What could this mean?

Someone in the U.S. Senate is looking for information on a particular Federal Judge:

Domain Name   senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   156.33.142.# (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 WinNT
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1680 x 1050
Color Depth  :  32 bits

Time of Visit   Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Last Page View   Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…nnlain&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words judge oscannlain
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/20/quote-of-the-day-judge-o-scannlain/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/20/quote-of-the-day-judge-o-scannlain/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Sep 2 2009 3:51:43 pm
Visit Number   585,616

That could mean a number of different things. I really have to wonder on the specific meaning of it on this instance. And did my blog post about Judge O’Scannlain make things better or worse for him?

And it’s a sobering reminder that we sometimes may have a greater influence than we realize.

They’re so PC they are un-PC

Via email from daughter Xenia I found out the University of Idaho where our entire family (and Senator Larry [Wide Stance] Craig and Sarah Palin) went to school won the dubious honor of Speech code of the month:

In the University of Idaho’s residence halls, “Actions and/or communication that are discriminatory, harassing or insensitive are not permitted.” (Emphasis added.) This policy prohibits a staggering amount of constitutionally protected speech. In fact, this policy prohibits precisely the speech that the First Amendment exists to protect, since people typically do not seek to censor sensitive, respectful expression. Moving beyond the legal issues, speech codes like this one infantilize college students by assuming they cannot cope with any sort of offense. Do we really want to teach our students that they are entitled to seek punishment for others’ insensitivity? Perhaps in a small city like Moscow, Idaho, students don’t have to deal with much insensitivity on a daily basis, but should they choose to expand their horizons (say, to Philadelphia, for example), they would encounter plenty. And I think it’s safe to say a Philly cop would have a good, long laugh if you asked him or her to arrest a fellow Philadelphian for hurting your feelings.

They also ban carry of firearms on campus which is a big concern of mine because my daughters (and niece) frequently walk to and from class from home. This means they can’t have the best means of personal protection with them should they need it even though they may legally do so off campus.

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Mikeb, this is how I read your words; “Aren’t Jews often associated with societal corruption? Wouldn’t that be the thing a judge and jury have to consider? Isn’t that why Jews are prohibited from certain areas in the first place?”

There is no convincing people who have this sort of attitude, or at least it is extremely rare. Our best hope is to demonstrate to them that expressing their bigoted views is going to make them more and more unpopular. They acquired their bigotry through group think, repetition, and associations (the desire to ‘fit in’) and they’ll usually have to be pried away from their bigotry by the same mechanisms. Some will always hold on to their bigotry, but tend more and more to keep it to themselves. If that’s the best we can accomplish in some cases, so be it. I’d rather they respect human rights in all cases, but if that’s impossible, the next best thing is that they be afraid to act on their hatred.

Lyle @UltiMAK
September 1, 2009
Comment to 57 months for a victimless crime.
[I was going to say something similar in the comment thread but Lyle beat me to it and with better depth than I would have given to the troll.–Joe]

What I should have said

Although I was happy not to have talked myself into a corner on the show there were some things I would have liked to have said differently, explained, or expanded on.

First off, sorry about the bit about asking if you wanted ketchup or relish on your hot dog. I removed my head set and held it away but James’ voice apparently came through even though he was a good ten feet from the microphone.

Sometimes being extremely literal is to my detriment (it also has advantages but that is a different story). When Caleb asked which blog posts I was most proud of I did not include The Jews In The Attic Test because that isn’t a blog post. That is a web page on a different website written long before I had a blog. Caleb didn’t let me get away with not mentioning it however and posted a link to it in the chat room. See also Breda’s post about the other bloggers “greatest hits”.

In the last few seconds of the show Caleb asked what we bloggers would like other bloggers to do differently. I could have spent a minute or two on the topic instead of 15 seconds (or whatever it was). In fact at Gun Blogger Rendezvous II (October 2007) I had asked for an hour for a discussion of that type. Mike said I could bring it up during a particular time slot and when the time came he pressed me pretty hard and I declined to elaborate. I just didn’t have the idea whittled down to it’s essence in a way that would come across as coherent. The basis of my thought is this:

  • We all have something that we do well in the blogosphere–most likely because we are passionate about it
  • Each of us have a niche that is at least somewhat different from everyone else
  • If we can recognize and articulate what it is that we do well and want to accomplish we that will probably enable us to do what we do better

Microsoft used to have the mission statement “A computer on every desk and in every home”. It is now “At Microsoft, our mission and values are to help people and business throughout the world realize their full potential”. I’ve also heard it expressed as “Your potential, our passion.”

