of providing I.D. One could argue that a warrant could be issued in accordance with the 4th amendment that requires a person to I.D. themselves but compelled self testimony concerning identity would do an end run around that. Then again the courts have ruled that giving fingerprints aren't a form of self testimony so this isn't a big surprise. (Needless to say I disagree with that as well). The only way an argument based on the 4th but negating the 5th could work is if an I.D. is not a form of testimony & to arrive at that conclusion we'd have to simply ignore the arguments where a data base error leads to prosecution, or a list of warrants leads to an arrest, or where a license of some sort in that person's name (such as an occupational license or a firearms license) gives probable cause.
Oh, lest I forget, guess who was on Nevada's side in this case:
"Nevada is supported by the Bush administration and two criminal justice groups..."
Bush opposed Haney, Bean & Emerson but supports a case that penalizes those who don't have their papers in order. Wait, that's a common thread, not a distinction isn't it?
I don't really want to make any predictions in this case. I'll leave that to the various lawyer-bloggers who care to comment on this. But I will say that I don't have much more faith in the courts to respect our Rights than I do in the legislature. So let's just leave it at my being more than a bit concerned about the outcome.
Why is it that everytime I think I can leave the NRA alone for a while they go & say something "ig'nent"?
Chuck Mikel is an attorney & member of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. The CRPA is the state affiliate for the NRA. In a story about the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors considering a ban on the sale of .50 rifles we find this gem from Mr. Michel:
"The message that legitimate hunters and target shooters get from this is that 'you don't count and that we don't care about your sport,' he said"
First of all, what exactly constitutes a "legitimate" hunter? Is it simply someone who is not a poacher? Is it someone who hunts for meat instead of a trophy? I assume he intends to insult millions of children here & abroad by insinuating that Robin of Locksley was not a "legitimate" hunter. (if you've forgotten, re-read almost any Robin Hood story & you'll see he became an outlaw for poaching the King's deer.)
But the bigger picture is that Michel only attempts to justify "sporting" use of firearms. Self defense isn't something anyone could legitimately call "sporting" & resisting a tyrannical government through force of arms is definitely not "sporting". (although it's better to have a "sporting" chance than an unsporting one.)
& if you look closely, most gun control laws claim to protect arms for "sporting" use. The other side of that is that any arms which don't have a "sporting" use are fair targets for licensing, registration or outright prohibitons. Does anyone wish to look through the records & count how many times someone said that "assault weapons" have no "sporting use" back in the early 1990's? Legitimizing a "sporting use" ideaology is just throwing the door open a little wider for gun control laws.
Now hopefully this next part will scare the hell out of you: go through your house & list every firearm you own that does not have a specific sporting use. Most of your shotguns & .22 rifles will be okay, as will any single shot, lever action, double barreled or pump action rifles. Some bolt action rifles & possible a semi-automatic rifle like the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR (definitely not to be confused with the 1918A1 or A2 BAR) will be okay. (note: is it just me or does the autoloaders that are likely to have a "sporting use" look more like air rifles than real firearms?) Certain revolvers will probably make the grade as well as long as they have a barrel that's over 5" &/or have special features such as a thumb rest for use in pistol matches (think bullseye competition).
But any military surplus rifles (even bolt actions), most semi-automatic rifles (except the Remington & Browing mentioned above), all pistol caliber carbines (with the sole exception of Ruger's carbine in .44 magnum), all semi-automatic pistols & any concealable revolvers not chambered for .44 magnum or some other appropriate hunting cartridge will not have any legitimate sporting purpose. & don't come whining to me about High Power Rifle or IDPA matches - they won't care. If you cannot hunt with it or shoot in a recognized target compeititon (& remember the ones who write the laws don't even realize that High Power matches have used military arms since their inception 100 years ago or that handguns can be used for hunting) then it won't be protected under the "sporting use" doctrine & will be subject ot bans at the whim of the legislature. Self defense &/or defense against a tyrannical government won't be considered "sporting use".
When The NRA & its state affiliates start arguing that "sporting" is a secondary defense of the Right to Arms while the main one is simply defense then I'll consider joining them.
a big deal has been made about another quote from Mr. Michel in the same article:
"A .50-caliber rifle is a pea shooter for a terrorist," he said. "The real problem is not the gun, it's the ammunition. If you use explosive ammunition, it doesn't matter what the caliber is."
