I swear, I've never built a bomb and can't be considered a bomb making expert as some would like to claim. But that doesn't mean I don't know a little something about them. I'm going to share some of that now. The motivation at this time is this post by Michelle Malkin:

...suspected al Qaeda agent and illegal alien Nabil al-Marabh obtained a license permitting him to drive semi-trucks containing hazardous materials, including explosives and caustic materials.

Knowledge is power and giving you this knowledge gives you a little more power to save lives. Perhaps even your own life.

According to the little laminated card from the ATF I have on my cork board here at work the following minimum evacuation distances should be observed:

• Compact sedan (500 pounds of explosives): 1500 feet or 0.28 miles
• Full sized sedan (1,000 pounds of explosives): 1750 feet or 0.33 miles
• Passenger van or cargo van (4,000 pounds of explosives): 2750 feet or 0.52 miles
• Small box van (10,000 pounds of explosives): 3750 feet or 0.71 miles
• Box van or water/fuel truck (30,000 pounds) of explosives: 6500 feet or 1.23 miles
• Semi-trailer (60,000 pounds of explosives): 7000 feet or 1.33 miles

Keep this in mind--we are at war even if we don't want to be at war. We would be at war even we had no troops outside our borders. The enemy brought the war to us and wants to bring it to us again. Using our own equipment and our own materials is one of the ways they can do that.

I didn't realize it but while I was making fun of Say Uncle he was doing battle against the forces of evil (well... the collectivists anyway which are evil in my book) that took issue to some things I said here. He and I were both called on for dismissing the possibility the 2^nd Amendment refers to a collective right. Although I'm sure he is right to say I have covered it in adequate detail it hasn't been done as the primary focus of a blog posting with all the attention that would entail. I remedy that now in an attempt at forgiveness for not jumping to his side earlier in his battle against the collectivists.

One of the arguments made was that "better minds" had concluded the 2^nd Amendment referred to a collective right. Argument by authority is not entirely trustworthy yet it certainly can provide a good starting point. To that end I quote some authorities on constitutional law:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture.  They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Alan Dershowitz
Quoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

And from perhaps an even greater authority:

Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one:  Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state.  But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit.  Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias.  That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Laurence Tribe
American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000)

[Update July 2008:]

From the highest authority--the Supreme Court of the United States in D.C. v. Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[End update.]

A lesser authority:

...we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of inte rpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

U.S. Department of Justice

Keep in mind when reading the following that states and other government bodies are created and given powers by their constitutions. Hence if the object of the 2^nd Amendment right were the states then the following makes no sense to say it does not depend on the Constitution for it's existence.

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

But as I said argument by authority is not entirely to be trusted so lets apply some other tests.

• Does it make sense for the 2nd Amendment to refer to a collective/states right when nearly all of the states that have a right to keep and bear arms clause make it clear they refer to it as in individual right? See for example the Washington State Constitution: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
• Does it make sense for the 1st Amendment to refer to a collective/state right when it refers to "the people" in, "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."? If not then why should it in reference to the 2nd Amendment?
• Does it make sense for the 4th Amendment to refer to a collective/state right when it refers to "the people" in, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."? If not then why should it in reference to the 2nd Amendment?
• Does it make sense for the 10th Amendment to refer to a collective/state right when it refers to "the people" in, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."? If not then why should it in reference to the 2nd Amendment?

The writers and debaters of the Bill of Rights did not chose their words carelessly. Not only did they know it was a very important document it was reviewed, scrutinized, rewritten, and argued over in very fine detail. When they meant "the States" they said "the States". One would be very hard pressed to make the case they meant "the States" in the 2nd Amendment when it's obvious they meant for "the people" to mean individuals in all other cases.

