Yesterday Say Uncle posted about the 2nd Amendment case in Washington D.C. Later in the day I got an email from a friend pointing out the same story in a different paper. In part he said:

I find the current political landscape so depressing that I just want to wrap myself up in some nice little cotton-wool sleeping bag and pretend it isn't happening.

Obviously, it is and there'll be no hiding from it if these attorneys prevail:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Gun_Ban.html

If they prevail and if the Supreme Court agrees, it's all over. Who would have thought the Supreme Court would trash the 1st Amendment -- _seriously_ trash it -- by criminalizing "political" speech? But, they did. If they can trivialize the 1st, imagine how unimportant they think the 2nd is.

I replied:

I knew this was in the works and I heard about this AP story earlier today.

The gun-rights leaders have been working on this for several years. It is figured to be one of our best chances to get the Supremes to overthrow some oppressive laws. It was hoped we would have some more pro-gun judges on the Supreme Court before it made it there but it's not entirely clear that will happen now that the Senate is control by the Democrats and more importantly the makeup of the Senate Judiciary committee. We'll see....

My friend wrote back saying, in essence, "One should be careful what you wish for...". This is exactly correct and why many top level people in the gun-rights movement breathed a sigh of relief when the Supremes failed to take up the case of the California assault weapon ban. In that case because it "only" affected a subset of guns it was feared the court could rule that it didn't violate the 2nd Amendment. They could say something like, "As long as you are allowed to own at least one firearm then your rights have been met."

The gun rights leaders wanted a more clear cut case and went to Washington D.C. to get it. In addition to being less complicated because of the lack of state law it also completely bans handguns and renders all long guns useless. It can't get much more simple and direct. This makes it more difficult for the judges to dance around the issue and not throw out decades of oppressive gun laws. This simpleness and directness also makes it risky for the civil rights advocates.

A commenter to Say Uncles post gets it right when he says, "Don’t worry (or get elated) until the Supreme Court grants cert - and I put the odds of that at 99:1 against." The judges are going to be very reluctant to rule in such a way that thousands of laws, most of which are several decades old, will be at risk of being overthrown. To rule in favor of the civil rights advocates would throw into question the convictions of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of prisoners.

"So what", you say? If someone was convicted solely on the basis of a violation of an unconstitutional law shouldn't they be set free? From the "good of society" perspective the answer is, "Not necessarily". Suppose the ex-boyfriend of some woman breaks into her home and beats the crap out of her. The cops arrest him in Washington D.C. and find him in possession of a gun that is forbidden under the D.C. law. The woman then decides she doesn't want to testify against him for whatever reason. The cops and prosecuting attorneys decide he is a scumbag that will likely severely injury or kill the next woman that he "hooks up with" and society would be better off with him behind bars for a few years. They can get a slam-dunk conviction on the gun possession charges and do so without addressing the fact that he has a habit of "tenderizing" women after he has used them. This also reduces the chances that he will "finish the job" he started with the woman when he gets out of prision. After all, she "did what she was told" last time. Do you want this piece of garbage roaming the streets a month after the ruling comes out? Neither do I and neither do the judges.

So what we are left with is that the judges will be faced with the overwhelming evidence that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and that the D.C. ban is unconstitutional and therefore from a legal standpoint they must rule with the civil rights advocates. On the other hand they will be faced with the practical consideration that they will be turning thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of scumbags loose on the streets. How many deaths are they willing to accept on their hands for doing the "right thing" from a legal standpoint?

One solution they could adopt is to "hold their nose" at the legal stink they would create and say the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. But these judges aren't stupid or completely out of touch with the mindset of ordinary people. They know such a decision will likely result in violence of a different type and perhaps be even more disruptive to society.

The easiest solution for them is to refuse to hear the case. This will let the illegal law stand, keep the scumbags in prison, and avoids inviting the civil war that might result from such a blatant violation of a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution.