The next paragraph includes the following:
"Such explosive, armor-piercing ammunition is already illegal, he noted."
So taken altogether I don't see this as being incorrect. However while technically he may be correct this has got to be one of the worst examples of a quote in defense of gun ownership.
First of all he admits there is a problem. He then attempts to shift the focus from the firearm to the ammunition. Then he attempts reassurance by pointing out that explosive ammo is already illegal.
He takes the defensive & gets tangled up in doing so. If I were a gun control advocate I could teach any 7th grader how to pick apart his statement. It's a shame when both sides are able to use your own statements against you isn't it?
I don't know how many times this must be repeated, but there is no "problem" with .50 caliber rifles. Hell, there's no problem with any firearm. I have yet to see one isntance where a .50 caliber rifle has been used by a criminal or a terrorist (government agents excluded) against a civilian target in the U.S. Now potentially it could happen, but potentially covers a lot of ground. The potential is there for a person to hijack a bus (another mobile civilian disarmament zone I might point out) & run it into some sensitive structure such as "...(t)elecommunications towers, industrial plants such as oil refineries, and railroad cars..." to name a few examples that were listed by proponents of the .50 caliber ban. But we don't go around banning buses do we? Hell, we haven't banned airplanes & they were the instrument used in a terrorist act that resulted in the murder of 3,000+ people in NYC! So banning something that has the potential for use by terrorists makes no sense especially considering that we don't ban things that have actually been used by terrorists.
But Mr. Michel took the low ground & consented that there is a "problem" to be dealt with. He shifts the blame to the ammunition that could be used in a terrorist attack. Now would you like to know the biggest "problem" we have with ammunition in this country? Mil-Surp .30-06: sure, it's $0.20 someodd a round now but the supply is drying up. That's what I consider a "problem". Again I have seen no examples of "...explosive, armor-piercing ammunition..." being used by a criminal or terrorist in this country (government agents excluded). I haven't even seen any meaningful examples of armor piercing ammunition being used by a criminal or terroist (government agents excluded). Any armor piercing ammo that has been used in any way did not affect the outcome any differently than non-armor piercing ammunition would have. I don't want to repeat myself so I'll refer you to this previous post. Scroll down a bit & you'll see where armor piercing ammo is discussed. The gist of it is that almost any rifle, including those chambered for cartridges that are over 100 years old, can pierce armor with ordinary hunting ammo. In the post I'm mainly discussing bullet proof vests, but any light armor can be pierced by a common hunting rifle using common hunting ammo at certain ranges. It's simple physics that a projectile with a certain amount of momentum has a certain amount of energy & if sufficient it will cause the projectile to penetrate a certain material such as steel. Now of course there is ammo made specifically to penetrate armored targets. But no civilian target in the U.S. has ever been attacked succesfully with armor piercing ammo when regular hunting ammo would have failed.
So there is no ammunition "problem" unless you feel that all ammunition should be banned. (well of course there is that faction of gun owners who think that ammo prices should be lower than they are, but that's another topic altogether).
But the final mistake he made was in stating that explosive, armor piercing ammo was already illegal. In doing so he knowingly or unknowlignly gives credence to the idea that prohibitons work. He simply cannot argue that prior restraint based gun control is ineffective after saying that.
Not to mention he's incorrect unless he's simply referring to California. It doesn't include an "in California" qualifier to his statement about the laws concerning ammo so if one assumes he meant a Federal law then he'd be incorrect. API, or Armor Piercing Incendiary ammo is still available through legal channels in most states. There's not much of it left but API rounds are available except in states which have banned it. Now before you get all upset let me reiterate that there has never been an instance of API ammo being used in any violent criminal action by a criminal or terrorist (government agents excluded). I do believe that California bans any ammo that can start a fire & if so that would include incendiary ammo. If there is a California law banning explosive &/or incedniary ammo (like I seem to recall) then Mr. Michel would be correct in his statement, although it'd have been helpful if the reporter made it clear he was referring to a California context & not a national one.
But Mr. Michel did not help as much as he thinks he might have. His statements could easily be used against him & gun owners in general. In a single article he's legitimized the "sporting use" mindset of moderate gun control laws; he's admitted there's a problem concerning ammunition (when there isn't one) & he's claimed that gun control has solved that problem (the explosive ammo ban).