So how did this "collective right" hypothesis come about? Joyce Malcolm has what I believe to be the best view on that. The short version is as follows:

Early in the twentieth century when American whites, fearful of blacks in the South and the millions of foreign immigrants in the North, wanted to restrict access to firearms, alternative readings of the amendment gained credence. In the absence of serious scholarship, constructions that reduced or eliminated the individual right to be armed seemed plausible, especially in light of the awkward construction of the Second Amendment and the sparse congressional debates during its drafting, both of which relied upon common understandings of the value of a society of armed individuals that had faded over time. These new interpretations emphasized the dependent clause referring to the militia, to the neglect of the main clause's guarantee to the people. The theory developed that the Second Amendment was merely intended to enhance state control over state militia; that it embodied a "collective right" for members of a "well-regulated" militia--today's National Guard--to be armed, not a personal right for members of a militia of the whole people, let alone for any individual. Even when an individual right was conceded, the amendment was proclaimed a useless anachronism.

The case upon which all other cases that have found the 2^nd Amendment does not protect an individual right is United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939). But this ruling is misunderstood. Here is the critical portion:

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 d efense.

This was interpreted by other courts to mean that unless the individual had some reasonable relationship to "a well regulated militia" that the individual was not protected by the 2^nd Amendment. But that's not what the above passage says. It says the 2^nd Amendment cannot be said to guarantee the right to keep and bear the instrument, the shotgun, or weapon. And this is because the 2^nd Amendment only protects weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment or that could contribute to the common defense. Hence the military M-16 and AK-47s are protected by the 2nd Amendment but the 30-30 hunting rifle is not.

The above interpretation is not just my personal, non-lawyer, view. See also U.S. versus Emerson where the appeals courts said:

We conclude that Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.  Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position.

Hence I conclude that the 2^nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right.

But I tend to avoid getting into all this because most people don't care about the details of the law, the history, etc. They are concerned about safety and security. A piece of paper written by a bunch of dead white guys, many of whom owned slaves, doesn't get any traction with them. For those people I have Just One Question.

We conclude that Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.  Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States of America versus Timothy Joe Emerson
October 16, 2001

The Ohio Senate overrode the anti-gun bigot Ohio Governor who vetoed a common sense gun law on concealed carry. It will be months or perhaps years before the cities and counties actually obey the law and stop persecuting people who choose to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights (the Ohio state Constitution is more clear than the Federal Constitution on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms). But it's a downhill fight for a while.

See also:

• With Senate Vote, Legislature Overrides Taft Gun Bill Veto WHIO TV
• Senate votes to override Taft veto of state gun law Columbus Dispatch
• Senate overrides Taft's gun law veto Oxford Press
• Senate overrides Taft gun veto Cincinnati Enquirer
• Lawmakers override governor gun law veto Akron Beacon Journal

Something I noticed in the articles is that they were all very factual. No "blood in the streets" rhetoric. Just this from the bigot Toby Hoover who has been in the news for years wailing about how dangerous people are if they exercise their rights:

The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, which opposes concealed carry, accused lawmakers of giving in to the powerful and politically generous National Rifle Association.

"The passage of HB 347 and the override of Gov. Taft's veto is an appalling arrogance against the will of and respect for the people of Ohio to govern themselves," executive director Toby Hoover said in a statement.

It's an emotional appeal but it is not the usual stuff said about gun owners being a threat to humanity. Very nice.

Congratulations to the people of Ohio that have been working on this for many years. Take a week off to celebrate then get back to work. There is still lots to be done.

Whenever someone says something to the effect that the Bill of Rights grants something or another or the Constitution gives the average person something I have a strong urge to swat them alongside the head. The Constitution only gives the government certain enumerated powers. I correct people that make such mistakes and will not converse further with them on the topic of politics until they acknowledge the truth of that. Once they verify the correctness of my remembrance of the wording of the BOR and the Constitution we can then have a meaningful discussion even if we disagree on a few particulars.

This means, as it was stated in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876), "This is not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;..."

I'm reminded of this because people in the UK are exercising their rights to keep and bear arms even though it has been severely infringed. Thanks to The War on Guns for pointing this out:

A widow who lives alone in a Wiltshire farmhouse has taken to sleeping with a Smith & Wesson Saturday Night Special under her pillow. It belonged to her husband and is more than capable of stopping an intruder, of which she has had three in the last two years.

