The View From North Central Idaho

I think there is a little bit of projection going on here:

Politics also factors heavily into D.C. v. Heller, according to Henigan.

He said some state attorneys general — who are elected in 43 states — likely sided with Heller as a way to show constituents they support an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment, even as they seek to preserve their own state statutes regulating guns.

“These are political actors. They don’t want to appear to be endorsing a handgun ban,” Henigan said.

As you should already know:

• ATF agents raid Gilbert gun shop (I "love" this line, "ATF officials seize rifles and artillery in Gilberta")
• Gilbert gun dealer raided by federal agents
• Gilbert firearms business raided by ATF over suspected violations
• CavArms raided by the ATFE
• Cavalry Arms Update
• The BATFU Horse and Pony Show
• Cavalry Arms Update: "Seize Everything"
• Cavalry Arms raided by the Feds
• ATF RAIDS ANOTHER FIREARMS MFG - CAVALRY ARMS.
• Cavalry Arms Raided by ATF
• ATF raids Firearms Manufacturer...for suspicions of fraud and money laundering
• Cavalry Arms raided by ATF today

The ATF Special Agent doing the talking in this video about Cavalry Arms is no stranger:

I've blogged about him before.

His cell phone number and email, as of last month, are 602-859-6317 and Thomas.mangan@atf.gov.

Here are some other times he has appeared in the news and what he said:

• "Operation Tarnished Eagle" Thwarts Plot to Overthrow the Government of Laos (June 4, 2007)
• Gun smuggling increases (December 28, 2007)
• ATF agents find large firearms cache in Phoenix — some 'weapons of war' (December 27, 2007)
• ATF: Stolen explosives found with firearms, chop-shop (December 24, 2005)
• Feds probe attempt to buy ammonium nitrate (January 5, 2005)

''These are, quite frankly, weapons of war,'' ATF special agent Tom Mangan said as he picked up an assault rifle and examined it. "These are military-type weapons. This is firepower you would expect to see on the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Agents said Thursday they found the 42 weapons in a storage locker about 10 days ago. The guns were worth $250,000 in all: Belgian-made ''FN'' handguns, semiautomatic AK-47 rifles and other pistols. They also found four olive boxes loaded with .50-caliber bullets - ammunition that's big enough to take out an airplane.

''The type of firepower you're seeing here is on the increase,'' he said. ''You're seeing sophisticated weapons, military weapons, assault-type weapons, assault pistols, very expensive pistols. This level of fire power gives criminals options they haven't had before.''

Put him on your list of people to be charged with violation of 18 USC 242.

If we could reverse history and engage the gun lobby back when they started their cynical campaign to convince Americans they have a "right to own guns" then our politics would certainly be in a different place. But it's too late now and the gun lobby's well-armed genie is out of the bottle.

Mike of Gun Guys
February 29, 2008
In-Depth Commentary: Candidates Quiet On Gun Issues
[Never mind that he is wrong about individuals having the right to keep and bear arms. What is more important is that he (and gun grabbers in general) are giving up on this battle and focusing their attention on "reasonable restrictions" on that right. We need to finish off the individual rights campaign (Heller) and then engage and destroy them on the "reasonable restriction" front.--Joe]

ATF Seizes Weapons At Gun Warehouse and the talking head says:

It's still not clear if the nature of the investigation is as serious as the evidence implies.

Except the only evidence is that the licensed gun dealer, Cavalry Arms Corporation, had guns in a warehouse which the ATF put out on tables to show the media.

The serious part of the evidence is the ATF and the media cooperated to demonize gun possession.

Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. What is this dictatorship for? Its first function is to suppress the reactionary classes and\ elements and those exploiters in our country who resist the socialist revolution, to suppress those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other words, to resolve the internal contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence certain counterrevolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom of speech for a specified period of time - all this comes within the scope of our dictatorship. To maintain public order and safeguard the interests of the people, it is likewise necessary to exercise dictatorship over embezzlers, swindlers, arsonists, murderers, criminal gangs and other scoundrels who seriously disrupt public order. The second function of this dictatorship is to protect our country from subversion and possible aggression by external enemies. In that event, it is the task of this dictatorship to resolve the external contradiction between ourselves and the enemy. The aim of this dictatorship is to protect all our people so that they can devote themselves to peaceful labour and build China into a socialist country with a modern industry, agriculture, science and culture.

Chairman Mao Ts-Tung
Little Red Book
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
(February 27, 1957), 1^st pocket ed., pp. 6-7.
[Yeah, I'm a day late with this one. Does anyone even know how many people were murdered by this government whose aim was to "protect all our people" in the next 30 years after this proclamation was made? All dictators claim they are going to be benevolent and they will only crack down on the criminals. Of course then Ayn Rand's line from Atlas Shrugged immediately comes to mind. Which is precisely the situation we have with gun laws today and under an Obama regime things will only get worse. And all in the pursuit of an Utopian vision of a discredited philosopher with very little real world experience on the subjects he wrote about and who died over 100 years ago.--Joe]

First, my opinions are not those of my employer.

Second, I point you to the article titled EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn.

Third, I bring your attention to a comment about the fine following the article:

Microsoft MUST be brought to account for its' practice of dominating by exclusion. If the company, Microsoft, continues to practice in a manner which refuses to be competitive, then it should be excluded from the EU. Nicholas Carton, USA
Nicholas Carton, Saint Louis, Missouri USA

Fourth, my opinion:

If people only knew how much time and effort MS spends groveling and trying to please these socialist jerks...

I am sometimes (and this is one of those times) of the opinion MS should tell the EU, "Then do without any of our products. Not only will your languages not be supported but all future versions of our software will not run without having at least intermittent Internet access and will not run if said Internet path traverses any part of an EU country."

But that's an emotional response without looking at the cost/benefit numbers. Rational analysis will require looking out for the stockholders best interests on a number of fronts. I know such a response would allow competitors access to a cash cow as well as cutting off MS income from this source. I just can't help wondering at what point the EU will push MS too far and the numbers no longer add up to continue trying to please the greedy socialists.

I wish MS were in a position to demonstrate to the EU they need MS more than MS needs them and had the courage to follow through on a very forceful demonstration of that.

Headline: Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

As far as media coverage goes it's excellent. They got the Miller decision mostly wrong but otherwise they did very well with it. This is very good to see. Most MSM coverage of guns is more opinion than news coverage.

Uncle pointed out the video testimony in the house on National Park carry. I find it interesting that a letter written over a year ago by a bigot at the Department of Interior was brought up and challenged.

That letter has been a topic of mine before (and here).

I hope she is feeling the heat. Bigots opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution have no place in our government.

Kirk has the story.

As I said before this brand of stupidity will be laughed out of the legislature. The companies pushing this should try a free market approach to making money on bullets.

H/T to Uncle.

Let me get this straight...

The state wants me to pay a fee and ask me all kinds of personal questions to exercise a right...

The state wants to license every producer of firearms and require them to serial number everything they make, without room for error...

The state wants access to everyone's police and medical records...

The state wants a record of every transaction where a firearm changes hands...

The state wants me to submit to training despite the fact that I had two decades of prior experience and no negligent discharge, much less a crime...

The state wants to dictate where I may carry a firearm...

The state wants to dictate how I transport a firearm...

The state wants me to inform them where and when I move anywhere in the country...

The state doesn't trust me to report a theft, so they will automatically assume guilt if I don't...

The state doesn't trust me with certain types of firearms...

The state wants every bullet and case to have an identification...

The state doesn't trust me to defend my life without violating someone else's rights...

...and I'm the paranoid one?

TJH
February 26, 2008
In the comments to Bigot talk
[Imagine what the response would be if gays, Jews, blacks, etc. were required to adhere to such restrictions in order to exist in our country.--Joe]

Stephanie, of Boomershoot fame, has been trying to get Dave Barry (yes, the Dave Barry) to attend Boomershoot 2008. To further entice him she offered to blow up a low-flow (or whatever they are called) toilet for him. She received a call from an assistant who told her that Mr. Barry was already committed for the weekend. Then we received a postcard from Mr. Barry a few days ago:

It turns out there is more than one Dave Barry in the world and we will have a Dave Barry attending Boomershoot 2008. But not nearly as many people know of him as the one from Miami.

Sometimes you might think you are just "preaching to the choir" and the people that can make a difference don't listen no matter what you do.

Then there are other times when you think maybe someone in a position of power is paying attention:

Domain Name		senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		156.33.24.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP		U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 25 2008 7:56:41 am
Last Page View		Feb 25 2008 7:59:25 am
Visit Length		2 minutes 44 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co... state park firearms
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		idaho state park firearms
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/default.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/default.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 25 2008 10:56:41 am
Visit Number		255,384

Domain Name		senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		156.33.24.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP		U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; InfoPath.2)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 25 2008 7:23:21 am
Last Page View		Feb 25 2008 7:25:12 am
Visit Length		1 minute 51 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/02/22/WoooHooo.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/02/22/WoooHooo.aspx
Out Click		The View From North Central Idaho http://blog.joehuffman.org/default.aspx
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 25 2008 10:23:21 am
Visit Number		255,369

You just have to shake your head at times. Some people are so bigoted it's almost beyond belief:

Today, guns are generally preferred by paranoid sociopaths, cowards and vigilantes — as guns have become the implement of choice for the increasing numbers of street gangsters, criminals and domestic terrorists. The profuse abundance of guns and bullets (which is, of course, gained through a provision of capitalist profit in that area of industry) allows for the unhindered pursuit of their endeavors.

[...]

What the American people need to clearly understand is the U.S. Constitution is intended to disallow such an introduction of danger and fear into our society. The only way to right a wrong is with a right. The most basic civil right is that of being free from harm.

Today, we are assigned the important responsibility of instructing our representatives in government, to lead with measures which assure our safety and security. The current over-production and indiscriminate distribution of firearms and ammunition must be outlawed and the participants disengaged.

This guy, Mark S. Fuller of Gloucester Massachusetts, is an anti-capitalist, has extremely negative views of gun owners, as well as having no clue as to what a right is. The ignorance and bigotry are mind boggling.

When the government controls your paycheck, your housing, and your ration card, it doesn't need to put you in jail; you are in jail.

Megan McArdle
February 25, 2008
HOPELESS IN HAVANA
[I fear we are about to learn this lesson first hand.

H/T to Kirby for the email pointing this out.--Joe]

Official news release from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

With an estimated 60,000 attendees and more than 400 exhibits, this year's Annual Meetings and Exhibits promises to be among the best in NRA's 137-year history. Leading firearm manufacturers will display the firearm industry's latest products. Various hunting and shooting accessories, and an extensive private collection displayed by NRA-affiliated gun collector clubs, will fill acres of convention space.

NRA's Annual Meetings and Exhibits provide a safe and fun atmosphere the whole family can enjoy. The ever-popular air rifle range is a top attention-grabber -- both for participants and observers. NRA offers diverse presentations throughout the three-day convention, including methods of concealed carry; Refuse to Be a Victim® Seminars; hunting in Africa; and the Firearms Law Seminar. This year promises more Special Sessions for members and guests than ever before, and the most popular session, Methods of Concealed Carry, will be offered twice (on two different days).

I'm going to be there. Will you?

640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Bill Gates
1981
[I'm listening, live, to Bill Gates tell us his vision for the future of our group. I'm reminded to not take everything he says as the word of god.--Joe]

Via an email from Jason (who says, "Makes losing your rights fun!") I discover there are toys to "help children understand and be comfortable and confident in the need and process of higher security protocols":

• Scan-It Operation Checkpoint Toy XRay
• Operation Checkpoint: Scan-It Toy X-Ray Machine
• Playmobil Security Check Point

My guess is there were similar things for the slightly older kids of the Hitler Youth.

After doing some thinking on the topic of microstamped bullets I've changed my opinion. I was vehemently opposed and couldn't imagine this would catch on. I was wrong on both accounts. I now think it is a great idea and I think it will do exceptionally well and will be accepted by the majority of shooters.

What I realized was the company pushing this (see Sebastian's post) was trying to use a government mandate instead of the free market. Which, of course, is nearly always a recipe for disaster. They will get much greater market acceptance with a free market approach.