I admit I'm pretty hard on the NRA. I don't approve of their actions concerning gun control & their actions lead me to believe that through ignorance or malice they are more of a hinderance than an asset to the Right to Arms. I really wish this wasn't the case. I wish the NRA would turn themselves around & start fighting the good fight. But with statements like those of Mr. Michel my belief is reinforced that the NRA management (both state & national) is out of touch with the gun owners they claim to represent.
Chuck Mikel is an attorney & member of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. The CRPA is the state affiliate for the NRA. In a story about the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors considering a ban on the sale of .50 rifles we find this gem from Mr. Michel:
"The message that legitimate hunters and target shooters get from this is that 'you don't count and that we don't care about your sport,' he said"
First of all, what exactly constitutes a "legitimate" hunter? Is it simply someone who is not a poacher? Is it someone who hunts for meat instead of a trophy? I assume he intends to insult millions of children here & abroad by insinuating that Robin of Locksley was not a "legitimate" hunter. (if you've forgotten, re-read almost any Robin Hood story & you'll see he became an outlaw for poaching the King's deer.)
But the bigger picture is that Michel only attempts to justify "sporting" use of firearms. Self defense isn't something anyone could legitimately call "sporting" & resisting a tyrannical government through force of arms is definitely not "sporting". (although it's better to have a "sporting" chance than an unsporting one.)
& if you look closely, most gun control laws claim to protect arms for "sporting" use. The other side of that is that any arms which don't have a "sporting" use are fair targets for licensing, registration or outright prohibitons. Does anyone wish to look through the records & count how many times someone said that "assault weapons" have no "sporting use" back in the early 1990's? Legitimizing a "sporting use" ideaology is just throwing the door open a little wider for gun control laws.
Now hopefully this next part will scare the hell out of you: go through your house & list every firearm you own that does not have a specific sporting use. Most of your shotguns & .22 rifles will be okay, as will any single shot, lever action, double barreled or pump action rifles. Some bolt action rifles & possible a semi-automatic rifle like the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR (definitely not to be confused with the 1918A1 or A2 BAR) will be okay. (note: is it just me or does the autoloaders that are likely to have a "sporting use" look more like air rifles than real firearms?) Certain revolvers will probably make the grade as well as long as they have a barrel that's over 5" &/or have special features such as a thumb rest for use in pistol matches (think bullseye competition).
But any military surplus rifles (even bolt actions), most semi-automatic rifles (except the Remington & Browing mentioned above), all pistol caliber carbines (with the sole exception of Ruger's carbine in .44 magnum), all semi-automatic pistols & any concealable revolvers not chambered for .44 magnum or some other appropriate hunting cartridge will not have any legitimate sporting purpose. & don't come whining to me about High Power Rifle or IDPA matches - they won't care. If you cannot hunt with it or shoot in a recognized target compeititon (& remember the ones who write the laws don't even realize that High Power matches have used military arms since their inception 100 years ago or that handguns can be used for hunting) then it won't be protected under the "sporting use" doctrine & will be subject ot bans at the whim of the legislature. Self defense &/or defense against a tyrannical government won't be considered "sporting use".
When The NRA & its state affiliates start arguing that "sporting" is a secondary defense of the Right to Arms while the main one is simply defense then I'll consider joining them.
a big deal has been made about another quote from Mr. Michel in the same article:
"A .50-caliber rifle is a pea shooter for a terrorist," he said. "The real problem is not the gun, it's the ammunition. If you use explosive ammunition, it doesn't matter what the caliber is."
The next paragraph includes the following:
"Such explosive, armor-piercing ammunition is already illegal, he noted."
So taken altogether I don't see this as being incorrect. However while technically he may be correct this has got to be one of the worst examples of a quote in defense of gun ownership.
First of all he admits there is a problem. He then attempts to shift the focus from the firearm to the ammunition. Then he attempts reassurance by pointing out that explosive ammo is already illegal.
He takes the defensive & gets tangled up in doing so. If I were a gun control advocate I could teach any 7th grader how to pick apart his statement. It's a shame when both sides are able to use your own statements against you isn't it?