I think every blogger should have a mission statement. It doesn’t have to be posted on the banner or part of the name of the blog. It doesn’t even have to be written down. I just has to be something that the blogger refers to when he or she is thinking about when they are working on that “really great post” or when they are searching for something to blog about. “What is my mission here?” should have an answer that can be articulated even if it is done silently and rarely.

I made some suggestions on the show and here they are (perhaps modified a bit) along with some others. Can you guess whose blog they might refer to?

  • Be the best aggregator with minimal fluff and maximum coverage
  • Educate people on the philosophical foundations and practical reasons for liberty
  • Make the Brady Campaign the social equivalent of the KKK
  • Mock the arrogant, the pretentious, and the criminal
  • Have no shame but shame those that need it
  • Proselytize the shooting sports and self-defense
  • Preserve our future through knowing our history
  • Politics are complex so explain and enable people to be effective
  • America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership (from an existing website–guess who)

There might be multiple mission statements for a given blog but with more you increase the risk of not being able to succeed in any one of them.

Think about it. And just because I might have suggested something you think was for your blog doesn’t mean you can’t tell me I’m way off base that your blog is about something entirely different. My perception, my error.

I can now carry a concealed handgun in Nebraska

Via email to the WA-CCW and WA-guns lists from Joe Waldron I discovered the Nebraska now recognizes concealed carry permits from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota (class one permit), Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Does D.C. even have carry permits?

They go on to say that if the holder is 21 or older California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota (class 2 permit), and Texas permits are acceptable.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death (NRA-ILA) needs to update their website for Nebraska and D.C.

I don’t think I have ever been in Nebraska and I don’t have any plans to visit in the foreseeable future but if I did I could carry when I went there. I’ll sleep a little better tonight. Not so much because I can now carry in Nebraska but because thousand of other people can and will. That makes them a little bit safer and the anti-gun bigots a little bit more demoralized.

New blog on the block

John Fogh has started blogging. John is an instructor at Insights.

I also have quoted him here and here.

A few minutes of fame

I was invited to be on Blog Talk Radio tonight. I’ll be talking (or maybe mostly just listening) with a bunch of Gun Nuts. The official description of tonights show is (links added):

Joining us tonight will be a veritable cornucopia of blogging awesome, as LabRat, Stingray, Kevin Baker, Joe Huffman, and Robb Allen will be joining us to discuss blogging and current events. Don’t miss it!

Caleb also has a post up about the show.

Update: Breda says, like herding cats. She also says, “notorious for their independent, quick-witted, and sometimes even contrary characters”. The others on the panel are definitely very quick-witted I won’t think of witty things to say until an hour after the show is over. However, Barb will vouch for me being “notorious” and “contrary”.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Remember, sheep have two speeds – Grazing and stampede.

Robb Allen
September 1, 2009
Having one’s cake and eating it too
[Grass eaters. We are surrounded by them so we have to be careful not to excessively frighten them and cause us to get run over in the stampede. That doesn’t mean we can’t use a little bit of fear to herd them in the proper direction though. In our society the tricky part is coordinating the herding and even finding a suitable direction to herd them.–Joe]

57 months for a victimless crime.

As I’ve said for many years “crime prevention” is a hot button for me.

This type of crap is rather annoying to me:

A Lincoln man will spend close to five years in federal prison for possessing a homemade gun silencer.

On Monday, United States District Judge Richard Kopf sentenced Douglas West to 57 months in prison following his conviction for unlawful possession of a silencer.

West, 50, admitted guilt in May 2009 after being arrested in Lincoln in 2006 with the homemade silencer.

The U.S. Attorney says tests conducted by the ATF laboratories confirmed that the device functioned as a silencer and that it had been used as gunpowder residue was detected inside the device.

A pillow or any number of household items also functions as a sound suppressor. And furthermore in some countries you are required to use a suppressor. Here you are punished if you don’t pay the $200 tax or you try to make your own.