Update: Say Uncle agrees with me and asks "What now?" My answer is that we have to just keep fighting the battle one oppressive law at a time. We have to undo things the same way it happened. It took decades to get here and it may take decades to regain our rights. But we don't know yet for certain. We have to wait and see for a while. The Supremes could bite the bullet, so to speak, and we'll suffer some scumbags on the street, and great wailing and knashing of teeth as laws all over the country are revised. We should know in a year or two.

Don’t worry (or get elated) until the Supreme Court grants cert - and I put the odds of that at 99:1 against. They’ve been ducking directly addressing the meaning of the 2nd for 70 years. In the last case where they did look at it, they sent the case back to a lower court for factfinding on whether Miller’s sawed off shotgun was a “militia weapon” - implying that Miller had an individual RKBA for anything that fit that description. (Except Miller was dead and his lawyer was unpaid, so the lower court hearing was never held.) Following that logic, when the army started widely issuing full-auto individual weapons, they became covered under the individual right protected by the 2nd, and the SC would rather refuse to hear cases forever than acknowledge that…

markm
Comment to The Parker Case gets some WaPo Time at Say Uncle
[I'm not sure the odds are quite 99:1 but certainly they are not good. Markm has nailed the crux of the problem. More about this in my next post.--Joe]

As one would expect with dealing with the media this didn't turn out quite the way I intended but it's not so distorted that I'm particularly annoyed.

I received a call yesterday from someone that identified himself as a reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. A young man was caught making pipe bombs in his dorm room. The reporter, Justin Vellucci, did a search about pipe bombs and found me via Boomershoot. He wanted to know how difficult it was to make a pipe bomb. He also wanted to know what laws had been broken. I told him I couldn't speak to Pennsylvania law but I did know a little bit about Idaho, Washington, and Federal law.

I discussed how different laws were from state to state and that if he broke Federal law it was probably because he built a "destructive device", not that he was making explosives. And from the sound of it he wasn't really making explosives. Even though he was very polite and showed interest he probably was rolling his eyes when I explained the difference between high explosives and low explosives and the difference between a detonation and rapid burning as in the cartridge of a gun.

I explained it was trivial to make a pipe bomb. The toughest part was not getting blown up in the process. That's also easy but not obvious you need to be concerned about the mechanism until it's too late. We talked about the effects of such a bomb, how much damage it would do. I gave him a link to my web page on explosive effects. I explained that getting the materials was very easy and they couldn't really be successfully restricted. The toughest was gun powder and even if it wasn't available for purchase it could be made from potassium nitrate, sulfur, and carbon with the recipe being known for several hundred years. The toughest of those ingredients is the potassium nitrate and that can be made from manure.

After the conversation I followed up with this email:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:39 PM
To: Justin Vellucci
Subject: Ease of making an explosive.

If you had read between the lines of our conversation you might have realized I regard it as futile to restrict access to materials in an attempt to improve public safety. Even easier than making your own gun powder is using match heads for the chemical portion of a pipe bomb.

Going beyond that I believe it is possible for me to be stripped naked, enter into your or almost any functioning office, emerge an hour later and have the room explode a few seconds after I exit. I haven't tested this but I've seen enough demonstrations of the critical aspects to believe it is possible. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_bomb. Instead of flour I would use paper in your office to make the dust. I would then disperse it in the air and have it ignited by an electric spark.

The question then becomes, "What do we do to prevent these sort of things?" My response is that things can't be restricted. The actions of people can be punished which serves as a deterrent in many cases. Beyond that we can sometimes infer intent and stop potential criminals. This was how, in the specific case we talked about, the hardware store people came to call law enforcement. The specific set of materials purchased raised suspicion. This sort of involvement and concern about public safety is the way things should work in a free society.

It would create a tremendous hardship on society to attempt restricting and/or regulating all the materials that could be used to harm people or property (anyone for registration and licensing of sharp sticks?). Instead, where there is high potential for materials to be misused the people that sell and work with those materials should assume a greater sense of responsibly and be aware of things that "aren't quite right". In the case of purchasing the gun powder it could be kept in a locked cabinet and the clerk could ask what appear to be a few casual questions like, "What caliber are you reloading?" "What sort of muzzle velocity are you getting out of that?" A legitimate customer will know the answers and volunteer them without skipping a beat. The potential criminal will not and will put the clerk on alert.