I don't know how many times this must be repeated, but there is no "problem" with .50 caliber rifles. Hell, there's no problem with any firearm. I have yet to see one isntance where a .50 caliber rifle has been used by a criminal or a terrorist (government agents excluded) against a civilian target in the U.S. Now potentially it could happen, but potentially covers a lot of ground. The potential is there for a person to hijack a bus (another mobile civilian disarmament zone I might point out) & run it into some sensitive structure such as "...(t)elecommunications towers, industrial plants such as oil refineries, and railroad cars..." to name a few examples that were listed by proponents of the .50 caliber ban. But we don't go around banning buses do we? Hell, we haven't banned airplanes & they were the instrument used in a terrorist act that resulted in the murder of 3,000+ people in NYC! So banning something that has the potential for use by terrorists makes no sense especially considering that we don't ban things that have actually been used by terrorists.
But Mr. Michel took the low ground & consented that there is a "problem" to be dealt with. He shifts the blame to the ammunition that could be used in a terrorist attack. Now would you like to know the biggest "problem" we have with ammunition in this country? Mil-Surp .30-06: sure, it's $0.20 someodd a round now but the supply is drying up. That's what I consider a "problem". Again I have seen no examples of "...explosive, armor-piercing ammunition..." being used by a criminal or terrorist in this country (government agents excluded). I haven't even seen any meaningful examples of armor piercing ammunition being used by a criminal or terroist (government agents excluded). Any armor piercing ammo that has been used in any way did not affect the outcome any differently than non-armor piercing ammunition would have. I don't want to repeat myself so I'll refer you to this previous post. Scroll down a bit & you'll see where armor piercing ammo is discussed. The gist of it is that almost any rifle, including those chambered for cartridges that are over 100 years old, can pierce armor with ordinary hunting ammo. In the post I'm mainly discussing bullet proof vests, but any light armor can be pierced by a common hunting rifle using common hunting ammo at certain ranges. It's simple physics that a projectile with a certain amount of momentum has a certain amount of energy & if sufficient it will cause the projectile to penetrate a certain material such as steel. Now of course there is ammo made specifically to penetrate armored targets. But no civilian target in the U.S. has ever been attacked succesfully with armor piercing ammo when regular hunting ammo would have failed.
So there is no ammunition "problem" unless you feel that all ammunition should be banned. (well of course there is that faction of gun owners who think that ammo prices should be lower than they are, but that's another topic altogether).
But the final mistake he made was in stating that explosive, armor piercing ammo was already illegal. In doing so he knowingly or unknowlignly gives credence to the idea that prohibitons work. He simply cannot argue that prior restraint based gun control is ineffective after saying that.
Not to mention he's incorrect unless he's simply referring to California. It doesn't include an "in California" qualifier to his statement about the laws concerning ammo so if one assumes he meant a Federal law then he'd be incorrect. API, or Armor Piercing Incendiary ammo is still available through legal channels in most states. There's not much of it left but API rounds are available except in states which have banned it. Now before you get all upset let me reiterate that there has never been an instance of API ammo being used in any violent criminal action by a criminal or terrorist (government agents excluded). I do believe that California bans any ammo that can start a fire & if so that would include incendiary ammo. If there is a California law banning explosive &/or incedniary ammo (like I seem to recall) then Mr. Michel would be correct in his statement, although it'd have been helpful if the reporter made it clear he was referring to a California context & not a national one.
But Mr. Michel did not help as much as he thinks he might have. His statements could easily be used against him & gun owners in general. In a single article he's legitimized the "sporting use" mindset of moderate gun control laws; he's admitted there's a problem concerning ammunition (when there isn't one) & he's claimed that gun control has solved that problem (the explosive ammo ban).
I admit I'm pretty hard on the NRA. I don't approve of their actions concerning gun control & their actions lead me to believe that through ignorance or malice they are more of a hinderance than an asset to the Right to Arms. I really wish this wasn't the case. I wish the NRA would turn themselves around & start fighting the good fight. But with statements like those of Mr. Michel my belief is reinforced that the NRA management (both state & national) is out of touch with the gun owners they claim to represent.
I've been discussing Bush, Kerry & the election with some friends as of late. Aside from trying to figure out who in the Democratic Party thought Kerry was a better contender than Edwards or Dean (& more importantly why they thought so) the question of whether to vote against Kerry or to vote against Bush has been at the forefront of the conversations.
There are many arguments for & against voting for Bush which I won't go into yet. I will say that I'm not a one issue voter - at least not in the traditional sense. However I have one issue which is a litmus test & that's the Right to Arms. My reasoning is that if a person isn't going to respect the Right to Arms, then odds are he won't respect any other Rights unless it's to his/her advantage. If they pass the Right to Arms test then I'll look deeper to see if they're acceptable to me.