I think that there are a lot of people that would pay another penny per bullet for something like "Mist Maker" engraved on their Speer TNT bullets. I'd pay an extra $0.02 per bullet so I could load up 9mm jacketed hollow points inscribed with "Please Don't Rape" for the women in my life to carry. In my case even at an extra $0.05 per bullet I'd order 1000 Berger .308 caliber 210 Grain Match VLD's engraved with Μολὼν λαβέ.

Assuming that either the left wing or the right wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles.

Pat Paulsen
[With all due respect to Paulsen I think the more likely result would be a crash. I wish Paulsen were still alive and running for president this year. We could use the comic relief and perhaps even a viable alternative.--Joe]

Sunday morning, February 24th, position 49 will become available at 8:00 AM.

Sign up here: http://entry.boomershoot.org/. Only online entries will be accepted. Call if you have questions, but you must sign up via that web page.

Ry graphically demonstrates what reasonable restrictions look like under a Obama regime.

It sounds like something is miswired in the brain. I've talked to women that were true sex addicts and women who took drugs to reduce their sexual desire to managable levels, but this is significantly different:

PSAS, identified and named just six years ago, remains a mysterious condition that thousands of women wish they didn't have. They are constantly on the edge of orgasm regardless of time, place or circumstance. And while this situation might sound desirable, funny or just plain weird it is actually akin to being a prisoner: a nightmarish reality where a woman's body acts independently of her own desires.

ABC News spoke with four women who all experience unwanted sexual sensations. Heather Dearmon, Nancy Austin, and two women who requested anonymity (referred to as Lauren and Emily) all suffer from unintended sexual arousal.

"It's unwanted sexual sensations in your vagina," Dearmon said.

"And sex doesn't help it," Lauren said. "Orgasm doesn't relieve it, sometimes it makes it stronger. This is to me, irritating, torture."

It's a sad situation. Apparently there is an exception to Dr. Joe's cure for everything.

[H/T to Phil for pointing it out to me.]

It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you.

Dick Cheney
[While this may be true I keep wondering if enough people really notice when its been taken. Intrusive, pointless searches at airports, "Real ID", socialized medicine, firearm restrictions, McCain-Feingold, the Kelo decision, etc. I think a worse problem is that it is too easy to accept your chains. That has not always been the case and I wonder why.--Joe]

This restriction has directly impacted me for years. Barb and I love visiting National Parks. If we get this through then our visits will be far less stressful:

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

Reading the fine print what this really means is that a major offensive has been opened in our battle against the anti-gun bigots on one front. We probably will win but we still have work to do. This is just a commitment to go through the process, including public input, to change the policy. Barb and I have a rule regarding good news. We'll believe it when "the check clears the bank".

Thanks go to former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne (currently Secretary of Interior), Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), and NRA-ILA.

A glimpse into the future:

Berlin - The German parliament approved tighter gun-control laws on Friday in a move designed to stop the spread of violent crime. The new legislation bans the carrying of replica firearms and so-called airsoft guns as well as certain types of knives.

With so much real world data available you would think they wouldn't even try to get away with publishing something like this. But these people have mental problems so I guess it's not too surprising, just frustrating. This nut case is classified under projection:

Concealed carry safety is a fantasy

Some people say we need to let college students have the right to carry concealed weapons so that they can protect themselves and others. Here's a possible scenario:

Dear Diary:

Well, here I am in my Physics 202 class at NTU, ready for another boring lecture by the professor's assistant. I feel really good today, 'cause I've got my new Ruger 7-shot automatic in my backpack and a box of extra ammo too.

Makes the backpack a little bit heavy, so I think I'll toss out a couple of boring textbooks when I get back to the dorm. I sure hope some intruder will burst into the lecture hall one of these days so that I can shoot him!

Meanwhile, several friends and I are thinking about taking our automatics to the game against State U tomorrow night. We're only a half game behind in the standings and if any of those State guys start smarting off to our coach or players, we'll know how to handle them at half time!

It's so great now that even 18-year olds can pack heat. Is this a great country, or what! Well, diary, I'd better sign off now, 'cause that lecturer is writing some sort of formula on the board and I guess I'd better start paying attention.

Whoa! One of the kids on the other side of the room just stood up and has started shooting people! The teaching assistant just went down, and he's bleeding!

I'll just get my gun out of my backpack and get it loaded in a second and I'll fix him! Oh no! He's pointing that gun at me now! Oh.....

Kurt Thoss

The black market was a way of getting around government controls. It was a way of enabling the free market to work. It was a way of opening up, enabling people.

Milton Friedman
[Speaking of black markets...

Something to keep in mind is a tax greater than 15% on an item is the threshold at which a black market is created. Think of all the things that are taxed at rates greater than that. Then remember than in a black market you don't have the court/justice system to enforce contracts. Which means contract disputes are settled privately--frequently with violence. One further point before I deliver the punch line, it is exceedlying rare that a criminal pays taxes on his income. Thus $100K/year in criminal income is more like $175K/year in legal income. Hence high taxes not only create crime in the form of a black market and their methods of dispute settlements but high taxes make criminal income more attractive than legal income. Big government doesn't keep us safe from crime, it creates crime.--Joe]

This article is very interesting for two reasons. The first is:

A group led by a Princeton University computer security researcher has developed a simple method to steal encrypted information stored on computer hard disks.

The technique, which could undermine security software protecting critical data on computers, is as easy as chilling a computer memory chip with a blast of frigid air from a can of dust remover. Encryption software is widely used by companies and government agencies, notably in portable computers that are especially susceptible to theft.

The development, which was described on the group’s Web site Thursday, could also have implications for the protection of encrypted personal data from prosecutors.

The move, which cannot be carried out remotely, exploits a little-known vulnerability of the dynamic random access, or DRAM, chip. Those chips temporarily hold data, including the keys to modern data-scrambling algorithms. When the computer’s electrical power is shut off, the data, including the keys, is supposed to disappear.

In a technical paper that was published Thursday on the Web site of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the group demonstrated that standard memory chips actually retain their data for seconds or even minutes after power is cut off.

When the chips were chilled using an inexpensive can of air, the data was frozen in place, permitting the researchers to easily read the keys — long strings of ones and zeros — out of the chip’s memory.

“Cool the chips in liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) and they hold their state for hours at least, without any power,” Edward W. Felten, a Princeton computer scientist, wrote in a Web posting. “Just put the chips back into a machine and you can read out their contents.”

That's cool enough, but this is just as cool:

The issue of protecting information with disk encryption technology became prominent recently in a criminal case involving a Canadian citizen who late in 2006 was stopped by United States customs agents who said they had found child pornography on his computer.

When the agents tried to examine the machine later, they discovered that the data was protected by encryption. The suspect has refused to divulge his password. A federal agent testified in court that the only way to determine the password otherwise would be with a password guessing program, which could take years.

A federal magistrate ruled recently that forcing the suspect to disclose the password would be unconstitutional.

Not that a child pornographer may be able to get away with his crime but that you can password protect your data and the government can't force you to potentially incriminate yourself.

Another fish bit on my Just One Question lure--sort of.

Regarding your opinion piece here: http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/storage/paper951/news/2008/02/19/Opinion/OpEd-Gun.Control.Laws.Will.Save.Lives-3219311.shtml
 
I have just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
 
See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
 
Regards,
 
Joe Huffman

From: Bree Dalling
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:35 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Gun control laws will save lives

Hi Joe,
As I've explained before, I'm not proposing banning them, or fully restricting access to them. If you're a law-abiding citizen, then you won't have a problem. I'm saying put the people who aren't so law-abiding on several lists. If something changes with their status (they receive anything higher than a class A misdemeanor, or they start having mental health issues), then require them to turn their gun in for as long as it takes for them to get it taken care of and/or whatever happens with it. Notice that every single school shooting in the past few years has been from someone who went off their medications.

I will admit, I have yet to read your blog post. I will get to it once I finish my homework. I just wished to clarify my position.

Thanks,
Bree

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:41 PM
To: 'Bree Dalling'
Subject: RE: Gun control laws will save lives

I don’t know the details of the “several lists” you are proposing but I expect they already exist and are enforced in the form of NICS (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm).

As it is currently implemented my main gripe with NICS is that it consumes money without any measurable benefits. I agree one should expect it to make people safer but no one has been able to measure an improvement. It’s kind of like expecting you will get sick less often if you wash your hands frequently. But if your water supply is contaminated with raw sewage washing your hands just doesn’t make a difference. The real problem is that restrictions on the access to firearms can be, and has been, no more successful than restriction on access to recreational drugs or alcohol during prohibition.

But it gets worse than that because the restrictions end up prevent praiseworthy use of firearms such as self-defense. If someone with criminal intent wants to obtain a weapon they will without concern they are breaking the law—after all they intent to commit some other violent crime why would they be concerned about breaking a law in regards to gaining possession of a firearm? The potential victim(s) generally obey the law and hence restrictions on firearm access hinder them from using firearms as defensive tools. Thus we find that restrictions on firearms have both a positive benefit (it makes it somewhat more difficult for potential criminal use) and a negative benefit (less access for defensive use). The net effect is that people, on the average, are never safer after the restriction was put in place than before. If you want to look at specific people such as Stalin, Hitler, other tyrants, then yes, they were made safer by restricting access to weapons by their prey, but that isn’t an accomplishment any gun control advocate can be proud of.

Do your homework and get back to me if you feel like it.

Thanks for responding.

-joe-

Just released: Illinois shootings prove Brady Campaign is horribly wrong on guns.

It hits on the Brady scoring of Illinois in the top ten in terms of gun laws but the effect was to create government-enforced killing fields. Here is a sample:

The anti-self-defense extremists at the Brady Campaign – who have consistently battled common sense concealed carry laws that put law-abiding citizens on a level playing field with criminals and crazies – are real proud of themselves. They should be begging forgiveness for the horrific crimes that occur in shopping malls, on college and university campuses and anywhere else that their hysteria and political demagoguery have prevented sensible right-to-carry statutes from being enacted.

I like it.

In the U.K. the handguns were the object considered most important to ban as is generally the case in the U.S. However, in Australia they took the long guns first. But not wanting to show favoritism the Australia politicians are now demonizing handguns. And of course little things like facts are no obstacle to the anti-gun bigots:

"We need the same restrictions on handguns, automatic handguns, that the Howard government implemented on long guns after the Port Arthur massacre (in Tasmania) in 1996."

Automatic handguns were effectively machine guns and should be withdrawn from public availability, Senator Brown said.

I'm reminded of Goldilocks Gun Control (another version of the same story is here). But really, it's whatever works for them politically at the time. The only thing that is consistent is they they want more and more restrictions. There is never going to be a gun that is "just right" for people to have.

Josh Horwitz apparently believes if a government declares slavery for blacks, or extermination of Jews, or capital punishment for homosexuals the law of the land then the targeted people need to just accept it. Not only does he apparently believe it is true he wants to ensure such a government won't have to worry about serious resistance:

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.

Odd, isn't it, that the same set of people that just successfully overthrew a tyrannical government in the late 1770's would write a constitution with the intent the new government should be able to disarm the populace so future generations would not be able to do the very thing they had to do?

Of course the above is a rhetorical question. Horwitz has his head "in the sand" (this is a family friendly blog). If you read some of the amicus briefs you will see Horwitz gets his head handed to him.

The headline reads, Moore's Gun Control Proposal Is Shot Down By County Commissioners. But was more than that. It was more like stripped naked, body slammed, machine gunned, and urinated on:

County Commissioner Marie Moore’s proposed ordinance to restrict firearms use in the county was solidly rejected by her colleagues Monday night and she took a tongue-lashing from irate citizens as well.

Vale resident Sam Houser said that Moore’s proposal was a “waste of money and time” and urged that commissioners reprimand her for violating their rules by springing the idea on them without any discussion or public input at a meeting earlier this month.

Commissioners had scheduled  a public hearing on the idea for March 3, but their rejection of the ordinance Monday night ended the need for that.

Moore’s proposal would regulate firearms use near houses and occupied structures, but speaker-after-speaker told commissioners that laws are already on the books that would prosecute anyone who maliciously or careless fires a weapon.

