Federal court: strict scrutiny for 2nd

Via email from Mike B. we have a ruling in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014). And as Mike pointed out in his email this affects my stomping grounds where I have carried many times on lands directly addressed in the ruling when I had no idea such stupid regulations even existed.

Eugene Volokh, Dave Hardy, Say Uncle, and Sebastian all commented on the ruling. Hardy was the only one that even mentioned the judge says the strict scrutiny must be used when determining whether a law or regulations infringes upon the 2nd Amendment. The court said:

The regulation at issue would ban firearms and ammunition in a tent on the Corps’ sites. This ban poses a substantial burden on a core Second Amendment right and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.

While the ban on carrying firearms for self-defense may impose a burden on this core right of the Second Amendment severe enough to call for strict scrutiny, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide that issue because the regulation fails to pass muster even if intermediate scrutiny is applied.

If strict scrutiny is required to regulate the carrying a firearm for self-defense this will almost certainly mean constitutional carry will become the law of the land.

Equal rights

It sounded to me like the shotgun was empty. But the point being made is valid.

Quote of the day—E.A. Blair

It has long been suggested that gun nuts cling to their weapons as phallic substitutes. Wherever that is the case, I recommend autofellatio. I’m told the climax is a real killer.

E.A. Blair
April 2, 2013
Comment to Debunking the Conservative Myth on “Assault Rifles”
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! With bonus points for advocating gun owners kill themselves.

H/T to Phil who sent me an email with the link.—Joe]

Testing Markley’s Law

Yesterday I was reading a blog post about how the Government Spent $224,863 On “Custom-Fit” Condoms and came across this graphic of world wide penis size distribution (units are centimeters):

20140111_penis

If there was any truth to the claims by those that invoke Markley’s law then there should be correlation with gun ownership rates and those countries in the deep red. But just “eyeballing” it I would guess there is very little, if any correlation.

I showed the graphic to a female friend who found it interesting so I thought I would share it with my readers here. I’m pretty sure that it is a coincidence that she is leaving for Ecuador on Thursday.

Quote of the day—Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
[This applies to those Markley’s Law attacks as well many other insults gun owners constantly endure as we protect our rights in public forums.

H/T to Emanuel Tchividjian for mentioning it in his post. H/T to ubu52 for her comment which lead me to Tchividjian’s post.-Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

In fact, the Democrats who passed ObamaCare were well aware of the misery they were about to impose on the American people. We know this because the Democrats authored specific provisions within ObamaCare to protect themselves against ObamaCare.

Welcome to the Democrat Animal Farm.

animal_farm_poster-2isu30qobamacare-exemptions

Robert J. Avrech
January 6, 2014
All Animals Are Equal, Unless They Are Democrat Animals
[If you don’t get the reference you should read Animal Farm.

And if ObamaCare isn’t enough to convince you we live on an “animal farm” remember:

The list probably could be extended hundreds if not thousands of items.—Joe]

Health insurance company political myth

Some, perhaps most, people believe the health insurance companies supported Obamacare. It is commonly believed they were thinking, “All those previously uninsured people will be forced to pay us money!”

This isn’t really true.

I recently talked to a former health insurance lobbyist who still works in the industry. I was told that if they were to publically oppose “affordable healthcare” they “might as well set themselves on fire”. They are highly regulated and those regulatory agencies, as well as the SEC, IRS, and media, would have been employed by the politicians to punish any company that put up resistance. As dustydog recently reported, “90% of legislative work is strong-arming businesses into paying protection money – threatening to pass detrimental legislation if the money isn’t paid.”

Do gun companies and gun shops back talk to the ATF? The NRA, yes, but they aren’t regulated by the ATF, the gun industry is very careful what it says to politicians. Insurance regulators may not stomp kittens to death and slam pregnant women against walls but insurance companies fear their regulators too.

Insurance companies know Obamacare cannot succeed. They knew it long before any of us did. The best they could do was build up cash reserves to make it through until the law is changed. It’s happened before in various states (such as Washington) and they believed they could stay in the game long enough for the political winds to change. It was like being forced to play in a card game where you know the dealer is crooked but if you play what you are dealt carefully enough you probably can hold out until the dealer is replaced.

Yes. They did have input into the legislation. They got the individual mandate put in. It was relatively easy to demonstrate that they would hemorrhage to death in short order if that provision didn’t exist. They avoided direct opposition to the politicians and they deflected damage as best they could but they did not “support” it.

Here is what they publically say about Obamacare:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands access to coverage to millions of Americans, a goal health plans have long supported, but major provisions will raise costs and disrupt coverage for individuals, families, employers, and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

The broad market reforms outlined in the ACA took effect on January 1, 2014. Individuals and families purchasing insurance in the individual market will be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, and their premiums cannot vary based on their gender or medical history. There will also be subsidies to help consumers afford the cost of coverage, and new health insurance exchanges will help consumers find the policies that best meet their needs.