Kerry definitely isn't a "Right to Arms" kinda guy. But then again neither is Bush. Angel Shamaya of KABA.com published his response to a fund raising letter for the Bush/Cheney campaign which hits some of the highlights of Bush's unfriendliness towards gun owners.
All that being said is to explain why I find the following amusing:
"Ireland Lawmakers Want Unarmed Bush Visit"
Leftist lawmakers in Ireland don't want Bush's Secret Service agents to be armed while he's in their country. They said Ireland's police will protect him.
Why do I find it amusing? Well, cause when Bush was Governor of Texas he supported the idea of requiring prior government permission to carry a weapon for self defense (yes I know most people view Shall Issue CCW laws as an improvement, but it's still gun control & it's not ther best solution available). Then there's the statement made by Ashcroft that is supposed to reflect the White House policy on the 2nd amendment. Ashcroft said that the 2nd amendment protects an individual Right to arms, but that it's subject to "reasonable" government regulation. The qualifier makes the new policy different from the old one only in the means: the end is still the same. Then there's Project Exile & its variants which strictly enforce every unconstitutional federal gun law on the books. Bush was oppossed to arming pilots & now even though the pilots are "Federal Flight Deck Officers" as oppossed to ordinarypeasants subjects citizens the Justice Department is still dragging its feet & making it difficult for a pilot to carry arms. Add onto that the Iraqi constitution which says arms can only be had with government permission & Bush's support of the "assault weapons" ban & I find it funny that Bush is being faced with the same kind of gun control that he thinks is reasonable: prior government approval required for owning &/or carrying weapons.
After all, what's good for the goose etc...
So the big question is will Bush submit himself to "reasonable" gun cuntrol as imposed by a duly authorized government, or will he take the stance he took when he said that America doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself?
He could gain a lot of votes from gun owners who aren't happy with his stance by refusing to go unarmed & using that as a basis for turning around his domestic policies regarding guns. Hell, if ol' Dubya came out & said that he'd leave the Secret Service agents at home if that's what they wanted, but if they wanted him to attend that he'd just strap on a pistol his damn self. After that if he turned around & demanded that congress & the states repeal any & all laws which make carying a weapon for defense subject to government approval I see no reason why he'd have to campaign any further to make it to '08 in the White House.
The odds of him pursuing that course of action approach zero, so he'll have to hti the campaign trail hard & spend a lot of cash if he wants to squeak by in November.
Let me be clear in case any of you have any contacts with anyone in the Republican Party who might be able to get a message to Bush: if he wants to win this upcoming election there's nothing he could do better than to repent of his views on gun control & actively pursue the repeal of (redundancy alert) every unconstitutional federal gun control law on the books. Unless he does that he's going to lose far more gun owner votes than he'll ever hope to gain in gun control advocate votes. & if any - I repeat any - more federal gun control laws are passed then in 2005 he'll be looking for work.
Bush the Elder made two mistakes that cost him the election in 1992: he reneged on his "no new taxes" promise & he alienated gun owners by signing an executive order that banned the import of "assault weapons". Ruby Ridge didn't help a bit either. So gun owners & a lot of people who didn't care for increasedextortion Government sponsored theft taxation sat that one out. The result was Clinton.
In '94 there were some major changes in Congress cause a lot of gun owners were upset about the Brady Bill & the "assault weapons" ban.
In 2000 Bush won because Gore was seen as being a gun owners' nightmare. The Republicans also gained control congress in no small part because gun owners felt the Republicans would do a better job of not passing gun control laws than the Democrats would.
So now it's 2004 & things are gonna be close. There are quite a few Senate races that are going to be decided by how the incumbent voted on the renewal of the "assault weapons" ban a month ago. I wouldn't want to be a PR man on the campaign staff of any Republican Senator who voted for adding the renewal of the AWB to the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill. That'd be doubly true if he/she also voted to add McCain's gun show "loophole" amendment to it.
So we have Bush on one hand & Kerry on the other. I have no doubts that Kerry would be the worst choice for a president we've had in a while as fas as international affairs are concerned. Domestically though I see very little difference between the two. & other issues aside they both fail my litmus test.