Sheriff Tim Daugherty told commissioners he thought Moore’s proposal was unenforceable and said he didn’t want his deputies wasting their time chasing down and investigating calls that would result if the ordinance passed.

Commissioner Alex Patton, who made the motion to kill Moore’s proposal, said that he had received more than 100 emails and 30 phone calls, and not a single person he heard from is in favor of the idea.

“It’s not right for Lincoln County,” he said, rejecting Moore’s contention that a public hearing should be held before a final decision was made.

Commissioner Jim Klein said that it was “unfortunate that this ordinance got as far as it did” and said it is “an ordinance that we don’t need in this county.”

Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet.

Commissioner Bruce Carlton then weighed in and said that life has risks and it’s not government’s place to remove every hazard from daily life” unless we want what he called a “vanilla world.”

Patton then sealed the fate of the ordinance by saying that common sense can’t be put in an ordinance.

The audience applauded much to Moore’s chagrin.

Chairman Tom Anderson said that he believed we have laws already in place to cover the issues that concerned Moore, and urged residents to be responsible in their use of firearms.

Earlier, Denver resident Jamie Barnes who has complained about what he calls a nuisance puppy mill on Petite Lane, said there were three accidental shootings in the county last year and 177 dog bites with one fatality.

He said that it seems to him that gun owners are more responsible than puppy mill owners.

“I am more afraid that my daughter will be attacked by a dog than shot,” he said.

Only one citizen spoke in favor of Moore’s proposal, noting that he and his wife were working in their garden when “bullets whizzed overhead.”

Patton’s motion to kill the gun control measure passed 4-1, with only Moore in dissent.

I love the "spirited defense" the North Carolina anti-gun bigot put up, "Moore retorted that a woman was killed in Maine in 1989 by a stray bullet."

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

Lazarus Long
A character in Time Enough for Love by Robert Heinlein
[When I started my QOTD thing my intention was to never repeat a quote. I'm making an exception this time because of this. It's called Verizon Bad Math, but it's not even math. It's 4th grade arithmetic. Background is here. I didn't read it all. It's way, way too painful for me.

What's your call?

• It is the public school system
• Verizon hires only arithmetically challenged people
• People in general are just mind boggling stupid
• Some people should not be allowed to breed
• Abortions should be available on a retroactive basis

Listen sometime when excess adrenaline won’t be a problem and you have your blood pressure meds handy.

Thanks (I think, I may not be able to sleep tonight) to Taqi for the pointer.--Joe]

I have to reluctantly agree with Kim on this one.

You don't pick a fight with George Foreman
You don't get snarky with Tam
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Kim

Okay, it wasn't as scathing as I would have expected but I like to laugh at my own jokes.

[Apologies to Jim Croce]

I didn't have time to read it all before I rush off to work, but it looks like really good stuff.

From: David E. Young 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: History News Network article criticizing amicus of professional historians in Heller case

History News Network has published my article severly critical of the amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court by fifteen professional academic historians in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban in the Heller case.

The more people who know about how historically off-base the professional historians' brief is, the better. Other briefs presenting historical material in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban have relied on these completely mistaken historians for their material as well.

The direct link to the HNN article is: http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

David E. Young
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment

Author - The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms

In addition to the email exchange yesterday I tried to engage a few others.

Regarding your opinion piece here: http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/storage/paper951/news/2008/02/19/Opinion/OpEd-Gun.Control.Laws.Will.Save.Lives-3219311.shtml

I have just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:25 AM
To: 'kbruck@student.umass.edu'
Subject: Gun control problems.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Regarding your article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/19/missing_on_gun_control/

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:45 PM
To: 'knaff@washblade.com'
Subject: Time to get serious about gun control.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From Florida:

The pastor of a southwest Florida church opened many eyes and ears Sunday when he said he wants married couples in the congregation to -- have sex for 30 days in a row.

Dr. Joe says, "Well, it's a start I guess."

I"ve been tilting at windmills again. This one is in Kentucky.

The time stamps on the email are a little messed up because we are in different time zones.

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:38 AM
To: lli@kykernel.com
Subject: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Just one question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

See also: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

-joe-

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:24 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

The "average" students murdered in Virginia Tech and NIU would not have been killed had stricter gun control been in place to prevent two killers from purchasing handguns legally. I hope that answer your question.

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:51 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

That is a prediction about what might have happened had things been different. It is a closer to a hypothesis rather than a fact or a valid conclusion. Stated differently, "What evidence do you have that would actually be the case?"

Over the years there have been thousands of laws passed restricting weapons.
Hundreds of studies have been done testing the hypothesis that such laws make people safer. These hypotheses have never proven out. That is a fact.
If you have evidence otherwise then you will be making sociological and criminological history and you should publish a paper on it. If your data stands up to scrutiny you will be famous.

There is an alternate hypothesis that also must be tested which I don't think you have considered, "Does the restriction of weapons enable and/or encourage predators by ensuring their victims are defenseless?"

I repeat my one question, "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

If you wish to get into semantics, using your own logic, your question itself is invalid. By using the word "safer," an adjective in comparative form, you imply that there must exist two outcomes of one scenario, but since the question is in the past tense, there is only one actual outcome.
Making any comparisons would inevitably include making a hypothesis of a different outcome front the actual past, which invalidates the comparisons because you are only looking for "a fact or a valid conclusion." To demonstrate how the question as you intended is not fair, apply the question to finding an argument supporting more gun access. You will inevitably use a hypothetical argument with your example.

Many studies show that the United States lead all developed countries in number of firearm-caused deaths porportional to population, and that lead is substantial. While these statistics and many arguments are inconclusive, or rather, imperfect - in the pure logical sense - to prove that restricting firearms can reduce danger to society, we make worldly decisions based on commonsense and pragmaticism, and all the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

You are correct in that the experiment cannot be run again with the same initial conditions changing on the legal restrictions on weapons, but apparently you haven't read my blog posting
(http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx) or any of the papers on the subject. There are two ways the comparison is done: 1) Compare violent crime rates (not just violent crimes assisted by firearms) before and after a restriction was enacted; and 2) Compare violent crime rates during the same time period in geographically adjacent but politically different jurisdictions. For example Washington D.C.'s violent crime rate can be compared before and after the handgun ban (time based comparison).
And geographically Virginia is "just across the street" from D.C. with much less restrictive weapon laws. There are hundreds of opportunities for studies of this nature with the thousands of laws that have been enacted in many countries. The more geographically and culturally distant the two (or
more) zones you are comparing the less likely you will obtain valid results.
Hence your comparison of the U.S. to other "developed countries' would be suspect even if it were to compare violent crime rates rather than just violent crime assisted by firearms.

If you want to examine mass shooting such as Virginia Tech and the more recent North Illinois University tragedies then please compute the correlation coefficient between "gun free zones" (such as schools, workplaces, and states that prohibit people from carrying defensive tools) and the instances of these type of events. Nearly all of them happen in places where firearms were banned. They almost never happen in shopping malls, theaters, and other locations with large numbers of potential victims but yet are allowed to carry defensive tools. Compare, for example, the recent school shootings in the U.S. compared to the recent event of TWO attackers at an Israeli school: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/310078.aspx

You claim, "All the evidence supports the commonsensical notion that guns indeed endanger the society and should be strictly controlled". Yet I have seen zero evidence of this. If you have such evidence you will, as I said earlier, be able to make quite a name for yourself because no one has yet been able to supply it. I would be honored to help you earn your just fame by posting it on my blog in response to my "Just One Question" post.

As for the "commonsense" approach you need to evaluate other viewpoints for validity. Although I agree your appears valid at first glance I view the situation a little differently from you. It's not quite a simple as we would like it to be.

Another way to look at the problem is to make the problem space much smaller. Are YOU made safer if the government takes all your defensive tools from you? I think the answer is clear. No, you are only made safer if the government takes offensive tools away from others that might harm you.

The problem boils down to how does the government (or any other entity) remove weapons from predators with minimal or no impact on the potential victims? No one has been able to accomplish this. It always seems that the predators are less affected by weapons restrictions than are the potential victims who would use the weapons for self defense. This is because most potential victims will obey the restrictions and the predators will obtain weapons illegally or have little or no need for weapons if their prey has been disarmed. Hence weapon restrictions, at best do no good or worse create a low risk environment for predators.

Regards,

Joe Huffman

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Joe,

I did go back and read your blog post, and I have to say that its arguments are less sound than the arguments presented in your correspondence. For one, you automatically presume that no one can answer your challenge to the point that you wrote, "any comments to this post presuming to support a "Yes"
answer will be deleted." What's the point of posting a challenge if you don't allow any challengers to respond?

To answer your questions from the previous mail, the possible evidence you suggested cannot possibly be logically extensive. Besides semantical arguments, I can also raise more commonsensical arguments to rebuke the proposed evidence. For example, Washington, D.C., has consistantly had high crime rates, so comparing its crime rates to Virginia is unreasonable. In addition, despite the fact that some states/establishments may have much stricter gun control, because guns are easily accessible elsewhere in the state/country, the danger factor from firearms is not necessarily lowered.

I understand that I probably won't be able to change your stance on firearms, nor do I expect you to do the same to me. However, I appreciate the fact that you are using reasoning rather than threats and slogans to get your message across. Now, if only you can be so reasonable in your blog posts...

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:52 AM
To: Li, Linsen
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Apparently you missed a paragraph in my post:

-----
If you are someone that has a "Yes" answer and believe you can conclusively demonstrate that then write it up and email it to me. Plan to have your work posted on a website of my choosing along with my comments. I will give you credit for your work or keep it anonymous--whichever you prefer. I will put links to those responses in the comments to this post.
-----

I welcome responses. I just didn't want the debate taking place in the comments.

D.C. was just a quick example. Anyplace where a law has been enacted which affected the restrictions on firearms either a time based comparison and/or a geographically based comparison can be (and probably has been) made. The end result of those studies? Weapons restrictions do not make people safer.

You think my blog posts are unreasonable? Would you consent to my posting of our email discussion? Would that make me appear more reasonable?

And what of your reasonableness? You appear to hold the position that firearms should be severely restricted or perhaps banned. But as many times as that experiment has been tried you appear to be either unwilling or unable to demonstrate where that made people safer. So, if you maintain that belief one has to ask, "Why do you maintain that belief when you have no evidence to support it?" What is the real reason for you to hold on to such a belief? None of the answers I can come up with are very pleasant.

Thanks for taking the time to think about the issue. That is a lot more than most people do.

Regards,

Joe

From: Li, Linsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:49 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Just because my evidence to support my belief is invalid in your mind doesn't mean it's invalid to the rest of us. I wouldn't hold a belief without believing in some reasoning or evidence supporting that belief. So I do not understand your rather militant questions at the end. I respect anyone's opinion, and regardless of whether I agree with it, I am sure that the person has his/her own reasoning, valid or not. So if you don't agree with the evidence and reasoning I stand by, at least consider the fact that, to me, they are as valid as your evidence and reasoning for lifting gun bans. Hopefully, that'll refrain you from calling me a bigot or any other unpleasant name you can come up with.

And if you wish to post our exchange on your blog, I'd be OK with that. But it is your blog, and you have the liberty to do what you wish.

Regards

Linsen

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:43 AM
To: 'Li, Linsen'
Subject: RE: COLUMN: Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem.

Belief has nothing to do with the validity of evidence.

To respect all opinions is to have no respect for the truth.

Perhaps you haven't seen the definition of "bigot" recently. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot): "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

Share with me the evidence which answers my one question in the affirmative and I'll change my mind. What evidence would it take for you to change yours?

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Barb says the joke is getting old. I still think it is funny. Maybe I'm just slow on some things.

In any case there is more evidence of global warming climate change:

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

As people continue to push for restrictions on human activities to prevent global warming climate change you know it has to be they have an agenda other than what they claim it is. It is my belief its about desire for government control rather than freedom. Freedom is too scary for most people.

A terrible crime is committed so government officials want to Do Something^TM to prevent it from happening again. Never mind that prior restraint is supposedly illegal. Never mind that what they propose is illegal and a felony. They admit, in virtually the same breath they used to push their proposals, that their proposals won't work:

But after the news conference, state Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, acknowledged they would not have prevented the NIU shootings. Authorities have said the NIU gunman legally obtained the weapons he used.