And even using the criteria listed in the article, that it functions as a suppressor and that it had gunpowder residue inside the device, I’ll bet they could meet that standard using my coat sleeve even though I have never fired a gun through it.

Get off the line of attack!

Via email from Say Uncle:

I thought IDPA was supposed to be about real world defensive shooting. If so then why didn’t the shooter get off the line of attack? In my training at Insights we did a LOT of that. I kept wanting to push off to one side just watching this video.

Robb Allen also has some comments on the video.

Open position for Boomershoot 2010

Tomorrow evening, September 1, at 1700 PDT there will be an opening for Boomershoot 2010 available.

It probably will be position 4 in the .50 Caliber Ghetto. I have offered it to current entrants in the event so it is possible someone else will take it and open up a position someplace else.

Update: Gone in 92 minutes.

Quote of the day–Alan Gura

As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only “[i]f words happen to still be dubious.” Pet. Br. 17 (quotation and citation omitted). “[B]ut when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 516 (9th ed. 1858). “The preamble can neither limit nor extend the meaning of a statute which is clear. Similarly, it cannot be used to create doubt or uncertainty.” Norman Singer, 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47.04, at 295 (7th ed. 2007).

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
[Just a reminder to those bigots that keep insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government having a right to own guns when they want to ignore the 9-0 decision in favor of an individual right in Heller.–Joe]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

This post was inspired by this post by Rachel Lucas (H/T to David).

From her post:

The first thing that surprised me about Auschwitz is that it is not as secluded these days as I expected; it is just right there in what seems like the middle of this average small town. It’s just…right there. It is jarring. There’s a busy parking lot about 50 yards from the “front door,” a lot that is filled with buses and cars and noisy tourists. Again. Very jarring.

…

It was the most surreal moment of my life so far. There I was, facing this object I’ve seen in a thousand photographs, something that is attached in my mind to pure abject despair and massive human suffering…and it’s surrounded by happy tourists. It was almost like a Disneyland version of hell, just because of all the serene camera-toting tourists. Of which I was one, I know that, but still. It was nothing short of the worst case of cognitive dissonance I think I’ll ever experience.

…

There was such natural beauty visible to any human standing in the middle of Birkenau that day. It was as if nature was asserting herself over all the despair and ugliness. Look how green I can be, feel this perfect air, listen to this thunder, there is always something good that will come out of something awful.

How will you know when the plane, train or bus you are told by the government to board is headed to “the camp”? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won’t have your eulogy written in them. And the nearby buildings will look the same as it did the day and the week before. Will you fuss about your children’s clothes that just got dirty because they rubbed up against the lamp post? Will you worry if you packed enough underwear for your trip? Will you curse under your breath because you forgot to bring sunscreen or an extra jacket?

I will know when it is the government telling me I must get on a plane, train, or bus or report to a particular location. I won’t be worrying about dirt on anyone’s clothes or what I didn’t bring. I’ll be worrying about getting a good sight picture and alternate exit routes.

How will you know whether the medicine the government doctor gives you to ease your pain is in your best interests or the governments best interest? Will the treatment prescribed be for the good of society as a whole or will it be for the good of the individual?

I will know when the doctor gets his paycheck from the government and cannot get a job with similar compensation in the private sector.

How will you know when gays, blacks, Japanese, Muslims, or Jews are in danger of being sent to the camps?

I will know when the government demands that information be put in lists–whether that list is in the form of an ID card or a census. But census data can’t be legally used for 70 years, right? I’ve got news for you. U.S. census data was used to find Japanese citizens and send them them to the “War Relocation Camps” in 1942.

Just because you have never broken the law or injured another doesn’t mean those in power won’t think of you as a terrorist. Are you a gun owner? To some that means you are a potential threat to society. They may think 10% of gun owners “shouldn’t have guns”. But how can they determine which 10%? Just to be safe they have to send them all to the camps, just for a little while until they can sort them out, right? It is for the good of society. The world will be a better place soon. It’s will hurt for just a little bit. Sort of like an inoculation, a little jab and it stings for a few seconds and then everything will be better. It’s only 10%.