Kerry is unlikely to see the light. Bush however has a chance. A slim one but a chance nonetheless. That chance is solely dependent on his supporting the Right to Arms. Flowery cmpaign promises or pics of him hunting ducks won't fool anybody: he would have to become an actual defender of the Right to Arms. He'd have to make some efforts at progress - not just saying the words but acting on them. & he'd have to do some things that would contradict his current & earlier views & statements. But he could pull himself up by the bootstraps & be a two term president - the first two term president whose name starts with "B". (Note: it would be incorrect to say that G.W. would be the first two term president in his family. Althugh the relation is distant, the Bush family is connected [several cousins down the list & several removals] to the Lincoln & Roosevelt families).
& he could pull it off by the proper handling of Ireland's request that he comes to their country defensless & following through on it domestically. It'd be interesting to see if he does the correct thing but to my skeptical mind it'd be interesting to find out if he even is aware of the concerns of gun owners.
There are many arguments for & against voting for Bush which I won't go into yet. I will say that I'm not a one issue voter - at least not in the traditional sense. However I have one issue which is a litmus test & that's the Right to Arms. My reasoning is that if a person isn't going to respect the Right to Arms, then odds are he won't respect any other Rights unless it's to his/her advantage. If they pass the Right to Arms test then I'll look deeper to see if they're acceptable to me.
Kerry definitely isn't a "Right to Arms" kinda guy. But then again neither is Bush. Angel Shamaya of KABA.com published his response to a fund raising letter for the Bush/Cheney campaign which hits some of the highlights of Bush's unfriendliness towards gun owners.
All that being said is to explain why I find the following amusing:
"Ireland Lawmakers Want Unarmed Bush Visit"
Leftist lawmakers in Ireland don't want Bush's Secret Service agents to be armed while he's in their country. They said Ireland's police will protect him.
Why do I find it amusing? Well, cause when Bush was Governor of Texas he supported the idea of requiring prior government permission to carry a weapon for self defense (yes I know most people view Shall Issue CCW laws as an improvement, but it's still gun control & it's not ther best solution available). Then there's the statement made by Ashcroft that is supposed to reflect the White House policy on the 2nd amendment. Ashcroft said that the 2nd amendment protects an individual Right to arms, but that it's subject to "reasonable" government regulation. The qualifier makes the new policy different from the old one only in the means: the end is still the same. Then there's Project Exile & its variants which strictly enforce every unconstitutional federal gun law on the books. Bush was oppossed to arming pilots & now even though the pilots are "Federal Flight Deck Officers" as oppossed to ordinary
After all, what's good for the goose etc...
So the big question is will Bush submit himself to "reasonable" gun cuntrol as imposed by a duly authorized government, or will he take the stance he took when he said that America doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself?
He could gain a lot of votes from gun owners who aren't happy with his stance by refusing to go unarmed & using that as a basis for turning around his domestic policies regarding guns. Hell, if ol' Dubya came out & said that he'd leave the Secret Service agents at home if that's what they wanted, but if they wanted him to attend that he'd just strap on a pistol his damn self. After that if he turned around & demanded that congress & the states repeal any & all laws which make carying a weapon for defense subject to government approval I see no reason why he'd have to campaign any further to make it to '08 in the White House.
The odds of him pursuing that course of action approach zero, so he'll have to hti the campaign trail hard & spend a lot of cash if he wants to squeak by in November.
Let me be clear in case any of you have any contacts with anyone in the Republican Party who might be able to get a message to Bush: if he wants to win this upcoming election there's nothing he could do better than to repent of his views on gun control & actively pursue the repeal of (redundancy alert) every unconstitutional federal gun control law on the books. Unless he does that he's going to lose far more gun owner votes than he'll ever hope to gain in gun control advocate votes. & if any - I repeat any - more federal gun control laws are passed then in 2005 he'll be looking for work.
Bush the Elder made two mistakes that cost him the election in 1992: he reneged on his "no new taxes" promise & he alienated gun owners by signing an executive order that banned the import of "assault weapons". Ruby Ridge didn't help a bit either. So gun owners & a lot of people who didn't care for increased
In '94 there were some major changes in Congress cause a lot of gun owners were upset about the Brady Bill & the "assault weapons" ban.
In 2000 Bush won because Gore was seen as being a gun owners' nightmare. The Republicans also gained control congress in no small part because gun owners felt the Republicans would do a better job of not passing gun control laws than the Democrats would.