If they know their proposal would not have prevented the crime then it's obvious their proposal is intended for the stated purpose. It's about something else. What is that something else? I can't say for certain. In fact it may be they don't even know. The question these bigots need to be asked, "Since you know this proposal won't prevent such crimes, what's the real reason you advocate more restrictions on firearms?"

Kevin Cullen is from Boston so it's no surprise he doesn't have a clue about guns:

So, some cow chip-kickin' senator from Louisiana doesn't want Mike Sullivan, the US attorney in Boston, to become head of the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms because Sullivan wants to make it harder for people to get guns.

Um, isn't that what the head of the ATF is supposed to do?

Let me spell it out for you Mr. Cullen, you're from Boston so I understand the concepts are difficult for you.

The head of the ATF, just like all other government officials are required to uphold the constitution. Until such time as the Bill of Rights is declared null and void it is the NOT the job of the head of the ATF to make it harder for people to get guns. In fact the "Head of the ATF" should be actually be the CEO of a convenience store by the same name (actually you should tack the 'E' on to the end of it but I'm not going to complain if that market is handled by a separate chain that specializes).

Congress surely has the power to regulate firearms in Washington; but if Congress felt that disarming Americans at home were necessary for its security, it might have attempted to do so in the first 177 years of the city’s service as the seat of government. As recent history demonstrates, those who would attack our capital are hardly deterred by Petitioners’ ban on handguns and functional firearms in the home.            

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit

As pointed out by others (and here) Hillary wants a gun summit:

“I believe we really should have a summit where everybody comes together on all sides of this issue,” Clinton said. “Let’s figure out how we can be consistent with the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep people safe.

“I think we can do that, but it’s going to require us all to maybe give a little and understand the point of view of the other people,” she said. “That’s something I would do as President to really bring people together.”

I'm all for reaching a middle ground. In fact I have given this a lot of thought in the past and already determined what the middle ground looks like. Just adopt my position and everyone will save a lot of time and energy.

And even if my reasonable compromise isn't acceptable do not forget Sean's valuable insight.

At 5:59:55 I received a phone call. As I said, "Hello" I pushed the "Delete" button to make position 31 available. The man on the phone wanted to sign up for Boomershoot. I told him he had to do it on-line. He thanked me and I wished him good luck.

At 6:02 Carl pushed the button that claimed the position.

Carl was the instructor for the first firearms class I ever took. Taking that class enabled me to obtain my Idaho concealed carry license.

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy right now. It's time to go back to bed with Barb.

From Time to decide: Gun control or out of control? By Adrienne T. Washington, February 19, 2008:

"I felt just shocked, like I had been hit by a truck," Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying. "There's over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S., and what are the chances that my company is involved with two mass murders inside of a year? I'm dumbfounded."

Really? With 90,000 licensed dealers and no one knows how many more unlicensed dealers, I'm not.

I've stared at these two paragraphs for several minutes and can only conclude Ms. Washington has a seriously malfunctioning logic center. But, as I like to say, it's irrational to expect people to be rational.

In my previous posting on microstamping I tried to be as objective as possible. Now I want to give my opinion.

Microstamped bullets

As much as the anti-gun people would like to implement something as expensive and worthless as microstamping of bullets matched to their cases and boxes I believe they will be laughed out of the legislatures. It is just too difficult and impractical to implement and even the police will complain at the paperwork and expense. Add in the ease with which stolen and re-manufactured ammo will defeat the technology and only the most rabid anti-gun people will support it. The police have a lot of influence anytime guns are brought up and without their support this technology will be defeated.

Microstamped firearms

The argument that microstamping of firearms will help solve crimes committed with guns is invalid. The only criminals that will be caught with this technology will be the stupid ones, those that committed crimes of passion, or those that had no plans to get away with the crime (murder-suicide types). In those cases the criminal would have been caught/detected anyway and the microstamping of the firearm will be irrelevant. There will be a few borderline cases where the microstamping does make a difference but the numbers will be insignificant. This is of little concern to the anti-gun people. Even if all crimes committed with guns were solved instantly they would still demand the banning of firearms. It's not about crime reduction, its about banning guns even at the cost of increased crime (see Washington D.C. and Chicago for example). That they tried less drastic measures and they failed will be one of the reason given for the more harsh measures which follow.

Microstamping of firearms, at this point in time, would be a great burden on manufactures. But I believe I have solutions to all the problems mentioned by NSSF as issues for manufactures. All those issues can be solved with a few changes in their processes. If so, then the promise of only adding a dollar or two to the price of the gun might become a reality. It will take some time and it will cost money to make the changes but ultimately it won't be major obstacle to microstamping. I'm not going to provide those answers here because it does no one any good. If I can come up with the answers in less than a day then so can a lot of other people.

As much as I would like for all manufactures to follow STI and Barrett's lead in refusing to do business with California and other anti-gun states the lure of having a less competitive market will mean some manufacture will fill the void. If there is a demand then someone will supply it. Just as with recreational drugs the price will be above free market levels and the quality may be lower but the demand will be filled. Once the boycott, if it ever becomes that, is broken by one or two manufactures then others will probably fold as well. The only question will be whether the manufactures will make guns specifically for sale in those anti-gun states or will they continue to sell non-microstamped guns in other states. I think the answer to that will depend on the "people of the gun". Will we pay a premium for an non-microstamped gun and/or will we mount an effective boycott against the manufactures that sell into the anti-gun states? I don't know the answer to that.

Conclusion

I'm left without a strong argument against microstamping and I'm afraid ultimately our legislatures will be too. It won't make a measurable change in the solving of crimes but it won't hurt the non-criminal gun owner much either. I can't make a case for it violating the Jews in the Attic Test because I claim the technology can be easily defeated. I don't like it because it is worthless and it gives validity to "reasonable government restrictions" on firearms. Ultimately it will lead to government restrictions on defacing the microstamping just as the existing laws against destroying the serial numbers of firearms. The replacement parts will ultimately be tracked and even if you purchase a gun through a private sale without a 4473 being filled out the repair of the firearm, even on your own kitchen table, will result in your gun being, again, tied to you. But this incremental firearm registration will be not be a sufficient hurdle to block it's passage in the legislatures.

I believe the bottom line is that in order to stop state legislation mandating the microstamping of firearms we will mount an effective boycott of those manufactures that sell into those states. Against Federal legislation we will have essentially no defense.

The Solicitor General has argued, Congress may prohibit such persons as idiots, imbeciles, felons, and children from possessing any firearm whatsoever. Id. at 25-26. While the Second Amendment would not absolutely preclude exclusions, it does prohibit them if they rest upon the constitutionally impermissible ground of unfitness. Exclusions may only be based upon the foundation that the class of persons excluded are not art of the constituent "people" -- i.e., those persons ho have authority to constitute and reconstitute the government -- being either incapable of giving the requisite consent to be governed, such as children, or having forfeited their civil rights, such as a convicted violent felon. According to the republican political philosophy underpinning the Second Amendment, whether a person is "trained" in the use of a firearm, and thus fit to possess it, is a matter of self government, not subject to any fitness regulation of the government.

Herbert W. Titus
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller.
February 11, 2008
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

From NIU parents call for more gun control:

"Think of how many (people) are on anti-depressants in this country," she said. "If someone goes off their medication does that mean we should hand them a weapon of mass destruction to go and act out their despair?"

[...]

Jacob said she felt that more funding needed to be put towards mental health services.

"I think there should be more focus on mental health," she said, though she also believed in more gun control. "I don't think these kinds of guns belong in anyone's hands, sane or not sane. And law enforcement doesn't need these kinds of guns in people's hands."

John and Sharon Roszkowski, of Downers Grove, are parents of a student at NIU and came all the way to Skokie for the press conference. Sharon said she was primarily looking for what she as an individual could do to help prevent similar events from happening in the future.

"I think there are just too many shootings," she said.

The press conference didn't give her a good idea of what she could do, but at least, "I feel like I have a direction," she said.

A pump 12-gauge shotgun and a couple 9mm handguns are WMDs? And no one should have these kinds of guns? Then they should start by removing them from the police.

I especially like the part about not having a good idea of what to but yet she has a direction. Press conferences, emotion, and more government--that's what they do, that is their "currency".

How are they going to defend against this new binary explosive?

[Thanks to JoeyD Sr.]

Position 31 for Boomershoot 2008 will become available tomorrow morning, Tuesday February 19^th, at 6:00 AM PST (I think I have my alarm set correctly this time).

Shooting benches are recommended for this position. See http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Main for pictures of the location. Assuming your fingers are fast enough you can sign up for this postion via the online entry webpage of the previous link.

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles "a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills", and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
"On New Democracy" (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn't want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.--Joe]

I don't have the final information available yet but this is the premliminary report from the auction last night:

I'm not sure of the actual selling price, I thought it was $450 each but someone I spoke with said they went for $500 each.

Wow! $450 or $500 for participating in Boomershoot (and donating money to FONRA).

I gave them two positions but was asked to only mention there was one available. The plan was to auction off the one then offer the other position to the second place bidder for the same price.

I've been doing a little research into microstamping. High emotions on either side are not productive. I've tried to gather facts and sources for your own research.

This was instigated at the suggestion of Justthisguy in the comments.

First off I would like to point out there are two types of microstamping. Neither of which should be confused with "ballistic fingerprints".

The Technologies

Ballistic Fingerprints are Dead for Now

"Ballistics fingerprints" are a system where law enforcement obtains a bullet and cartridge casing from the manufacture for every new gun. Maryland and New York have passed laws requiring this and at last check not a single crime had been solved with this additional data and Maryland State Police were advising the money should be spent on something more effective.

Microstamping of Bullets

This concept is about putting matching serial numbers on the bullet, shell casing, and bullet box. Of course there would have to be a database that tracked the bullets from manufacture to the end user. It is impractical for many reasons.

I don't expect this to go anywhere in the immediate future.

Microstamping of Firearms

This is about putting unique codes (essentially a serial number) on the firing pin, breach face, ejector and extractor. Typically you will hear the example of the firing pin being marked but actually there will be markings in other places as well. Some people pretend it's a secret where these markings will be. Anyplace that strikes or presses against the shell casing is a potential location for imprinting the codes. This includes inside the chamber but those marking are at high risk of being sheared or smeared away in semi-autos during the extraction while there is still some pressure in the barrel and casing.

These codes will correspond to the serial number of the gun. The manufacture of the gun will be required to cooperate with law enforcement to find the distributor->retailer->initial buyer -- just like current firearm traces when law enforcement has the make, model, and serial number of a firearm.

This technology poses the greatest potential to be generally implemented and California passed such a law on October 13, 2007. This law mandates the technology be used on all new firearms sold in California beginning on January 1, 2010. It requires the microscopic codes be put in two or more places such they are transferred to the cartridge case.

For more information see Wikipedia on microstamping.

The Debate

Overview

The claimed benefit of the proposed technologies is the promise of making it easier to solve crimes committed with firearms.

The arguments against the use of the technology center on the ease of a criminal defeating the technology, the difficulty of manufacturers implementing it, the risk of innocent people being framed, and the increased costs to all gun owners.

Anti-gun advocates

Gun control advocate appear to be in favor of any restrictions on firearms and are in favor of all of the technologies. See also microstamping webpages for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and their PowerPoint presentation.

Pro-gun advocates

This report on a paper from UC Davis provides some support for the case against microstamping of firearms but probably made a lot of errors and should not be considered strong evidence for the case against microstamping.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. has a document on microstamping that outlines the problems from the manufacturer's viewpoint and the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners, and that it will not reduce crime. Other documents I found on the NSSF site probably have serious flaws and shouldn't be used as reference material.

Technology advocates

Todd Lizotte is a co-inventor of firearms microstamping. Here is a video of him describing and demonstrating the technology. He also commented on David E. Petzal's Field and Stream blog. I have extracted his comments from this blog and uploaded them here. One of his arguments is the following (a copy and paste with typos intact):

I am not sure a defensive strategy to protecting rights has ever worked. A proactive stretgy always keeps the fight off in the distance. Microstamping does not change the status quo, all data is at the manufacturer. No registration, no licensing and no imaging.