Yes, some criminals will be able to sneak through such a system. But the total cost to society will be lower even though we will have to suffer some criminal acts going through to completion.

This blog posting of mine from last week might be of interest to you as well:

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/29/Bomb+Building+Help+Request+From+New+Zealand+Girls+High+School.aspx

Joe Huffman
Boomershoot Event Director

After all that here is what ended up in the newspaper:

One bomb-making expert said much of what Blattner needed could be found at home-improvement stores, and even gunpowder would not be tough to find.

"It really is very, very easy to do something like that," said Joe Huffman, who organizes an event in Idaho where individuals use long-range precision rifles to shoot explosive targets. "The stupid thing is to do this in your dorm room."

Other than the title of "bomb-making expert" it's completely accurate. I can't complain.

The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns.

...

Darfur is one more reminder that gun control is genocide's best friend.

Dimitri Vassilaros
April 1, 2005
Gun Controls Best Friend
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
[Via Jeff. How very odd that I would run across a link to this paper today via one of my usual blog reads. I'm quoted in todays edition of that same paper. My next post will be about that.--Joe]

This is from the U.S. Department of State. The Right to Bear Arms:

(The accompanying essay is under review.)

I would like to suggest they use what the U.S. Department of Justice says about the right to bear arms as the primary reference for their essay.

The amusing part? Kevin points out that this essay has been "under review" for nearly three years ever since it received this spanking.

So here’s my idea of compromise with the gun grabbers. I’ll support training and a gun license on two conditions:
1) There will be no registration of any gun including Form 4473s that could be used as registrations;
2) That everyone in the country with no exceptions must receive training and a license that cannot be voluntarily surrendered to the authorities for any reason. Anyone with a license could buy a gun.

Denise was Here
Universal Licensing--A Modest Proposal
[As a compromise I do find it appealing. But I have been listening to so much of Ayn Rand's writings recently that I must decline from supporting it. As Ms. Rand points out there can be no compromise between a rapist and his victim. The Second Amendment and many state constitutions already guarantee we may buy as many guns as we want whenever we want without a license or training. This compromise would give up that right. It would be no different than a compromise with the rapist who is allowed to sexually fondle his victims at any time. However, I think Denise's compromise would be useful in political debates to flush out the true intentions of the anti-freedom bigots.--Joe]

I don't need to modify much. Just a little. I already eat lots of cashews and granola. I just need to up the foods high in Omega-3 fatty acids. Here are the detail:

Like many aspects of health, our sex drive is affected by what we put into our bodies. Certain foods affect the body in different ways. Depending on what you consume, wining and dining a date can induce more sleep than romance.

...

To really get your blood going, consider circulation-enhancing dishes. Food that's high in Omega-3 fatty acids such as mackerel, salmon and wild salmon are best. "Omega-3 makes your nervous system function better," says Dr. Barbara Bartlik, assistant professor of psychiatry and sex therapist with the Human Sexuality Program at Weill Cornell Medical Center. "Sex is really about circuitry."

...

Improved circulation results in greater erectile response. To accomplish that, go for food rich in L-Arginine, such as granola, oatmeal, peanuts, cashews, walnuts, dairy, green vegetables, root vegetables, garlic, ginseng, soybeans, chickpeas and seeds. Studies show that L-Arginine is helpful for improving sexual function in men.

How very odd for a couple of reasons. 1) I didn't realize petrol (it's from a UK paper) and Drano would cause an exothermic reaction. And 2) What in the world was going on in this woman's mind? Did she think the men would be so stupid as to try to use the condoms?

An ex-strip club worker has been sentenced after she admitted sending condoms filled with explosives in the mail.

49-year-old Kimberly Lynn Dasilva pleaded guilty to the charges of sending threatening letters and flammable material through the post.