So now it's 2004 & things are gonna be close. There are quite a few Senate races that are going to be decided by how the incumbent voted on the renewal of the "assault weapons" ban a month ago. I wouldn't want to be a PR man on the campaign staff of any Republican Senator who voted for adding the renewal of the AWB to the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill. That'd be doubly true if he/she also voted to add McCain's gun show "loophole" amendment to it.
So we have Bush on one hand & Kerry on the other. I have no doubts that Kerry would be the worst choice for a president we've had in a while as fas as international affairs are concerned. Domestically though I see very little difference between the two. & other issues aside they both fail my litmus test.
Kerry is unlikely to see the light. Bush however has a chance. A slim one but a chance nonetheless. That chance is solely dependent on his supporting the Right to Arms. Flowery cmpaign promises or pics of him hunting ducks won't fool anybody: he would have to become an actual defender of the Right to Arms. He'd have to make some efforts at progress - not just saying the words but acting on them. & he'd have to do some things that would contradict his current & earlier views & statements. But he could pull himself up by the bootstraps & be a two term president - the first two term president whose name starts with "B". (Note: it would be incorrect to say that G.W. would be the first two term president in his family. Althugh the relation is distant, the Bush family is connected [several cousins down the list & several removals] to the Lincoln & Roosevelt families).
& he could pull it off by the proper handling of Ireland's request that he comes to their country defensless & following through on it domestically. It'd be interesting to see if he does the correct thing but to my skeptical mind it'd be interesting to find out if he even is aware of the concerns of gun owners.
There are two new posts over at The Shooter's Carnival which may be of particular interest to those of you who prefer Mil-Surp rifles.
One is about the correct ammo for the M1 Garand & the other attempts to explain the differences between 308 Winchester & 7.62x51mm NATO.
Other articles of interest to Mil-Surp lovers out there would include:
Shootin Cheap: Surplus Guns In General by James Rummel
Assault Weapons Ban Primer by Say Uncle
Build An AR15 by Say Uncle
To Be Alive Under A Perfect Sky by James Rummel (about the .30-40 Krag-Jorgenson rifles)
Range Report: Bulgarian Makarov by The Smallest Minority
The Proper Use of the Rifle Sling by Publicola
The 5 Main Firing Positions For Rifle by Publicola
Plus a host of other articles covering everything from gun safety to economical purchasing to maintenence to range reports. Go give it a read.
One is about the correct ammo for the M1 Garand & the other attempts to explain the differences between 308 Winchester & 7.62x51mm NATO.
Other articles of interest to Mil-Surp lovers out there would include:
Shootin Cheap: Surplus Guns In General by James Rummel
Assault Weapons Ban Primer by Say Uncle
Build An AR15 by Say Uncle
To Be Alive Under A Perfect Sky by James Rummel (about the .30-40 Krag-Jorgenson rifles)
Range Report: Bulgarian Makarov by The Smallest Minority
The Proper Use of the Rifle Sling by Publicola
The 5 Main Firing Positions For Rifle by Publicola
Plus a host of other articles covering everything from gun safety to economical purchasing to maintenence to range reports. Go give it a read.
Not only do we have a winner in the trivia contest, but we have a winner who provides links to substantiate his answers!
Gunner of No Quarters correctly answered the following questions:
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?
Gunner: DL-44 (was the) German model 1896 "Broomhandle" Mauser
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?
Gunner: E-11 (was the) British Sterling Mk4/L2A3 submachine guns
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?
Gunner: DLT-19 (was the) MG-34
Unfortunately we have no prize for the winner which is a shame cause he provided the correct answers (& links) in record time (especially considering these were the first trivia questions I've had on here) but I will encourage everyone to hop on over to his blog & not only read his further thoughts on the freedom to travel, but check out his spirited defense of Homer Simpson against the health food police as well.
Gunner of No Quarters correctly answered the following questions:
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?
Gunner: DL-44 (was the) German model 1896 "Broomhandle" Mauser
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?
Gunner: E-11 (was the) British Sterling Mk4/L2A3 submachine guns
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?
Gunner: DLT-19 (was the) MG-34
Unfortunately we have no prize for the winner which is a shame cause he provided the correct answers (& links) in record time (especially considering these were the first trivia questions I've had on here) but I will encourage everyone to hop on over to his blog & not only read his further thoughts on the freedom to travel, but check out his spirited defense of Homer Simpson against the health food police as well.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
For those of you who don't have a lot of time & must choose between gun pics & girlie pics I have some solutions for you:
Courtesy of Rocket Jones we have Babes & Guns.