What many people are not aware of is there is a new 3D mapping imaging system being produced. We helped successfully defeat ballistic imaging for new firearms, however the ATF and its vendor are not giving up, the ATF has a $500 Million system in place for linking current ballistic imaging data from crime labs. The company who built that system, located in Quebec, needs to expand its market, it needs to capture the new firearm market.

The old system they built can not accurately imaging new firearms, however it is possible for the new 3D system to work at a much larger expense.

Microstamping neutralizes the need for imaging all togther.

In the end I am for being proactive, instead of being reactive.

If you want to see how bad it could really get, google 3D ballistic imaging and see how costly that system will be, since that system will require all info on the pruchaser and firearm to be entered into a government controlled criminal database.

I am not sure most people understand this fact.

Microstamping is a perfect technology --- completely benign and all data remains at the firearm manufacturer.

In essence of what he is saying is the alternative to microstamping the firearm is a much more expensive version of the "ballistic fingerprint" system implemented with better technology and the associated additional databases.

Conclusions

Because no new database is required, only an additional entry in the manufacturer's database with the serial number, firearm microstamping gets around a number of the arguments against "ballistics fingerprints" and bullet/casing microstamping. For this reason I expect the anti-gun people to push this technology the hardest and have the most success with it.

The best argument against microstamping of firearms is the manufacturing process does not lend itself to serialization of multiple parts. The firing pins are made by some supplier, the extractors, ejectors, and slides by other companies. The manufacture of the gun itself may just assemble the pieces. Each of the serialized parts must be matched with the frame that has the actual official firearm serial number. The code on these serialized parts are not visible without a microscope and all would have to be verified and recorded in database during the assembly process. This will make it expensive and error prone. This argument will not gain much traction with the anti-gun people because increasing the expense of firearms is not regarded as a problem.

The next best argument is probably that criminals can easily defeat the technology. This seems indisputable. Changing of firing pins, extractors, ejectors, and barrels is commonplace in the gun community. A few minutes with an grinding stone on a Dremel tool will obliterate the laser etching without affecting the functioning of the firearm. The counter arguments are somewhat weak; 1) Criminals aren't very smart; and 2) There are redundant markings.

The framing of innocent people is probably the weakest of the arguments against firearm microstamping. The powder residue and other forensic evidence will eliminate most planted shell casing from the real shell cases involved in the crime. Multiple stampings from reloaded shell cases also are probably easily eliminated with the available forensic evidence. It will slow down the process however, but probably no more than it would if they were to do it with existing forensic technology and this appears to be a non-problem. Of course this assumes the prosecutors and law enforcement are forthright and trustworthy in dealing with the evidence. I am inclined to believe this is generally the case but the actual instances of unethical actions of our government officials is much higher than I am comfortable with.

Pretty Pictures

The following pictures are from Forensic Technology and show the level of detail possible with modern microscopes.

Update: The following pictures are from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's PowerPoint presentation:

Primer after 2500 rounds through a Thompson SMG.
Glock firing pin after 1400 rounds (image reversed).
Primer from a Glock after 1400 rounds.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image from Glock showing smearing of the primer.

You may in vain mention to them the duties upon tea, etc. These things, they will say, do not affect them. But tell them of the robbery of the magazine, and that the next step will be to disarm them, and they will be ready to fly to arms to defend themselves.

Patrick Henry
William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Va. 1993), p. 279.
[If only it were true now.--Joe]

Silent, deadly, and never needing to be reloaded, these implements of destruction were designed for just one thing--rapidly cutting through flesh and bone. How many more must die before our government wakes up and bans these deadly weapons?

A Queens man with a history of mental problems was arrested Saturday in the vicious slaying of a psychologist attacked in her office with a meat cleaver, police said.

David Tarloff, 39, was taken into custody in the morning after investigators matched him with three palm prints found at the bloody crime scene, said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

[H/T to Rob for the email.]

[A handloader acquaintance who lives in Washington state was anticipating the extra hassles threatened by this microstamping bill (HB 3359). My comments are below.]

Don’t worry about it right now. From Joe Waldron’s GOAL Post 2008-4 email sent to wa-guns@yahoogroups.com last Saturday:

HB 3359 was assigned to House Judiciary for action. It was introduced just after the policy committee cut-off (Judiciary’s last hearing before cut-off was held on 5 February), so theoretically the bill will not be acted on. As noted above, cut-off dates are set by the legislature, and bills can be pulled from committee directly to the chamber floor.

There isn’t enough room in the GOAL Post to cover all the flaws in HB 3359! The bottom line is, as written, the bill would have a major impact on consumer ammunition costs AND on state bureaucracy, requiring significant staff expansion to meet record-keeping requirements.

(The anti-self defense lobby – the gun control lobby – is promoting so-called “microstamping” bills in eight states this year (most in the Northeast) and versions have been filed in Congress. While HB 3359 is unlikely to go anywhere this year, don’t expect it to just fade away. California passed – and Schwarzneggar signed – a bullet encoding bill last year.)

That said, if it passes you are still screwed because it explicitly includes bullets used for handloading (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3359.pdf):

"Pistol ammunition" means all ammunition principally for use
11 in pistols, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in
12 other firearms, including bullets used for reloading or handloading
13 pistol ammunition.

And it’s not just sold in state it’s imported as well:

Beginning January 1, 2010, all pistol ammunition manufactured in
8 the state, imported into the state, or kept or offered for sale, sold,
9 or transferred in the state, must be coded ammunition as defined in RCW
10 9.41.010.

(18) "Coded ammunition" means ammunition that carries a unique
32 alphanumeric identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base
33 of the bullet projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing and
34 that meets the following requirements:
35 (a) The base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing
36 of each round in a box of ammunition are encoded with the same unique
37 alphanumeric identifier;

From the "Gun Guys":

Yeah, I know I'm different. I'm not "normal". But what I want explained to me is why, when a bunch of helpless people were slaughtered, is it an appropriate response to huddle in a crowd with their heads down? They are emulating prey. And they are demanding that even more people be made defenseless as well. They are acting like stupid grass-eaters. Do they think this will somehow make it less likely for the predators to attack them?

I think it is just the opposite. I think the predators at a very primitive level, if not with total cerebrum awareness, recognize they are stupid and may even think they deserve to be preyed upon. What would the predators think if the response were for the gun stores shelves to be emptied and the ranges filled with people being trained and practicing?

See also On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs, Quote of the Day--Virgil, and Quote of the Day--Greg Hamilton.

The media figured out long ago that it’s a bad idea to show streakers and unruly fans at football and baseball games. When some idiot runs out onto the field in his birthday suit the cameras cut away and the announcers just comment that there’s an idiot screwing up the game. They never publicize the moron’s name or discuss his actions because they know that the publicity will just encourage some other moron to play copy-cat. For some reason they can’t maintain that kind of standard when mass murder is involved. They seek out the murderer’s family and friends, they publish their rants and photo’s and they give the bastards exactly what they want – fame.

I’m just a little-bitty corner of the media; a small voice crying out in the wilderness, but I will never again name a murderer or play a role in keeping his memory alive. I hope that others in the media will grow a conscience and do likewise. I don’t expect it, but I will continue to hope.

Jeff Knox
February 15, 2008
Copy Cats
The Firearms Coalition

This seems like it is a tremendous over-reaction. This week I’ve seen prayers on campus and kids afraid to go on campus. If he violated a campus gun policy, I’m not opposed to the college putting him through their standards. But as a Marietta College graduate, I’m offended that they would ban him from the school so quickly. It doesn’t sound like he had due process. It seems the college and the students think that if you have guns, you are inherently dangerous. But there are those of us who carry guns and who are not dangerous.

Bill Burton
Sheriff: Student a gun enthusiast
[Regarding a student that was suspended from college and charged with a crime after having some guns and ammunition in his vehicle. IMHO the campus officials that did this to him should be charged with a felony. H/T to SayUncle for the pointer.--Joe]

When will they ever learn that gun free zones weren't, aren't, and can't be? How many people must die before they let the victims fight back? It happened again:

A gunman killed five students and wounded 16 others in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall on Thursday afternoon in DeKalb before killing himself, according to university and police officials.

While I applaud this ruling I can't help but be cynical:

Houston's adult bookstore backers Wednesday hailed a federal court's decision to overturn a 35-year-old state law that banned promotion or sale of sex toys. But the decision won't go into effect until the court issues its mandate in early March — long after the industry's lucrative pre-Valentine's Day season.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates the privacy protections of the 14th Amendment.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its law to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the judges wrote in the 2-1 ruling. "This case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of of consensual private intimate conduct."

The judges alluded to Lawrence v. Texas, a Houston case that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the state's sodomy law in 2003.

So tell me why this same reasoning doesn't result in the overturning of laws restricting recreational drugs, prostitution, gambling, and firearms? I can only conclude the judges rule however they want to rule then find a reason to justify themselves afterward.

People die every day. I'm used to it. I live in D.C.

Wanda Hill
17 years old
Tackling Gun Violence And the Scars It Leaves
[It's time to eliminate the criminal protection zones in this country and prosecute the criminal politicians that created them and the law enforcement people that enforce them.--Joe]

Boomershoot Precision Rifle Instructor Gene Econ reports:

I can take four more guys for coaching on each day and a good twenty more for field fire.

Sign up here.

This clinic is such a great value that people have come in from out of state just to attend the clinic and don't bother to stay for Boomershoot the next day.

If you do sign up for the clinic and don't have a position in Boomershoot but would like to participate let me know and I'll try to find a place for you. Depending on the weather some of the places that can be a swamp are dry and usable. It all depends on the ratio of rain to sun in the previous week or so.

Kevin puts the pieces together. It works for me.

Both SayUncle and Sebastian are feeling happy to see "Obama Slaps Hillary Silly in VA" but note that rationally that feeling doesn't make much sense.

Admittedly, even if you drop the title of "The First Woman President of the United States of America" this image is pretty frightening:

But which would you rather have in office? Someone who 40% of the population thought was a power mad megalomaniac without morals or someone who would attempt to implement the same laws and tyranny but 80% of the population thought was, deep down, a "nice guy"?

If those were the only two choices I had I would vote for the megalomaniac because it would be easier to motivate the opposition and throw them and their collaborators out the next election. And if the next elections "didn't happen" a lot more people would have been preparing for the revolution.

Basically its a choice between being forced to distribute either a poison that tastes sweet or one that tastes extremely bitter. Go with the bitter tasting because fewer people will take a lethal dose.

And it may not come to one of them being elected. As some have said, we want Hillary to win the nomination because she has less chance of being elected than Obama. Go Hillary! Then get lost.

Some people should be rented out by the minute by their cellmates to the bidder of the most cigarettes. My number one nominees at this time are these criminals. This should continue for the rest of their lives--no sleep allowed.

A woman in New York state sold a young girl to her landlord for sex to cover her overdue rent, federal authorities said.

Linda O'Connor, 46, also sold the girl to strangers twice at a hotel in 2006 and 2007, authorities said. The girl was 12 and 13 at the time of the alleged rapes.

O'Connor, who lives in the upstate New York town of Norwich, was arrested Sunday on federal charges of selling a child and other pornography counts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric said she could face up to life in prison.

O'Connor's former landlord, Dean Sacco, 49, of New Jersey, was also charged with having sex with the girl, crossing state lines to have sex with a minor and various pornography charges.

The girl told authorities that O'Connor and Sacco photographed the assaults. Now 14 and in foster care, she told police she faced homelessness and that Sacco threatened to kill her if she did not comply.

The girl told investigators Sacco had sex with her at least five times and that O'Connor took her to a hotel in December 2006 to have sex with a 40-year-old man for $150 while O'Connor watched. O'Connor later took her back to the hotel again to have sex with a second man, the girl said. After the second encounter, O'Connor took the girl Christmas shopping.