When she goes shopping in Swindon, she slips a can of Mace into her handbag in case of assault. "Bought it at the ironmongers in Bergerac," she says. "Much more effective than an Asbo."

A senior civil servant, now retired and living in a remote house near Losthwithiel in Cornwall, believes in the efficacy of a small-calibre .22 pistol. It was easy to buy without a licence or proof of identity in rural France, where they are used to kill vermin.

...

...increasingly they are brought back from Europe by car.

HM Revenue and Customs figures confirm this, showing an increase in weaponry seized at ports. For instance, 842 stun guns were intercepted by searches in 2005, an eight-fold increase year on year.

Most weapons seized are from respectable people worried about their security. Mace, pepper spray and metal-spring batons, illegal here, are easily and lawfully acquired in Europe, while high-calibre pistols can be bought in the Czech Republic.

I read the unofficial Parker transcript by K-Romulus Chronicles the other day but didn't bother to link to it here because I didn't want to take the time to explain any of the background and read between the lines for those "following along at home". Trigger Finger has done that. Unless you are really on top of the 2nd Amendment issues in todays courts its a very worthwhile read.

I've heard New Zealand was a great place to visit and live. I was told it was because how beautiful it is. Now I find out they were holding back on me:

NEW Zealand's prowess may lag that of Australia in most sporting pursuits but condom-maker Durex says it chose Kiwis to test its products because they are sexual champs.

Durex said New Zealanders were chosen to test-pilot their wares because they were among the most sexually active and adventurous in the world.

"Kiwis have proven they're a sexually energetic bunch, and therefore it makes sense that a select few will have the chance to try our latest condom innovation, all in the name of research,'' Durex NZ manager Victoria Potter said.

This may also explain why Mr. Completely married Kiwi.

In October at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous Say Uncle was telling a few of us about his efforts to stop smoking. The part I remember most went something like this, "After three days I'm at the point where I can either smoke a cigarette or choke my wife. So I go outside and smoke a cigarette." The next day he also told us he wasn't able to tell jokes but that is a different story which I didn't believe either.

Yesterday Uncle had this to say:

• The Airing of Grievances: Politics
• The Airing of Grievances: TeeVee
• The Airing of Grievances: Knoxville
• The Airing of Grievances: Computers & Technology
• The Airing of Grievances: Bloggin’
• The Airing of Grievances: Miscellaneous
• The Airing of Grievances: The Second Amendment

After reading the details of his grievances it sounds to me like he hasn't smoked a cigarette for a couple weeks. Has anyone checked on his wife recently?

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Albert Einstein
[We now know what WW III is being fought with. I wonder if Einstein will be correct about WW IV.--Joe]

When faced with important decisions, it helps to understand the situation as completely as possible.  In light of all the facts, and with an understanding of history, one can usually see the right choice, or the right set of options, with little difficulty.  Knowing Hamas and their ideology, it then becomes impossible to understand why anyone would want to compromise with them without coming to the conclusion that it is only because of an overwhelming desire to avoid reality.

This from our friend in Jerusalem:

Friends:
The Palestinian Authority's President, a Hamas member, is in Iran.  He says Hamas will never accept the State of Israel.  More, the only acceptable way to be rid of Israel is by force of arms. 
BELIEVE HIM.
Howard

Land for peace anyone?  I've spoken with several Leftists who either don't know what the Jihadis are saying, or do not believe them, or do not believe that their words are actually their words.  They instead attribute their hatred for the West to silly things like U.S. foreign policy or our "taking" (like we never pay for it-- to the tune of billions) of mideast oil (the fact there is, America is their best customer-- they should love us).

I suggest that if you want to know why they hate us, you might try listeneng to them.  Oh, but I understand that that wouldn't let you blame the U.S. and the Jews, or G.W. Bush, which seem to be the main goals for some Americans.

The stranglehold of oppression cannot be loosened by a plea to the oppressor's conscience. Social change in something as fundamental as racist oppression involves violence. You cannot have progress here without violence and upheaval because it is a struggle for survival for one and a struggle for liberation for the other. Always the powers in command are ruthless and unmerciful in defending their position and their privileges. This is not an abstract rule to be mediated upon by Americans. This a truth that was revealed at the birth of America and has continued to be revealed many times in our history. The principle of self-defense is an American tradition that began at Lexington and Concord.