The 'flammable materials' included condoms filled with a mixture of petrol and the Drâno drain cleaner – a combination that can cause an explosion.

Her targets included strip clubs where she had previously worked, as well as a television station and a radio station. She claimed that she was fed up with being mistreated by men.

The incident occurred in Boston and there were several domestic papers that carried the article but it was only in the UK that they mentioned the materials used. The other articles I found were:

• Courant
• ABC
• Forbes
• The Mercury News
• ChinaDaily

Now if they came in large enough sizes and detonated from rifle fire I might order a few from Ms. Dasilva.

Samantha has a list of excuses for missing work. Pretty good stuff. Adding my favorites to the list:

• Sixty Minutes wants to interview me about my working conditions.
• The voices in my head told me today was a good day to stay home and clean my guns.
• I was up all night reloading ammunition.
• I was on America's Most Wanted last night and I need to stay low for a while.
• My house is surrounded by a SWAT team.
• The ATF wants to see my explosives magazine (I always use vacation days, not sick days).
• A hundred people with guns from all over the world are showing up expecting me to give them explosives to shoot at and I don't want to disappoint them.
• My wife is out of town so my girlfriend and her twin sister are spending the day in bed with me.

In case you didn't know, I've never used the first five--I just thought they went well together and were sort of on topic with my interests.

I've never used the last one either. My social director (Barb) hasn't been able to make the arrangements even though, for the last 30 years, she keeps saying, "Sure. I'll work on that this weekend."

People working in the private sector should try to save money if at all feasible.  There remains a possibility that it may someday be valuable again.

Norman R. Augustine
From: Defense Systems Management Review
[Cynical? Who me?--Joe]

The Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?

P. J. O'Rourke

Friday and Saturday Xenia and Meghan competed at the State of Idaho drama competion. In the humorous ensemble catagory, with 168 entrants, they came in NUMBER 1. Yes. The number one entrant in that category for the ENTIRE STATE OF IDAHO.

Their other entry, The Duel also went to state made it into the finals (top ten) but did not place.

Here is the video I took of that a few weeks ago at the district competition of the one that won--"Open To Interpretation":

Video: Open To Interpretation

[The video is a messed up in the middle for a minute or so. I'll try and recapture the video next weekend and fix it up.]

Xenia has her own Live Journal posting on the results here. There are some pictures there too.

Barb and I are very, very proud of her.

I can see no ethical standard by which to measure the whole unethical concept of a State, except in the amount of time, of money, of effort and obedience, which a society extorts from its every member.  Its value and its civilization, then, are in inverse proportion to that extortion.

Ayn Rand
From The Fountainhead

I don't think it will pass, at least not in it's current form, but this bill would make most of my guns illegal in Washington State. My bolt action Boomershoot rifle has a muzzle brake therefore these anti-freedom bigots want to call it an assault weapon and ban it (wrong). Both of my carry sidearms are capable of holding more than 10 rounds (18+1 in one and 15+1 in the other). I think I can get a 20 round magazine for one of them. I think I'll order one right now...

Nope. The highest capacity magazine for my STI in .40 S&W doesn't hold 20 rounds. It holds 22! I bought two. I should received them in two to five business days. Just because these bigots want to ban anything over 10 rounds in a magazine I'm now going to be packing 45 rounds of 180 grain hollow points, nearly a full box, when I carry.

As I said in the comments for the online order at Shooters Connection, "I read banned books. I shoot banned (or soon to be banned) guns."

---

Update: I was too angry when I wrote the above and wasn't thinking clearly. Bolt action rifles aren't covered by the proposed ban (yet). The short version of the legalese below is that nearly all my semi-auto firearms are to be banned. If already have such a firearm you can either turn it in, with no compensation, to the police for destruction (once such an evil gun has been in the hands of private ownership it cannot ever again be trusted, even in the hands of the police), register it, or deactivate it. The registration option means you have to not only allow the police to visit your assault weapon storage facility yearly you have to pay them to do that and to do a yearly background check on you. Yes, this bill was introduced in 2005. But it will be back in the next session. The battle for freedom never ends.