In the end, the only statistic that matters in Second Amendment discussions is that at least sixty million (and perhaps over one hundred million) people were murdered by their own governments during the twentieth century. Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Fifth Auxiliary Right, 104 Yale L.J. 995, 1025 (1995) (book review). In America today, the necessity of exercising the last resort of revolution appears remote. But a Constitution is not for the moment – it is for the ages. The people’s right to alter or abolish a despotic government is fundamental to their sovereignty. The means to exercise that right should not be entrusted to an exclusive military class, any more than the freedom of speech should be entrusted only to government spokespersons.

Jeffrey B. Teichert
February 12, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., v. Dick Anthony Heller
Page 21.
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOLARS CORRECTING MYTHS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS COMMONLY DEPLOYED BY OPPONENTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL-RIGHTS-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

This came via another email from Joe Waldron. I haven't been able to find the brief on the CCRKBA website but I did find it here.

CCRKBA FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN D.C. GUN BAN CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v Heller, in the appeal of the historic case that overturned the district’s 31-year-old handgun ban because it violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms affirmed by the Second Amendment.

Written by Bellingham, Wash. attorney Jeffrey B. Teichert, the brief was filed in cooperation with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and several university scholars. It carefully details the history of the Second Amendment, and dismantles arguments by the District of Columbia that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms was written only to protect some mythical state’s right to organize and maintain a militia.

“Our 53-page brief is tightly written, and it refutes contentions by the District and anti-gun rights organizations that the Second Amendment is exclusively written for the common defense, and only applies to military service,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The brief, which can be read on our website at www.ccrkba.org, goes right to the heart of this case, and essentially dismantles every specious claim by anti-gunners about the intent of this Amendment.”

CCRKBA’s brief also properly labels arguments by the Brady Campaign that the English Bill of Rights only provided for arms for the military as “patent nonsense.” Likewise, the brief notes that the District of Columbia’s argument would deny the sovereignty of the people by falsely claiming that the Second Amendment permits them to be disarmed in favor of an exclusive military class.

“The District of Columbia cannot abolish a fundamental constitutional right anymore than Congress can,” Gottlieb said. “Furthermore, neither the District, nor its anti-gun-rights supporters, can be allowed to transform a civil right into a privilege, as they seek to do by regulating the Second Amendment into irrelevancy.”

“For the past several months anti-gun extremists have been beating drums about the downfall of civilization if the high court correctly upholds the Second Amendment as protective of an individual civil right,” Gottlieb stated. “That argument amounts to hysteria. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of liberty and public safety in this country, whether the District or its supporters like it or not. Our brief to the Supreme Court clearly explains this.”

Another wheelbarrow full of cash just showed up at my bunker from the Apex of the Triangle of Death. They just put a news release on their website about the state attorney generals signing on to the pro-individual rights amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller.

I like this part:

This brief by the state Attorneys General comes on the heels of last week’s congressional brief, having the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history, with 250 House Members, 55 Senators and the Vice President of the United States, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate.

I'm betting the decision in this case will be delayed compared to most. Lots and lots for the Justices to read and ponder.

Mike Brown and I have been talking about this bill for months. He wrote it and I helped with the website and blog. Last week it was introduced. It appears we have got someone's attention.

From the University of Idaho:

---

From: asui@uidaho.edu
To: students-list@uidaho.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:24:23 -0800
Subject: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to campus

Dear Vandal,

In case you have not heard, the Idaho State Senate is considering Senate
Bill 1381.  If this bill passes, it will allow individuals with concealed
weapons permits to carry their firearms on campus after notifying proper
university authorities.  Because this bill has the potential to affect every
student at the university the ASUI has decided to put together a discussion
panel where students can learn more, ask questions, and state their stance
on this piece of legislation.  This is a great opportunity to engage in the
political process.  After the panel, you will have an opportunity to write
letters to state legislators supporting or opposing SB 1381.

Here is a link to the actual bill text:
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

What: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to
carry firearms on campus
Where: Renfrew Hall Room 111
When: Wed. Feb 13th, 2008 from 4:00-5:30 PM

 

 

ASUI and the ASUI Center for Volunteerism and Social Action

This fall the Gun Rights Policy Conference will be in Phoenix. Give serious consideration to attending.

I was a speaker at the 1999 and 2000 events. I'm hoping to at least attend this year. It is a tremendously inspiring event.

Via another email from Joe Waldron:

SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN D.C. GUN BAN CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v Heller, the appeal of the landmark case that overturned the district’s handgun ban on the grounds that it unconstitutionally violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Written by attorney Nelson Lund at the George Mason University School of Law, the brief has already earned praise of veteran Second Amendment authority David Kopel, who noted in remarks on a popular Second Amendment website, “If you want to read a model Supreme Court brief, this is the brief to read.”

In the brief, Lund notes that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would remain even if the militia were disbanded.

“Our 48-page brief is tightly written, and it refutes the contentions by anti-gunners that the Second Amendment only protects some right of the states to maintain militias,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “The brief, which can be read on our website at www.saf.org <http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/saf.heller.amicus.brief.pdf>, gets right to the heart of this case. We also note that the opposition arguments are absurd, and explain why.”

SAF’s brief further reminds the court that “In liberal theory, the most fundamental of all rights is the right of self defense.” It also notes that ‘the people’ referred to in the Second Amendment “has always been a much larger body of individuals than the militia.”

“Congress cannot abolish this constitutional right of the people by abolishing the militia,” notes Lund in the brief. “Neither can the right be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.”

“While anti-gun extremists are beating drums about the downfall of civilization if the high court upholds the individual right,” Gottlieb stated, “we believe that the time has come for the Second Amendment to take its place as the Constitution’s insurance policy against tyranny and as our guardian against unjust laws that leave us defenseless against a growing criminal element.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Update 8:20 AM: As outspoken as I am, I still wouldn't have said this even though I think it is true (page 4):

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), suggests an interpretation that is different from petitioners’, and more facially plausible, namely that private citizens might have a right to possess weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment or [whose] use could contribute to the common defense.” Id. at 178. This test (which is not Miller’s holding) implies that American citizens have a right to possess at least those weapons that an unaided individual can “bear” and that “could contribute to the common defense.” Today this would include, at a minimum, the fully automatic rifles that are standard infantry issue, and probably also shoulder-fired rockets and grenades.

That should generate some PSH.

Update 8:40 AM: I like this (page 15):

The militia has always been a small subset of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. James Madison, for example, estimated that the militia comprised about one-sixth of the population when the Constitution was adopted.

Most obviously, women were not part of the eighteenth century militia, nor are they included today (except for female volunteers in the National Guard). Women, however, have always been citizens and thus part of “the people.” See, e.g., Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-70 (1874) (although women did not have voting privileges, they were part of “the people” who ordained and established the Constitution, and they have always been citizens). Just as women have always been covered by the First Amendment’s “right of the people” to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, and the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people” to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, women have always had the same Second Amendment rights as men.

Women have rights? Who would have guessed? Certainly not the D.C. anti-gun bigots.

Update 8:50 AM: From page 17 and 18 we have another great point:

The opposite form of noncongruence was also significant. Those who were physically unable to perform militia duties, as well as those aged 45 and older, still had all their political rights, including the right to vote. Besides the numerous men in these categories, many other citizens were legally exempted from militia duties.28 Thus, many men with full political rights were not subject to militia obligations. The noncongruence of the militia and the people points to another fatal defect in petitioners’ interpretation of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution purports to forbid Congress from exempting everyone from militia duties, as this Court has recognized. 29 It would be absurd to conclude that if Congress effectively abolished the militia by enacting such a universal exemption, the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms would thereby vanish. Congress cannot abolish this constitutional right of the people by abolishing the militia. Neither can the right be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.

Update 9:05 AM: One should not retain the impression that SAF is arguing for the private ownership and use of machine guns and RGPs. They say:

[A] significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

An email I received from Joe Waldron:

Oklahoma Republican Senator (and medical doctor) Tom Coburn is leading
the fight in the Senate to force the Dept of the Interior to open
National Parks to concealed carry. He's running a poll on his web site
to demonstrate support for the idea.

Recall back in the 90s, the Park Service decided to arm some of their
rangers. It wasn't because of the bears, it was because of the
two-legged predators who prey in our parks. Park Service rules should
be the same as National Forest rules: follow state law or simply allow
law-abiding citizens to carry.

V/R,
Joe Waldron

Middle of the page, lower center.

Should law abiding citizens be permitted to carry guns in national parks?

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.

Benjamin Franklin

Via Sebastain we have this awesome picture. I love the balls of water suspended in the air. Today we can see things that a 100 years ago people probably didn't even imagine.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made this statement (and here) the other day:

These incidents all highlight the tensions involved when individuals argue that their “personal liberty” outweighs the rule of law and trumps community policy as decided by our governmental systems.

I presume this means we should just ignore the "personal liberty" issue if it is in conflict with community policy because of the tension it causes. Here are some other community policy issues decided by our governmental systems that I'm certain Helmke will agree with:

From Leavenworth, WA September 2, 2007. Notice the weapons prohibition on the right.

From St. Louis Missouri, August 13, 2006.

And here are thousands of more laws and regulations affecting the possession and use of firearms. "Community policies" that severely restrict and in some cases ban the exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right. And according to Helmke's organization all these thousands of laws are not enough. The "community policies" get a "failing score" in his world view.

I can't help but note the similarities between the "community policies" above and those from not too many years ago. Then, as now, there were people who argued their personal liberties trumped "community policy" and it caused tension.

[Except where noted the following pictures are from About.com: African-American History.]

From http://www.cah.utexas.edu/ssspot/lesson_plans/lesson_10.php

And here are some laws representing "community policy" Helmke should feel comfortable with.

Helmke and friends argue they just want to prevent violence. They argue they just want "common sense" laws. They argue no business should be forced to allow "those people" on their premises. They argue no colleges/university should be forced to allow "those people" on their campus. They argue "those people" should be fingerprinted and registered by the government.

Those arguments are the same as those of the Jim Crow era and are no more valid.

The other similarity that cannot be ignored--same political party has been claiming "community policy" should not be trumped by constitutionally guaranteed personal liberties. Democrats--the party of bigots.

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Louis D. Brandeis
[Brandeis could have been talking about me. I'm a great believer in playing by the rules of your enemy. If the government declares me, via ignoring the law, their enemy then I figure I can play by the same (lack of) rules.--Joe]

I've long ranted about the futility of restricting explosive materials. Most of the time I'm a little circumspect on the details but after this massive explosion some news sources aren't so circumspect:

Sugar dust is just one of a variety of forms of dust that can, under the right circumstances, combust and cause an explosion.

Explosions are not uncommon in places like grain silos, but have been known to happen in sugar factories in the U.S. and abroad, much like the one in Georgia Thursday.

The dust itself can be created in a variety of ways during the refining process.

Anything from sparks from machinery to a lit cigarette could have ignited the blaze.

The dust also has to have a certain concentration to support combustion fast enough to maintain the explosion.

Those are 100 foot high silos in the picture below.

Lets see them restrict access to sugar! It's for the children...

I just created a new Boomershoot email list.

People planning to be spectators sign up for emails about the event by sending an email to spectators-subscribe@boomershoot.org. There is no requirement to sign up in order to be a spectator but it will get them information about the Saturday night dinner and weather forecasts when the information becomes available.

May 16-18 is the NRA convention and the Second Amendment Blog Bash in Louisville. Initially I said I would wait and think about it until April or so. Uncle told me to make my reservations then cancel later if I decided to because the hotels fill up quickly.

I procrastinated* for a month or so and Kevin started asking if I was going. I talked to Barb and we decided if she didn't have to work that weekend we would go. I looked it up on the calendar and found out she had to work and couldn't go. So told Kevin no and dropped it.

Last week Barb said she wanted some time with her sister in California. I prefer to avoid repressive regimes** so Barb suggested she would go to California sometime and and I could go to Louisville.

I just finished making my reservations. I got a non-smoking King bed at Red Roof for $55.50/night (Fri and Sat, Thu and Sun it’s $45/night). Most of our group is staying at the Executive Inn but it is full. Red Roof is about two miles from the Executive Inn and Convention Center so I rented a car. I’ll willing to give people rides if you want to stay at Red Roof or the Super 8 next door.

See you in Louisville!

Jeff Cooper is gone and now so is Chapman.