At the same time, other provisions take effect that will significantly increase the cost of coverage, such as the health insurance tax, minimum essential benefits, and restrictions on age rating. The cumulative impact of all of these provisions increases the likelihood that some individuals will choose to purchase insurance only after they become sick or injured, further increasing the cost of coverage for everyone else with insurance.

The ACA also takes a number of preliminary, but promising, steps toward reforming the delivery system to improve patient safety and quality in Medicare and Medicaid. Many of these initiatives build on successful private-sector programs that health plans have pioneered and implemented.

Ultimately, the ACA coverage expansion will not be sustainable until policymakers and stakeholders take meaningful steps to reduce the rate of growth in medical costs.

It doesn’t take much squinting to read between the lines and realize they know they are playing a rigged game with a gun to their heads and believe private-sector solutions are better for everyone.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

It is time for the high court to clarify that the right to bear arms does not stop at someone’s front door. What other constitutional right is confined to one’s house? The Second Amendment was never meant to be encumbered with such a limitation, and it cannot possibly be interpreted that way, but it will take a Supreme Court ruling to convince lower courts and anti-gunners, and put this debate to rest.

Alan Gottlieb
January 9, 2014
U.S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CONSIDER SAF, ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY CASE
[While I agree it is time to “put this debate to rest” as long the rulings of the courts are ignored in the short term it doesn’t really matter that much. The short term reality is that Despite Ruling, Chicago Officials Vow to Continue Gun Control Measures. And when they decide to obey the law they drag out “compliance” as long as they can.

It might ultimately matter when they get put on trial but that is not going to happen any time soon.—Joe]

Framing the issue

This is an interesting suggestion on the gun control debate from Tim Phillips:

Is there another way to frame this issue?

For the last 20 years I have led an international organization that works in war torn countries to negotiate an end to conflict. In places like Northern Ireland, El Salvador, South Africa and the Balkans, groups once driven to violence to defend their beliefs have put down their weapons, sat down at a table, overcome their differences and negotiated. Moving beyond conflict is, indeed, possible.

One dynamic I have observed present in all successful negotiations — which is missing from our current debate over gun control — is a recognition of the role of sacred values.

Phillips claims the two sides don’t really understand each other. While I’m certain the anti-gun people don’t understand us I think we understand them reasonably well. Of course they could be saying the same thing about us.

I am skeptical that progress can be made when the other side has irrational beliefs such as using guns to protect armored cars, banks, and politicians is a good idea but using them to protect school children is a bad idea. But I would be extremely interested to sit down and have such a discussion with an mediator who has experience with the techniques described by Phillips.

Quote of the day—Noah Rothman

After donating $2.5 million to the Democratic Senate Majority PAC, America’s favorite Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, is signaling that his great crusade against guns is running out of steam.

The most important public policy challenge of 2013 was not all that important after all, at least when directly balanced against Democratic control of the upper chamber of Congress. Furthermore, even the most principled among us can be moved to abandon their cause so long as the pressure is intense enough.

Noah Rothman
January 7, 2014
At Democrats’ Request, Even Mike Bloomberg Is Giving up on Gun Control
[This is further evidence that nearly all politicians only have one fundamental principle. That principle is to gain and hold onto power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Leftists and Narcissists have weaker amygdalae which can’t handle stress, or process it into productive actions, and it will often manifest on the face as a subtle anxiety, sadness, or anger beneath their expressed emotions. Leftism is an attempt by leftists to prevent amygdala stimulation by seeking conditions of full government control of everyone, where no one can ever surpass the leftist in happiness or success. When such an individual’s amygdala fires off in response to their environment, anything and everything is on the table to stop the anxiety, provided that what they do doesn’t offer the threat of greater amygdala stimulation. So shooting an innocent girl is a viable amygdala relaxation technique, but encountering an armed individual capable of fighting back and hurting them, such as a Sheriff’s Deputy is not. This is why Communism so frequently devolves into oppressive bloodbaths, and why anyone who lets these idiots within a mile of any real power is a fool.

Anonymous Conservative
January 6, 2014
Amygdala Activation, Facial Expression, And Aberrant Behavior
[Both his blog and his book have some fascinating insights that seem to explain a lot of what would otherwise appear to be irrational behavior by leftist/progressives/communists. In this posts he offers an explanation of why most mass shooters have leftist political beliefs and they shoot themselves as soon as they encounter resistance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Judge Edmond E. Chang

By analogy, it is enough that Plaintiffs have substantiated a chilling effect on protected Second Amendment conduct.

Judge Edmond E. Chang
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
January 6, 2014
Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, and Michael Hall, v. The City of Chicago and Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of the City of Chicago.
[I’m not a lawyer but I think this is AWESOME!