---

Here's the details from the anti-freedom bigots in Washington State:

(18) "Assault weapon" means:

(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

5 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

6 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

7 possesses any of the following:

8 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

9 rear of the trigger;

10 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

11 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

12 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

13 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

14 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

15 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

16 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

17 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

18 telescoping stock;

19 (iv) A barrel shroud;

20 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

21 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

22 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

23 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

24 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

25 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

26 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

27 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

28 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

29 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

30 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

31 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

32 under the control of any person.

33 (19) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which

34 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

35 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

36 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

37 (20) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is

38 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

p. 5 SB 5475

1 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

2 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

3 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

4 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

5 or completely encircle the barrel.

6 (21) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a

7 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

8 (22) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of

9 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

10 (23) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts

11 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

12 weapon.

13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

14 to read as follows:

15 (1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase,

16 sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon

17 conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.

18 Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture,

19 possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited

20 under this section is a public nuisance.

21 (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her

22 control at one time both of the following:

23 (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or

24 shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and

25 (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains

26 more than ten rounds of ammunition.

27 (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the

28 following:

29 (a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of

30 permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.

31 Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be

32 destroyed;

33 (b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer

34 or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that

35 agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;

36 (c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed

SB 5475 p. 6

1 on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally

2 possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements

3 of subsection (5) of this section;

4 (d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently

5 disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.

6 (4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:

7 (a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully

8 operated shooting range;

9 (b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially

10 sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part

11 for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.

12 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

13 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

14 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

15 (a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this

16 section, submit to a background check identical to the background check

17 conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed

18 gun dealer;

19 (b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a

20 firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of

21 the county in which the weapon is usually stored;

22 (c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

23 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

24 ensure compliance with this subsection;

25 (d) Annually renew both the registration and the background check;

26 (e) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

27 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

28 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

29 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

30 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

31 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

32 during transport.

33 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person

34 in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires

35 title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession,

36 shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:

37 (a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this

38 section;

p. 7 SB 5475

1 (b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of

2 this section; or

3 (c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable

4 of discharging a projectile.

5 (7) The sheriff of a county may charge a fee for each registration

6 and for each registration renewal pursuant to subsection (5) of this

7 section. However, such fee may not exceed the costs incurred in

8 administering the registration program established under subsection (5)

9 of this section.

10 (8)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of

11 this section is guilty of a class C felony.

12 (b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this

13 section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

14 (9) Any violation of this section shall also result in the

15 immediate revocation of the registration of every assault weapon

16 registered to such person.

17 (10) This section does not apply to:

18 (a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies,

19 or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting

20 within the scope of their duties;

21 (b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the

22 national guard or organized services, when on duty;

23 (c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to

24 possess assault weapons; or

25 (d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing,

26 or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the

27 person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so

28 and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.

From the Greg Hamilton to English Dictionary by Meredith Robinson:

Dry Fire Target: Fluffy (or Cat).

Greg Hamilton
Firearms Instructor
[I've been doing a lot of dry fire practice the last couple days because of the IPSC match tomorrow. We have two dogs and two cats in the house. I may sometimes tease Barb and Xenia about using the pets for dry fire practice but I never actually do that. It violates a fundamental gun safety rule. And in my classes I tell the story of a guy that accidently shot the family cat in the family room that way.--Joe]

I found this very interesting tidbit from my sitemeter:

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Maryland City  :  Potomac Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map) Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language		English (United States) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Last Page View		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.topix.net/us/atf
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 1 2006 8:11:13 am
Visit Number		116,927

http://www.topix.net/forum/us/atf gathers news and blog mentions of ATF and people at the US Department of Justice (hi!) visit those websites. I wonder what they thought of me saying "The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws."