[Heavy sigh]

Here is a draft of the brief in the Heller case from Dave Hardy. He reports the final will be probably be available tomorrow morning.

I haven't read it yet either. I'm working on it...

Update 10:15 AM: I really like this point (page 5):

Petitioners' position is that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect only possession of arms in connection with a well-regulated, i.e. government-organized, militia.

This presents us with an anomaly: an "individual right" that exists only if the government implements it by statue. Indeed, Petitioners argue that Respondent is himself outside the protection of the Second Amendment, because he is outside the Federal militia age range. [...] Apparently this is a constitutional safeguard void where prohibited by law.

Update 10:35 AM: The "federalist mantra", pages 21 and 22, is new to me. I like this. It so clearly shows the original intent.

Update 10:50 AM: Another thing that is new to me and that I really like (page 30): "Madison and the First Congress knew of the sensitivity of Americans on the arms issue. Calls for a right to arms had been voiced in five Conventions, compared to three calls for freedom of speech, and only one for a guarantee against double jeopardy."

Update 2/11/2008: Here is the final version: 07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf (232.09 KB)

I have had a copy of Joy of Sex and More Joy of Sex since shortly after they came out. Now there is a much updated new version, The New Joy of Sex, due to come out in September. If you can't get expert personal training then reading a book is the next best thing. This will probably be one of the better books on the market.

An individual would need intimate knowledge of firearms and microstamping, plus the appropriate tools, in order to render the technology ineffective. These tools are certainly not "household items," nor would the common street criminal be expected to have the knowledge necessary to defeat the technology.

[...]

One can also imagine the scene at a shooting range as criminals or gang members wander around and gather spent cartridge cases in bags. Conspicuous? One would certainly think so, and Americans should expect the owners of such ranges to engage in more responsible business practices.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence & the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Microstamping Technology: Precise and Proven
[Another example of the anti-gun bigots being clueless about the real world. Apparently they haven't heard of a Dremel tool or picking up your brass for reloading.--Joe]

The pass was still closed (they are saying maybe by midnight one of them will be open) when I woke up this morning. I chatted with Barb for a few minutes and was reading a few blogs and posting my QOTD when I  got a text message from Ry:

We went to Beth's and I finally got on the outside of one of their six egg omelets (they have two sizes, six and 12 egg, both come with all the hash browns you can eat).

I took a couple pictures of drawings on the wall:

From there we went to Kerry Park and took some pictures:

We left the park to visit Glazer's.

At Glazer's I bought a new camera bag and some minor camera accessories.

We then continued south to Cabela's in Lacy. I have never been in a Cabela's before and Ry had only been to the original store in the Midwest. The store was pretty amazing.

The most amazing thing happened there. Someone recognized our Boomershoot coats and my hat and said hi. He said he reads my blog!

I bought a bunch of strange flavored licorice (Piña Colada and blue raspberry among others) some bullets (not loaded ammo, just the Berger, .30 caliber, 210 grain VLD bullets). Wow! Those have gone up by a factor of two since I last bought some. But I figured they weren't going to get any cheaper.

From way down south in Lacy we went way north to Monroe for the "Fun Show" as Ry likes to call them. Actually it was one of the WAC events. I walked by all the tables and didn't really see anything of much interest.

We then headed out of town a little way to visit a friend of Ry's that has a rifle range Ry has permission to use. "A couple hundred yards", Ry said. Things were in the process of changing. Soon it will be over 850 yards! We stood around and talked with the owner and a friend of his for probably an hour. Maybe next spring when there is more daylight in a day and the longer range is available I might visit again with a long range rifle.

Next we ate dinner at the Old Country Buffet and I dropped him off back at his place and came back to my bunker.

That was a nice day. It was much better than moping around writing buggy code for The Borg like I had planned.  Thanks Ry.

But the bummer part of it was Barb had an extremely light day at work and would have been able to spend a lot of time with me at lunch and then gotten off work early to spend more time with me had I been able to make it over the pass and back to Moscow last night.

Lots of people are suggesting you buy a firearm if you get a rebate. There are numerous suggestions (partial listing):

• EBR sales to go up
• Useless Gesture / EBR Day
• I keep hearing frogs

I have another suggestion and I'll even make the deal sweeter for you. Buy a rifle and ammo for Boomershoot and I'll give you a free entry into Boomershoot 2009. Limit of one entry per rifle and no more than five free positions will be given away. You must purchase the rifle between now and June 1, 2008. The rifle and ammo must be capable of at least regularly connecting with the boomers at the 375 yard line. This means your ordinary hunting rifle, carbines, and pistol caliber rifles won't qualify. Heavy barrel AR-15's will. It should have at least a 4X (10X or greater is recommended) scope on it but I won't be holding that against you because people have connected with red-dots and iron sights, it's just not easy. Ammo is going to have to be match grade.

If you decide you want to participate in Joe's evil plan then scan a copy of your receipts, send the scanned image and one or more pictures of you new rifle to me. First come, first serve, limit five prizes total.

Update: At the suggestion of Mopar in comments I've created a Boomershoot web page on rifle selection and threw in a little about ammo too. See also Choosing Optics (from 2001).

As someone who had received death threats and been called a “dictator” because of other government issues, I knew that there were a lot of people who I did not want to see carrying guns into city meetings and the offices of city employees.

These incidents all highlight the tensions involved when individuals argue that their “personal liberty” outweighs the rule of law and trumps community policy as decided by our governmental systems.

Paul Helmke
“Suicide Shooters” – Going To “War” With Government
7:36 pm on February 8, 2008
["Personal liberty" is trumped by community policy? Translating to more recognizable terms:

No wonder they have comments turned off on their blog.

H/T to Sebastian.--Joe]

I don't make cosmetic modifications to any of my guns. I'd make an exception for this one.

Fellow IPSC and Steel shooter Mike Brown has started a new pro-gun organization--the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance. I have been providing some technical help and he has been working with various legislators on gun issues important to Idaho residents and visitors. Number one on our list is to strengthen preemption. Read all about it on the website and blog.

The blogroll is reciprocal with pro-gun bloggers. Link to the ISSA blog and you'll get linked to in return.

From Sitemeter:

Domain Name		uscourts.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		208.27.203.# (Admin OFC US Courts)
ISP		Sprint
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.8933, -77.0146 (Map) Distance  :  2,072 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 8 2008 12:30:17 pm
Last Page View		Feb 8 2008 12:30:17 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...q=idaho firearms law
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		idaho firearms law
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...leOfFirearmsLaw.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...leOfFirearmsLaw.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-7:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 8 2008 1:30:17 pm
Visit Number		246,301

The US Goverment Court in D.C. did a Google search for "idaho firearms law" and ended up reading Huffman's Rule of Firearms Law (number six in the Google results).

I may not be going home this weekend. Both Snoqualmie and Stevens passes are closed. I could fly (very expensive on such short notice) or go through Portland (about 8.5 hours of driving instead of 5.0). I may end up spending the weekend in my Seattle area bunker, writing software for The Borg, and feeling sorry for myself.

The current report from Snoqualmie:

Restrictions Eastbound: Pass Closed

Restrictions Westbound: Pass Closed

Conditions & Weather: Pass is closed due to severe weather conditions and avalanche danger. We are starting 8 to 10 hours of avalanche control, followed by clean up efforts. Motorists should expect extended delays. // Snowing, blowing snow and poor visibility

The current report from Stevens:

Restrictions Eastbound: Pass Closed

Restrictions Westbound: Pass Closed

Conditions & Weather: Compact snow and ice. US 2 is closed from Scenic to Rayrock due to avalanche danger. An estimated reopen time is not determined. // Snowing, strong winds, blowing snow with poor visibility

Update 15:38 PST: From the Snoqualmie website:

Avalanche control work continues and it is now estimated that I-90 Snoqualmie pass will not open earlier than Saturday morning. Opening the roadway will be based on avalanche risk analysis. The roadway will be opened when it is safe to do so. WSDOT will give updates as work progresses and information becomes available. // Snowing, blowing snow and poor visibility

I'll be blaming Global Warming as I'm moping around creating bugs for the Borg. I'm certain it's all Algore's fault.

Update 23:19 PST: From the WSDOT Snoqualmie Pass website:

Interstate 90 Snoqualmie Pass Update: Avalanche control work continues and it is now estimated that I-90 Snoqualmie pass will be reassessed Saturday, opening no earlier than Saturday evening. Opening the roadway will be based on avalanche risk analysis. The roadway will be opened when it is safe to do so. WSDOT will give updates as work progresses and information becomes available. // Snowing, blowing snow and poor visibility

From the Washington Post, Studies Say Clearing Land for Biofuels Will Aid Warming:

One study -- written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant -- concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.

Also in the same article:

There is an urgent need for policy that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forest, grassland or cropland.

Oh, so you expect you can just start growing corn or some other high energy crop on a bare, wind swept rock?

And finally this:

This is a good way of showing where we are, not where we're going to be," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who is chairman of a House global warming panel and who helped write the energy legislation. Noting that the measure set benchmarks requiring any new ethanol plants to produce a fuel that is 20 percent more efficient than gasoline, and even more stringent standards for advanced biofuels,

I have a sneaking suspicious they misspelled that guys name. I'm thinking it should be Malarkey.

Ethanol has less energy content that gasoline. Unless they can produce something other than ethanol from the biomass the end result is they are doing the equivalent of legislating PI is equal to 3.00.

I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life. He has spoke on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue.

Gerald Thornton
Six Dead In Missouri City Council Shooting
[Also of interest is this from the NYT:

In an interview with a local television station, Mr. Thornton’s mother said that Kirkwood officials had kept after her son, “giving him tickets for everything they could.”

I'm not sure of the source and validity but one commenter said the shooter had $18,000 in parking tickets in the previous three years. My previous post may be applicable here.--Joe]

Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.

James Russell Lowell
[Which is why we were supposed to have a Republic with a constitution which enumerated limited powers to the government and with guaranteed rights to the people. Unfortunately people found out they could ignore the constitution without consequences and we now have something much closer to a democracy with all the adverse effects.--Joe]

This is just one example of ATF abuse.

Not by the ATF, but I've been screwed both with and without malice. The bottom line is that you can't completely defend against it, you can only lower your risk. Just don't think you are immune or that the system is fair or justice will be served.

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.

Karl Marx
[Just because Marx happened to be right about this year's election doesn't mean he had even a glimmer of a solution to the problem. Super Tuesday wasn't.--Joe]

If only I could have convinced Barb when we were in the baby making business we needed some help:

LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists have created human embryos with three parents in a development they hope could lead to effective treatments for a range of serious hereditary diseases within five years.

Researchers from Newcastle University, in northern England, presented their findings at a medical conference at the weekend, a university spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

The IVF, or test-tube, embryos were created using DNA from one man and two women.

Both women have could carried babies that were from all three of us. However great an idea I think this is I am sure Barb will manage to find some fault with it. She is kinda funny that way.

Certainly Petitioners would not dispute Americans’ justification for revolting against Great Britain, an event that would not have been possible without the private ownership of firearms. And should our Nation someday suffer tyranny again, preservation of the right to keep and bear arms would enhance the people’s ability to act as militia in the manner practiced by the Framers.

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 4, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[I just completed reading the entire thing. Lots of good stuff in it. At times I have been concerned Heller's case would be made too narrow. That is no longer a concern. If anything this brief may be too broad because it will scare the white people. Not that I think that view is out of line with the original intent and the requirement for a free state, just that scaring the white people has it's risks.

In this case the good guys played it as if this one is for all the marbles--which it is. Good luck to us all.--Joe]

I took notes during Bush's Big Speech the other day, but I'm only now reporting on it. The wheelbarrows full of cash that I regularly get from the NRA for parroting their extremist (pro-Liberty) politics aren't nearly enough to keep me interested in blogging on other subjects in a timely manner.

I did not count the number of applause lines (most of those clapping probably weren't listening anyway. They only notice that the nodding drunk sitting next to them is clapping for something, so they follow along). I did count the number of times Dubya used certain terms. Thankfully, he went light on his usual equating of democracy with Liberty-- that's always bugged the hell out of me. Not that I think he's figured anything out-- he just had other things to say, namely that he buys fully into the man-made "Global Climate Change" racket. Smartly, he avoided using the term "Global Warming" favoring the more universal "Climate Change" instead.