On a more serious note there's Armed Females of America (no pics but great articles)
The Liberty Belles site does have a pics section.
The Gun Zone offers us Racy Firearms Images.
For actual gun & girl porn (membership required) you can always visit Guns-and-Girls.com
This has been your weekly public service announcement (like anyone's still on this page.)
Courtesy of Rocket Jones we have Babes & Guns.
On a more serious note there's Armed Females of America (no pics but great articles)
The Liberty Belles site does have a pics section.
The Gun Zone offers us Racy Firearms Images.
For actual gun & girl porn (membership required) you can always visit Guns-and-Girls.com
This has been your weekly public service announcement (like anyone's still on this page.)
The lovely (& talented) Annika has some gun trivia up this morning.
Seeing her post has inspired me to post some trivia here. But there'll be a slight departure. Some people like gun trivia. Others like movie trivia. So I thought I'd try to cater to both tastes.
Break out your VHS copies of Star Wars. (for you Star Wars geeks that'd be Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope)
George Lucas essentially took all the elements of a classic action/adventure story & melded them into his 1977 space fantasy. But that's not all he borrowed.
There are 3 weapons I'm thinking of that appear in Star Wars Ep. IV - ANH. In the movie they were "blasters" which fired a bolt of energy, but they were based on real world firearms.
One was the Blas-Tech DL-44. Han Solo carried a modified version of this blaster. For the helluvit here's a pic of Han Solo's rig.
Another was the carbine used by Imperial Stormtroopers which I believe (though I could be mistaken) was called the Blas Tech E-11 Trooper Rifle. Here's a schematic of it that shows its configurations.
The final one is not as common as the previous blasters. I am not sure of it's nomenclature (I think it's either the Blas Tech DLT-19 or the Blas Tech A-280) but I have seen it simply referred to as an Imperial Repeater Gun. For simplicity?s sake I'll just call it the Blas Tech DLT-19. The places where it's clearly shown are in the scenes where the Imperial Stormtroopers are searching for the escape pod on Tatooine (although this pic was the best I could find & it only shows the Stormtrooper in the background as having one), the scenes where they are searching for the droids in the Mos Eisley space port & aboard the Death Star when Han Solo & Luke Skywalker are masquerading as Stormtroopers with Chewbacca as their prisoner (Han is carrying the Blas Tech DLT-19).
As I've said all three blasters are based on actual firearms. So here are the questions (like you didn't see them coming already).
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?
I'll post the correct ones when I see them appear in the comments (or if more than a few days elapse without anyone participating).
Seeing her post has inspired me to post some trivia here. But there'll be a slight departure. Some people like gun trivia. Others like movie trivia. So I thought I'd try to cater to both tastes.
Break out your VHS copies of Star Wars. (for you Star Wars geeks that'd be Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope)
George Lucas essentially took all the elements of a classic action/adventure story & melded them into his 1977 space fantasy. But that's not all he borrowed.
There are 3 weapons I'm thinking of that appear in Star Wars Ep. IV - ANH. In the movie they were "blasters" which fired a bolt of energy, but they were based on real world firearms.
One was the Blas-Tech DL-44. Han Solo carried a modified version of this blaster. For the helluvit here's a pic of Han Solo's rig.
Another was the carbine used by Imperial Stormtroopers which I believe (though I could be mistaken) was called the Blas Tech E-11 Trooper Rifle. Here's a schematic of it that shows its configurations.
The final one is not as common as the previous blasters. I am not sure of it's nomenclature (I think it's either the Blas Tech DLT-19 or the Blas Tech A-280) but I have seen it simply referred to as an Imperial Repeater Gun. For simplicity?s sake I'll just call it the Blas Tech DLT-19. The places where it's clearly shown are in the scenes where the Imperial Stormtroopers are searching for the escape pod on Tatooine (although this pic was the best I could find & it only shows the Stormtrooper in the background as having one), the scenes where they are searching for the droids in the Mos Eisley space port & aboard the Death Star when Han Solo & Luke Skywalker are masquerading as Stormtroopers with Chewbacca as their prisoner (Han is carrying the Blas Tech DLT-19).
As I've said all three blasters are based on actual firearms. So here are the questions (like you didn't see them coming already).
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?
Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?
I'll post the correct ones when I see them appear in the comments (or if more than a few days elapse without anyone participating).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)