This court appears to be saying that a “chilling effect” upon the Second Amendment is the equivalent of a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment and hence is unconstitutional. If so, then I can see registration of firearms and perhaps even background checks being thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And those ambiguous laws which ban “assault weapons” but allow other guns of the same caliber and rate of fire to remain legal will almost for certain be struck down. I could even see “school zones” being struck down because it is difficult to know you are within 1000 feet of school property. Hence those laws have a chilling effect upon your right to carry in public.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Manley

@tl671 @jbiros @linoge_wotc @know_one999 @tdubb Well, clinging to phallic symbols to feel like a man SHOULD be a want, not a “need”, but ok.

John Manley (@johnironmanley)
Tweeted on May 30, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Barb likes Idaho sunsets

Barb arrived in Idaho late (as in nearly Midnight) on Christmas Day. The next day she helped me finish up the installation of the solar panels at Boomershoot Mecca. I had left one of the brackets at the hardware store in Orofino when I went into town to get the right type and size screws for mounting them to the side of the shipping container.

We did some more Wi-Fi experiments involving more cross-field snow hiking with a battery, fence post, and a Nanostation.

WP_20131226_005

WP_20131226_006

At the end of the day there was a nice sunset. Barb very impressed with it so we took a bunch of pictures from different locations as we drove back to my brother’s place for the night.

IMG_9182
IMG_9165
IMG_9169
IMG_9171
IMG_9176

Boomershoot Mecca improvements

I arrived at Boomershoot Mecca at 9:00 AM on December 22nd to see this:

WP_20131222_007

It was a little bit cold and very dark and dreary. I started the generator, turned on the lights and started work inside. I had a bunch of Wi-Fi experiments to do to see if I could get a connection to my brother’s house 1.65 miles away. This involved configuring several Nanostations and tromping across snow covered fields with a Nanostation, a battery, and fence post trying to get around the hills between the two sites with the fewest number of hops.

I also installed another inverter. I really need to organize all the wires better. I have the tie wraps. I just need to use them.

WP_20131222_009

The new inverter is the box in the lower left corner of the picture. It can output 2500 Watts continuously. The batteries won’t last long at that rate (at over 230 Amps at 12 Volts I don’t expect much more than an hour) but it will allow me to run everything simultaneously if I really want to. This includes a new piece of surprise (for Boomershoot staff) equipment that consumes 1000 Watts all by itself but dramatically improves the speed of some operations during the production of Boomerite targets. Typically we run on generator power but for just building some test targets or testing production procedures the new inverter will let us do that without having a generator on site and without turning off the lights.

When I came back on the 24th it was literally dripping wet inside. This is a picture of the ceiling of the shipping container:

WP_20131224_003

I need to spend some effort into deciding what to do about the condensation.

On Christmas Day the sun was bright and I observed the existing solar panel producing 121.5 Watts. The panel is rated at 130 Watts so I was a bit surprised that even with the low angle winter sun I was getting that much power out of it.

I installed some “windows” on the south side of the shipping container:

WP_20131225_001

Not really. It’s two more solar panels. They are getting so cheap that I decided it was worth while to just install them vertical rather than spend the effort to mount them at the optimal angle.

I also drove the grounding rod another foot or so into the ground. I pound on it with a sledge hammer until my joints and muscle ache too much or I run out of time. I’ve made a lot of progress considering how hard and rocky the ground is there. It’s getting close to the proper depth. It’s an 8’ long galvanized rod and I think I now have only about 18” above ground.

Grandson pictures

Part of Christmas vacation 2013 was spent with my grandson Bryce.

On the way to Idaho with son James, DIL Kelsey, and grandson Bryce we stopped in Ellensburg for lunch. While James and Kelsey were busy with some other things Bryce and I had some time to ourselves. I decided he looked good in a hat:

WP_20131221_004

James really wanted to take him on his first ride on the snow. So on Christmas Eve we borrowed a plastic toboggan from my brother Doug and went off over the hillside to slide down the hill. Kelsey and Zoe participated as well.

IMG_8858

IMG_8867

IMG_8862

IMG_8863

IMG_8917

Casualty:

IMG_9036 

It wasn’t really a casualty. Zoe just liked rolling around in the snow.

IMG_9041

Video/slide-show here.

This was his first Christmas (Eve).

IMG_9124

The little red rocking chair he is sitting in was made by my grandmother King’s father for my grandmother. Hence it was made by Bryce’s Great, Great, Great Grandfather.

IMG_9120

IMG_9125

Quote of the day—Brett LoGiurato

The two new moves on gun control are further proof that President Barack Obama will continue to go ahead with any and all possible moves on guns. It also signals that, for the foreseeable future in Congress, any new measures on gun control are dead.

Brett LoGiurato
January 3, 2013
Obama’s Two New Moves On Guns Are Further Proof That Gun Control In Congress Is Dead
[This is true at the Federal level. They had their last stand and they lost.