Of particular interest to me is that the "User Agent" string of the browser included the unusual item "DOJ3jx7bf". This item looks like it might be a unique identifier for a particular Department of Justice computer. If so then one can find out what that particular computer/user has been viewing on all websites that you have access to the logs file for.

Hence, with the proper tools and a bit of smarts, one can watch the watchers. To that effect here is a sample which includes the search terms "harvey milk gay activist", "guns & jenny price", "john+pepper+ipsc", "dirty+gun+barrel+picture", "tannerite", and the always popular "how to make a bomb". We can also see some of the other sites our "friend" has been visiting. Examples include http://nfttu.blogspot.com/, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229822, and http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/001891.html.

One must not get too paranoid about being watched. This applies to both webmasters as well as our "friend" at the DOJ. As I was reminded by a fellow blogger at the Gun Bloggers Rendezvous a couple months ago, there are known friendlies in the government. I don't have any particular hostility toward any of the government workers I have met (certain politicians are different story--I would like to invited Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, and some others to permanently leave the country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs). But no matter how friendly they are most Federal workers are doing jobs that have no constitutional authority.

Note to my guests from the USDOJ and/or the ATF: You are quite welcome to leave a comment, send me an email, or get a legitimate job.

It’s like dealing with a pack of five-year-olds who are so developmentally stunted that they will never be able to learn anything every day it’s a repeat of the same old simple lessons: wipe your bottom before you pull your underpants up, not after!

Andrea Harris
Uncomfortably numb
November 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Regarding dealing with advocates of "global warming".
[It could just as well have been said about people in the anti-self-defense movement. Sometimes every single thing they say is wrong and/or can't possible work. Such as in this case.--Joe]

I was listening to the audio book version of Surely Your Joking, Mr. Feynman! the other day and Feynman told of trying to teach his artist friend about science in return for the artist to teach him about art. It turned out that Feynman was a much better artist than the artist was a scientist. In fact the artist couldn't get anywhere with science. And Feynman observed that it wasn't just artists. It was pervasive in our society and perhaps in the human species. I've run into it myself some even with people that appear at first glance to be above average in intelligence. The concept that Feynman expressed was that people think engineers and scientists can do anything. You just have to tell them what you want and they could build it if they wanted to. People think of us as magicians.

One of the examples Feynman mentioned was that he was asked to be an adviser to the military and after some reluctance agreed to attend a meeting or two to see if he could contribute. One of the problems the military wanted help solving was the refueling of tanks. As they advanced on the battlefield they would run out of fuel and needed to be refueled. Why didn't the scientists just create an engine that used sand for fuel? Then the tank could just have a little scoop on the bottom and refuel itself as it moved along.

We are not magicians. There are physical laws that we not only don't know how to break but can't be broken. We may find a loophole someday but that is a very risky bet. Politicians make laws that everyone knows how to break but I'm not sure people in general understand the difference.

To make things worse our politicians write laws as if we actually are magicians. The universal biometric identification card, fingerprints, airplane security searches, and "ballistic fingerprints" are just a few of the examples that are applicable to my domain of blogging. And what happens when science doesn't come through like the advocates want us to? They bury their head in the sand and insist it's working even when it's not and cannot possibly work. People will want to believe something so bad that they will believe it despite evidence to the contrary.

In the cases above there is a fundamental problem that many people don't realize exists. It's a MUCH different problem that many other hard problems scientists and engineers have been able to solve. You used to hear things like, "If we can put a man on the moon why can't we [fill in the blank]?" At one level I understand the feeling. Putting a man on the moon is so outside of our everyday experience that it would seem to be impossible. So why not solve something that would seem to be simple like identifying people? The fundamental difference is in one case you are "fighting" a nearly static "enemy", "Mother Nature", and in the other cases you are "fighting" an active thinking opponent.

I'm reminded of a quote that relates to this topic:

Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in wild areas have been difficult because, as one biologist put it, "There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." 

Richard Wabrek

The opponent you are defending against in the case of the identification, airplane security and garbage container problems is constantly getting smarter. The earth, it's atmosphere, the moon, gravity, and the dumbest tourists are not getting smarter.