Robert F. Williams
Negros With Guns
Chapter 7--Self-Defense: An American Tradition
Copyright 1962

I updated the Lewiston Pistol Club website with results from the last Action Pistol (IPSC) match and threw in some pictures. Not only did the snow not slow us down but Adam shot with his knee all messed up from sword fighting a few days earlier. He had surgery on it a couple days after these pictures. Adam is the guy sitting on toolbox with his left leg out straight in the last picture.

Saturday evening Xenia went to the dance with Jesse. Never mind she is engaged to another guy. Jesse is gay so it didn't matter. Jesse came over early and had dinner with Barb, Xenia, Sara, and I. I took some pictures and about 21:30 or so Jesse and Xenia left for the dance. Xenia tells the rest of the story with a bunch of pictures. Here are some pictures she didn't post:

Sara and Jesse

Dmitri and Xenia

One of the skunks

The following was from the Google discussion group "Lewiston Pistol" discussing the next steel match--which happens to be scheduled for Christmas Eve. Numerous people contributed. With the names removed to protect the guilty:

As the scripture sayeth: Where 2 or 3 are gathered there shooting is also.

(Gospel of St. John Moses Browning Chapter 9 Verse 45)

I shall gather at the range with thee and we shall make joyful noises of gunfire and shall celebrate the goodness that St. JM Browning hath bestowed upon us.

Those that doth present unto the Range Officer a Glock shall be cast out for these are an abomination unto the eyes of holy men.

Yay I say unto you that you are correct and I shall hopefully be there with bells on.

And for those for whom there is a great wailing heard in the house let he say unto her "Get thee back to the kitchen woman and know thy place for I am man and I am required to worship this day at the cathedral of St. Browning." and unto the male spawn of thy loins say unto them "go forth and fetch thine own range bag and pistol for thou shalt come and worship in the cathedral with thine father and learn the ways of men" and unto the female spawn of thy loins say unto them "thou are not yet forsaken from the cathedral of St. Browning and thou canst join thy father therein and worship in the proper manner for the order of St. Browning needeth more members of the fairer sex. Fear thee not the perverts that thou hast seen thy father associating with for they are harmless if thou be not a sheep. The choice be thine own."

And Lo! the not-so-wise men were guided to that place by a great column of smoke; bringing with them gifts of lead, Hoppes #9, and Dickel. There they did make a joyful noise unto Heaven and St. John Cooper looked down upon them and saw that it was good. For though the not-so-wise men be rebuked and cast out upon the sofa in their dwelling places for a fortnight they were were blessed for their righteousness and suffered not the high primer until the end of their days. But them that feareth the wrath of their females and shooteth not woe unto them! For plauges were visited upon them: of misfires and rounds which squibbeth, and their lubrication abideth not in the crevices of their slides.

I received an email asking my opinion about this article. The important part is the following:

The death of Alexander Litvinenko by radiological poisoning points to the possibility that the former Soviet spy may have been involved with Islamic terrorists in the preparation of tactical nuclear weapons for use in the jihad against the United States and its NATO allies.

Litvenenko, a former KGB agent, died in London on November 23 after ingesting a microscopic amount of polonium-210.

...

Litvinenko, who was born an orthodox Christian, was a convert to Islam with close ties to the Chechen rebels. His last words consisted of his desire to be buried “according to Muslim tradition.”

...

The neutron source or “triggers” of the suitcase nukes are composed of beryllium-9 and polonium-210. When these two elements are combined, the alpha particle is absorbed by the nucleus of the beryllium causing it to decay by emitting a neutron. Such “triggers” were a feature of early nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Soviet stockpiles.

Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138 days, necessitating the replacement of the triggers every six months. For this reason, the suitcase nukes are far from maintenance-free. In addition, the nuclear core of these devices emit a temperature in excess of one hundred degrees Fahrenheit - - further exposing the weapons to oxidation and rust. Small wonder that al Qaeda operatives including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who are spearheading “the American Hiroshima” have received extensive training in nuclear technology.