But it is not true at the state level.

Here in Washington we have two gun control initiatives coming up this year. One is pro-gun and the other is anti-gun. My guess is that the good guys will win but the wider the margin the better the long term results. If we really stomp on them again like the 71%-29% victory with I-676 in 1997 we can essentially remove the current crop of anti-gun people in this state from the political map. Washington Ceasefire, the anti-gun group behind I-676, has not been a political force since their massive loss. Remember, we win because they screw up. They pushed for an assault weapon ban after Newtown which motivated the gun rights people. Then when they backed down we had the political momentum to stop everything they had on their wish list and silence them at the Federal level for the foreseeable future.

Other than defeat gun control politically what you can do is to defeat it culturally. Take someone to the range. New shooters, people that used to shoot but not recently, participate in or start a league, and get people to participate in IPDA, USPSA, Steel Challenge, or Boomershoot. The more regular shooters we have the less likely the anti-gun people are to get votes or even get traction in the media. Besides, as @LittlKit says, “It’s just fun!”

WP_20140104_002

—Joe]

Joe’s dialect

Via the New York Times, the way I pronounce words and the vocabulary I use puts me in these areas of the country:

JoeDialect

That’s a pretty good fit.

Quote of the day—Charles Santagati

What if every public venue had a remote transmitter on its premises which sent a signal to the safety lock locking the trigger making any gun within its protected zone unable to be fired? What if any attempt to tamper with the lock or interrupt a signal from a transmitter resulted in automatically locking the trigger, which then could only be unlocked by a bonded gunsmith?

[W]e already have this technology. All that remains is a serious commitment and collaboration among government leaders, gun manufacturers. the NRA and concerned citizens.

Charles Santagati
January 2, 2014
Letter: Remote locks could provide gun control
[I don’t know how Santagati crosses back and forth between his reality and the one I am familiar with but I suspect it involves not taking his medications in a timely manner. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The stupid and ignorance is so rampant in his blatherings that I’ll only hit the high points of the ones that might not be obvious to casual observers.

  • To “interrupt a signal from a transmitter” would involve little more than piece of aluminum foil.
  • No mechanism could distinguish the addition of a piece of aluminum foil from nearby pop can and/or simply being outside the zone of influence of the transmitter. Hence there would be no way for the gun to disable the trigger due to such an effort to block the transmitter.
  • There is no way to build a mechanism that “could only be unlocked by a bonded gunsmith”.
  • There is no way to retrofit the hundreds of millions of existing guns with such technology even if it existed and even if the owners were to cooperate which they wouldn’t.
  • If such a gun could be built and retrofitted to all existing guns the transmitters to disable them would widely available to the bad guys via either normal channels or the black market. Your ability to protect yourself in your own home could be neutralized by any thug with more than a half dozen functioning brain cells.
  • The Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear functional arms when authorities decide it is in the “public good” to “turn off the transmitter”. That right exists at all times. To require guns be disabled at the command of others would be a violation of civil right and punishable by law.

This is part of why we win. The other side thinks they are so smart and so clever when in fact many of them really are this stupid, ignorant and/or delusional.—Joe]

Saving Mr. Banks

On New Years Day Barb and I went to see Saving Mr. Banks. It is a Disney movie which IMDB.com describes as:

Author P. L. Travers reflects on her difficult childhood while meeting with filmmaker Walt Disney during production for the adaptation of her novel, Mary Poppins.

That doesn’t begin to do the movie justice.

I never really cared for Mary Poppins. For one thing I almost never like musicals. And Mary Poppins just seemed to be a bunch of pointless skits strung together. But Barb and I saw a trailer for Saving Mr. Banks a few weeks ago and it looked like it might have some promise.

The major plot line of the movie was that Travers needs the money but is exceedingly reluctant to allow Disney to change her vision of the characters and story. She holds back on signing the rights while simultaneously “working” with the screenwriter and music composers. It’s a contentious relationship with Travers pitted against everyone she meets at Disney who do their best to understand her and accommodate her outrageous demands. The demands include changing the grammar of lines in the script which describe a scene and banning of the use of the color red in the entire movie.

Scenes from Travers childhood in Australia are intertwined with scenes from Disney Studios in 1961. As the exceedingly personal and troubling origins of the Mary Poppins characters are revealed Travers becomes more a sympathetic person rather than just a grumpy old lady. I sometimes thought the world would have been a better place if the adult version of Travers had been dropped off in the middle of the Outback and forgotten.

Even though you know how the essence of how the movie has to end it has a tremendous amount of stress as it reaches its climax and then resolves the conflicts.

Barb wasn’t affected nearly as much as I was, so it probably is something about my abnormal empathy for females, but I found it emotionally overwhelming and draining.

That said, it was a very good movie. I liked it much better than Mary Poppins.