Because of this fundamental difference in the nature of the problems any solution you find against an active opponent is likely to be short lived. In the case of a bear or a virus it may be possible to find a permanent solution. In the case of human opponents I think that in all cases it will be an unwinnable arms race. Solutions will come and with time and some smarts the opponents will defeat them with perhaps as little as one billionth as much money and effort as the solution builders put into it. The only question will be is, "Did we spend our money wisely on that solution?" Did we buy enough time before the solution was defeated to make the expenditure worthwhile? Or could we have spent that money on something else that would have been a better return on the dollar?

This concept can be extended even further. Think of the war on certain drugs and firearm bans. There is an active human opponent the solution provider is fighting. Those are battles that cannot be won.

The lawyer in Oregon that was arrested by the FBI because they "identified" his fingerprints on materials related to the bombing of the train station in Spain is going to be getting $2M from the U.S. taxpayers:

Two years ago the FBI branded Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield a terror suspect, secretly searched his house and eavesdropped on his conversations with his family and co-workers.

On Wednesday, Justice Department officials agreed to pay Mayfield $2 million to settle one part of his lawsuit for his wrongful arrest in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people.

Mayfield, a former Army officer, also got a formal apology. And the settlement allows him to continue his legal challenge to the USA Patriot Act, which Mayfield charges violates the Fourth Amendment by permitting government searches without demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

"The United States acknowledges that the investigation and arrest were deeply upsetting to Mr. Mayfield, to Mrs. Mayfield and to their three young children," said Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, in a prepared statement. "And the United States regrets that it mistakenly linked Mr. Mayfield to this terrorist attack."

Mayfield believed he was singled out because of his Muslim faith. FBI agents, however, insisted that his arrest was based on a faulty fingerprint identification that linked him to the attack.

Either way, Mayfield's arrest is one of the FBI's most embarrassing episodes in its five-year campaign to detect terrorist cells inside the United States.

The case also cast doubt on the accuracy of the FBI's troubled fingerprint-identification program and raised questions about sweeping anti-terror measures passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Mayfield, 40, was detained for two weeks after agents matched the print of his left index finger with one found on a bag of detonators connected to the Madrid attack.

What most people don't know is that fingerprint identification is often as much an art as a science. Sure if you have excellent quality prints from the nice man carefully rolling your inked finger back and forth on the fingerprint card even a computer can match that to another fingerprint card carefully made some other time. But if they have a smeared fingerprint left from you gripping a textured hand railing, or just the tips of your fingers from typing on the keyboard, or if you soaked your fingers in bleach the night before it's not clear whether you can get a match at all. And if you are elderly and do a lot of hand labor then the nice man may not even have usable fingerprints from your carefully inked and rolled fingers on the card.

But the U.S. legal system has a tremendous amount of case law built up that says a fingerprint match is positive identification. The problem is there aren't good standards for what constitutes a "match". How many little arches and swirls much be in agreement before it's considered good enough that no one else could have left those fingerprints at the crime scene? Or how may discrepancies can exist before the defense can argue that it definitely wasn't the suspect that left them? The courts have left it up to "experts" to decide. And the experts don't agree. The "science" of fingerprints isn't science. You can get two "experts" to look at identical data and reach opposite conclusions. And what of the ability to spoof fingerprints? It's not that difficult. And you leave some pretty high quality fingerprints on those soda cans you recycle, the water glass at the restaurant, and restroom door at work.

Until the case above the FBI experts had a much lower threshold for an "identical match" than did the forensic experts in other countries. And I don't think this issue has been settled yet. I expect there will be other cases where the "experts" want to "help" or have pressure put on them to claim matches when there shouldn't be. Innocent people will be arrested, imprisoned, and perhaps sometimes even executed because of shaky fingerprint evidence.

A good part of the problem is that many people think of science as some sort of magic that can give black and white solutions to almost anything. In some cases it can but in others it's simply not possible. But that's beyond the scope of this post. So I'll save that for later.