He used the term "Liberty" eight times, which is eight times more than your average Democrat would use it in a whole career of public speaking. "Freedom" was used fully ten times, but then, a Marxist will speak of "freeing" us from corporate tyranny, and such. Bush used the term in the correct sense pretty much every time, which is odd considering that he was at the same time adamant in his assertion that the path to technological progress starts with government subsidy and proceeds from there to more government subsidy, where it finally arrives at a level that qualifies for a whole big bunch of more government subsidy.

"Bipartisan" was used twice, and in the Left-Speak sense only. He was referring to the "no child's behind left alone" act and something thoroughly vague about "entitlement solutions", which brought the most brilliantly unenthusiastic, apathetic, if not contemptuous, applause imaginable. Quite impressive. Throughout the speech, this wasn't the sort of disingenuously enthusiastic applause you gave at the Kremlin, or during one of Saddam's speeches in the hope that you wouldn't be taken out and shot a moment later. No, this was true, unguided, unmotivated, wandering, bored, limp, listless, hollow, comfortable apathy, the depths of which are seldom seen in the faces of ordinary men-- some of the scarce honesty seen that night.

The word "victory" was not used-- too "divisive" to speak of American victory I suppose. He did mention "defeating" the enemy in the War On An Emotion 4 times, so there's that.

One of his genuine moments was when he was honoring the servicemen and servicewomen, and their families. This is in sharp contrast to our last president, who saw these people as a means to his self aggrandizement. There was some genuine applause there too, and they deserved more.

"Purpose" was used twice, but without defining the particular "purpose" he had in mind, if any. It's a potentially nice word. Marx and Lenin had a "purpose" though, too.

Bizarrely, he used the "O" bomb (Oath) once. That could come back to bite him-- he indicated that he may have been aware of the meaning and purpose of the Oath of Office, so any violations must hereafter be considered willful, and any tolerance of the violations of others must be considered complicit.

"Unity" was never used. Good choice that. Who wants to be "unified" with one's enemies? Likewise, he only said "change" once and in reference to his course in Iraq-- not in the Change to More Socialism sense use by the Left. That was for us to infer from his many calls for subsidy and restriction.

Our president promised one executive order-- a requirement that all earmarks be debated in the open, and voted on, outside of committees. That's a teeny weeny start-- sort of like a starter's pistol that was never loaded and just goes "click". Congress is now spending three trillion of our dollars per year, as opposed to the 2.2 trillion they spent when Bush took office (That's now a hair under 10 thousand dollars from every man, woman and child in this country, per year, or 40 thousand for a family of four, and rising fast. That's more than the total incomes of most working people around the world). I'll clap a few times when I see that total number drop for eight years in a row. Until then, republicans are to be seen as a slower path to pure socialism, compared to the faster path offered by Dems.

Watching Pelosi chewing something in the background was a little funny, and a little sickening (I felt I was back in jr. high school all over again, and I didn't like it the first time). Watching the Congresscritters on the floor was amusing and instructive. When Bush said something about terrorist surveillance, the floor was split perfectly down the middle-- Dems sitting and Repubs standing. Same when he mentioned tax relief-- no Democrat would ever even USE the term, much less recognize it when a Republican uses it. If anything, "tax relief" to a democrat would be relieving people of their money by taxing them. Republicans recognize that when tax rates drop, we get more productive and they get more of our money to spend. Democrats hate productivity altogether.

I liked the part where he told anyone who thinks their taxes should be higher that the IRS accepts checks and money orders (maybe he never heard of cashier's checks, which are good for much higher amounts). So send it in, bitches, and shut yer yaps!

When Bush called for up or down votes on court appointments, the Dems sat down. Yeah-- screw the Constitution if it means we can't have what we want. Who's gonna do anything about it?

Probably the stupidest thing he said all night (and this is amazingly, stunningly, monumentally stupid, such that historians and psychoanalysts will marvel at this phenomenon for generations to come. It will be in textbooks as a demonstration of the lemming-like nature of human group-think) was that "We" need a "Lawful Way" for foreign workers to "come and support our economy". Either Bush is a blithering idiot, he hopes we're all blithering idiots, or I am wrong in believing that the U.S. has always had multiple "Lawful Ways" for foreign workers to come here and support themselves, which, in turn, helps to support the economy. Which is it? WTF? Hello? No one picked up on that, so I'll have to allow that I may be wrong-- maybe this country never has had any means by which people could come here legally to work. And maybe I'm a lemming. Apparently no one knows for sure. Apparently, no one in Congress has ever read one of their own bills-- you know, the immigration bills they've been passing for the last, oh, 219 F>@*ing years and then forgetting-- the ones they pass with zero expectation of enforcement. This is a stupid party wherein people have been overdosing on stupid for so long that they're addicted to stupid and will apparently get the cold sweats and die if deprived of regular, heavy doses of stupid.

In the end, Bush had used many very nice terms and cute words and phrases (still can't pronounce nuclear-- hasn't anyone told him? Dude, it's NUKE, LEE, ERR, OK? Say it!) all carefully contrived to throw a little bone to this and to that disparate interest, as if to satisfy everyone. It didn't work. It never works. It only shows that he is without solid principle-- that every mutually exclusive interest to which he panders (thinking himself clever in the process) will see him correctly as a political push-over, lost, a fake, and a hypocrite, searching nervously for the next buzz-phrase to quell our suspicions-- to find the dimmer switch for that light-bulb over our heads and turn it down. In other words, a typical, run-of-the-mill Republican.

But to be a part of the spectacle. That much they have.

It's nothing new to state that many men are attracted to women wearing high heels. But this is something new:

STILETTOS can be good for a woman's sex life, says a study which claims wearing them ``directly works the pleasure muscles linked to orgasm''.

Experts found the high heels toned women’s legs and strengthened pelvic muscles.

In tests, Dr Maria Cerruto, of the University of Verona, Italy, discovered that wearing a pair of ‘‘moderately high heeled shoes’’ had beneficial effects for a woman’s sex life.

‘‘Heels work the pelvic muscles and reduce the need to exercise them.

‘‘Wearing heels during daily activity may reduce the need for the pelvic floor exercises necessary to keep that part of a woman’s anatomy toned and elastic,’’ Cerruto said.

Dr. Joe also has verified methods of directly exercising the pleasure muscles linked to orgasm. Women, make an appointment to obtain the full details and avoid the well-known risks associated with high heels.

Ry reports on a new Army sniping record from Afghanistan by a Arfcom member. Awesome!

If you are wondering at all the amazing sniping shots coming out of Afghanistan you aren't alone. I knew the high altitude would make a difference but I didn't know exactly how much until I ran some numbers through Modern Ballistics. Below you see the numbers for the .50 BMG shooting a high end bullet/cartridge with a gun zeroed at sea level for 1000 yards at a target at 2300 yards (2100 meters) away for various altitudes. Notice the difference in expected group size as the altitudes goes from 0 to 10000 feet. Notice the windage difference. All those things help but still, the shooter and spotter had to be top notch and have a little luck as well. Assuming a target of 18 inches wide and 24 inches tall the altitude difference changed the odds of a hit from about 10% to 20% (not shown).

Good job SnakeaterM24!

Firearm: Default
Cartridge: .50 BMG HMI with 750 gr. A-MAX
Conditions: Standard Conditions.
Range: 2300
Altitude (ft):           0   1000   2000   3000   4000   5000   6000   7000   8000  10000

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill
[Applicable today because of the discussion over at Munchkin Wrangler. Via Tam.--Joe]

As a NRA Personal Protection Instructor I would strongly advise against using this store clerk as a role model. The robber appears to be leaving without harming anyone when she shoots him. This is generally illegal and I agree with this law. What I think happened was, as Joe D. suggested in email to the LPC email discussion list, it was an accidental discharge.

But on an strictly individual level I don't have much sympathy for robbers, especially armed robbers. So, the bottom line is Barb and I laughed pretty hard at this guy getting "circumcised by a .38":

Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them.

Lily Tomlin
[Politics can be pretty depressing at times.--Joe]

Interesting. They are making it into a chain. I wonder if they will be opening a "store" in Nevada. Not that Dr. Joe would have anything more than academic interest or maybe buying some stock.

5 dead in strip mall shooting; gunman at large

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- A gunman who shot and killed five women in a clothing store at a suburban Chicago strip mall Saturday remains at large, police said.

Authorities do not know the motive for the shooting at the Lane Bryant store, said Tinley Park police Sgt. T.J. Grady. The victims' identities were not released.

Grady told reporters that a 911 call reporting the shooting came in at 10:44 a.m.

Shoppers in nearby stores described a tense situation after the shooting..

"Six police entered the store with their hands on their gun holsters," said Tracy Caccavella, who was in a pet supply store across from the Lane Bryant store, according to The Associated Press..

The gunman was described as an African-American man, about 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing between 230 and 260 pounds, Grady said. He was wearing a waist-length black winter coat, a black cap and dark jeans..

Authorities believe there was only one shooter, Grady said.

So, Mayor Daley, hows gun control working for you? Had the victims been able to carry their own defensive tools the headline might have been something like, "Thug shot dead after shooting one victim."

Add these deaths to the list of charges for Daley's trial on violation of 18 USC 242.

Contrary to what this web page says, Craig Eisler did have something to say about the feral child they found in the Word source code.

Crag and the Mac Office team are in a different building from our son James who also works on Office but I'll still ping him to see if he knows anything more about the incident.

I am going to make Position 3 (in the .50 Caliber Ghetto) available at 6:00 PM Pacific time tonight.

It is not required that you shoot a .50 caliber from this position but you will be somewhat limited on the available targets. And any targets at the 375 yard line are off limits to .50 caliber guns.

Because of the extreme angle for some of the 375 yard targets you will be limited to only about half of them. Only the targets on the berm to the left of the three trees in the picture below are available:

For more details about the position see the description here:

http://entry.boomershoot.org/

If you have any questions send an email or give me a call at 208-301-4254.

At 6:00 PM refresh the page in your browser to see the button for position #3 become available.

Joe Huffman
Boomershoot Event Director

Most Yahoo employees will feel that, A., we lost, and B., there is no way in hell that I am going to work for Microsoft.

Former Yahoo employee who wishes to remain anonymous
Microsoft and Yahoo!: Happily Ever After?
[After they get their Borg implants and take a couple swigs of Microsoft Brainwash they'll be fine.--Joe]

I am not an Economist.  I am an honest man!

Paul McCracken
[More stuff on economists as I continue listening to The Big Three in Economics by Mark Skousen. Did you know that Marx bragged about "making a killing" in the stock market? Or that Adam Smith, a big proponents of zero tariffs, worked most of his life as a customs official collecting tariffs?--Joe]

We have two cell phones on the same account.  My wife lost her phone while traveling.  I told her to go to a "Big Giant Phone Company" booth in any town and get another phone.  Big Giant Phone Company calls me, with her standing there, and wants a copy of my driver's license.  Great - they're protecting me against fraud.  I fax them my license while on the phone with them.  All is OK.  They hand my wife her new phone and she can now make and receive calls on her old number.

But there's a problem.  This new phone is booby-trapped.  They had all her account information, they set up her new phone and personally handed it to her after having verified my account identity.  But she can't get any of the many voice-mail messages that are pouring in, and she’s at a Big Expensive Out-Of-Town Convention and all.

They HANDED HER a new phone IN PERSON that doesn't work.  She the user, is forced to set up the voice mail.  But that can be done ONLY AT CERTAIN TIMES of the day and ONLY if she has my Social Security Number (already faxed them my GD driver's license).

Dear, Big Giant Phone Company,  Why do you harass and attempt to thwart your customers with this idiocy?  What do you think WE the paying customers have to gain from being harassed and thwarted by you?  Why should I ever spend another nickel with you if I can avoid it?

And while I’m venting:  Why does Verizon need a 37 digit account number, when anyone is this country of over 300 million can reach me with my 10 digit phone number?  Can you say, DUUHH!?