I'm a little annoyed at the article. The physics are non-sensical. Things don't "emit a temperature". They can emit radiation of various types which could include infra-red energy which could be called "heat". They might generate enough heat to maintain a temperature of 100 degrees F while stored at room temperature. And a temperature of 100F does not necessitate "further exposure to oxidation and rust". That makes me a little bit more skeptical than I normally would be.

I haven't read much more than the headlines in the spy poisoning case so I really can address the question and comment accompanying the link:

Sounds a little far fetched. Have you heard anything similar? If it is actually true, it would mean there are mushroom clouds planned for sometime in the next six months. The biggest Christian holiday is Christmas........

Something to keep in mind this holiday season.

I'm going to make sure I know where my Geiger counter is and that it's working. Lots of other safety gear to check up on as well. There's not much else I can do. We can all "thank" the bigoted felons at PNNL for taking me out of this fight.

For those of you who say the press is out to get us, I say NONSENSE. I have dealt with virtually every major news organization in the USA and certainly every credible media outlet in Illinois. I have always got a fair shake in the press. You just have to give the press a story. The anti-gunners are just plain better at doing that than gun owners. They bring heart rendering emotion to the debate, we bring facts and figures. One picture of a dead boy with a grieving mother beats a 1,000 John Lott’s.

John Birch
President Concealed Carry Inc.
December 5th, 2006
Concealed Carry, Inc. Closes Doors For Good
[The experience of Mr. Birch is consistent with mine--as long as you go to the press first. If they came to you after being alerted by the anti-gun bigots then you were at risk of being treated like Martin Luther King, Jr. at a Klan rally.--Joe]

I found this quite appealing for some reason. Probably related to me liking sick humor. From Kim:

Something to point out to the non gunnies. The slide is locked back and there is no magazine. In this context this means the gun has been shot empty.

This is just part of the reason. This was the view out our living room window last Saturday. Picture by Sara.

In the Seattle area they stop shooting action pistol matches in the wintertime. Here is the calender for the Snoqualmie Rifle Club. Notice that in October they have an Action Pistol match on the second Saturday but nothing on November or December. For the Northwest Section of the USPSA notice for December there are no matches at Custer, Kitsap, Marysville, or Renton.

Here in Idaho we have matches all year long. The first time I shot my STI at a match here it was -10F. I was careful to lubricate it for the weather and I had no problems. Some others were shooting as if they had single shots. The slide would come back and usually eject the shell casing but then it would creep forward so slow that it would stop when it tried to strip the next round off of the top of the magazine. They would have to manually assist their gun by slamming the slide forward with the heel of their hand after every shot.

Last week at the IPSC match it was fairly warm, in the upper 20's, but there was snow on the ground. No big deal. We had one of our larger turn outs and since it was so warm...

Those Seattle area shooters are all WIMPS!

It's 2:39 AM at Moscow High School on December 2nd. Xenia and Ms. Cooke the drama instructor. Xenia and Meghan had come in first in the entire state. It's been a long day and the appropriate level of excitement really wasn't showing:

Coming back from the Seattle area yesterday afternoon I snapped this picture. I was trying for 66 MPH but I think I missed.

Rather than cut off the bottom of the tree to make it fit in our living room Xenia figured it would be easier to cut off the top.

First she tried the bolt cutters but she wouldn't let me put any of those pictures up even though (perhaps because) I thought they were quite amusing.

[Shrug] The result is satisfactory.

While there is room for optimism, one presents a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court with great risk. New rights are discovered with extra-legal phraseology like “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” and explicit rights – to include core political speech – are swept away. The first case the Supreme Court takes on the merits of the individual-collective rights issue will be critical. This area of the law is no exception to the precept that the Court’s door should be knocked only with the utmost seriousness and preparation.

Stephen P. Halbrook
The Second Amendment in the Supreme Court: Where It's Been and Where It's Going
29 Hamline Law Review, No. 3, 449-59 (Summer 2006)

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.