How will gun owners know when it’s time to start shooting? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won’t have their eulogy written in them…

Quote of the day–Joe Waldron

Most of their money comes from a single source, like Soros, the Joyce Foundation or the Tides Foundation (Maria Theresa Simoes Ferrara Heinz Kerry). Their “membership” is a joke.

Sad as the pro-gun lobby is in terms of membership — maybe six million nationwide out of 70-80 MILLION gun owners (and that double-counts many of us who belong to multiple organizations), we’re way more committed, individually, than the other side. That’s why the Brady Bunch “captured” (actually, co-opted) the name “and the Million Mom March” to give the impression of numbers that don’t exist.

Ditto Seattle’s “crime gun person,” whose huge salary is paid for by a grant from the anti-gun lobby.

Just more elitist SOBs who know better than you do how to run your life. You’re too stupid, so just shut up and do what you’re told, it’s for your own good. You see a lot of that mentality in the current health care debate, as well. The nanny-state crowd.

Joe Waldron
August 30, 2009
Washington CCW email list Subversive Gun Groups Question (membership required)
[How many members does the Brady Campaign have? Oh, that’s right. There isn’t even a way to become a member on their website.

This is reflected in the number of gun blogs as well. I only know of one active anti-gun blog that isn’t a paid position. There are 127 pro gun blogs listed at GunBloggers and that is just a partial listing as I know of some gun blogs that aren’t on that list (although I know there are some inactive blogs on that list as well).

I’ve attended numerous public hearings (such as this one) and public demonstrations. We outnumbered them at least 10 to one each time. Sometimes 100 to one. The rallies for I-676 a while back–we outnumbered them 1000 to one.

If the big money of the special interest anti-gun groups with the cooperation of the mainstream media wasn’t in play it would be game over for them.–Joe]

Our kids are ‘interesting’

Barb’s brother says sister Susan’s kids are ‘nice’. Barb’s kids are ‘interesting’.

This video of Xenia’s speech for her communications class is further evidence of ‘interesting’. I think the topic was something like “An event that changed my life”:

Quote of the day–Kelsey

I’m a carbs based life form.

Kelsey
August 29, 2009
[Barb and I had lunch with son James and his girlfriend Kelsey today. Kelsey continues to please us with her sparkle and affection toward James. We all had fun and lots of laughs today. The following banter is just one example:

Barb: James was so sweet when he was little.
Kelsey: [to James] So when did you stop being sweet?
Joe: I think sweetness is a constant in your lifetime. If you use it up when you are little you don’t have any left when you get older.
Barb: [to Joe] So when did you use up your sweetness?
Joe: [after the laughter subsided] I’ve just been saving it for someone else.

Also discussed were lentil cookies, how James made QOTD in his comment about them, daughters Kim and Xenia‘s burping contests, and Xenia’s college speech and video about farts.

Barb’s brother says sister Susan has nice children but Barb has interesting children.–Joe]

More information needed

The North Carolina Supreme Court threw out a ban on a convicted felon having a gun.

I’ve read this from two different news outlets and two blogs (Say Uncle and the Confederate Yankee which he links to) but I think it all boils down to a single source which gives me insufficient information to answer the questions I want answered. Therefore I will speculate.

My speculation is that this felon, Barney Britt, had his gun rights restored under Federal law in 1987. North Carolina had no law banning convicted felons from gun ownership so he was able to own guns. Then in 2004 North Carolina passed a law that said convicted felons could not own a gun even if their rights had been restored under Federal law. Now he suddenly, after up to 17 years of legal gun ownership, he was prohibited from owning guns due to no recent fault of his own.

What I want to know is the reasoning of the court. Was it an ex post facto issue? Or was it in someway based on Heller and/or the Second Amendment and/or the North Carolina Constitution provision (in many ways nearly identical to the 2nd Amendment).

If it is an ex post facto issue then it’s not all that newsworthy. If it’s because of a right to keep and bear arms issue then it could much more interesting.

Update: Via Xrlq I have the ruling. The ruling was based on the NC Constitution. Very interesting.

As pointed out by the dissent “the majority has crafted an individualized exception for a sympathetic plaintiff.” But my quick scan of the ruling did not reveal guidelines/tests for other plaintiffs to determine their status other than “his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards other citizens, his thirty years of lawabiding conduct since his crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety.”

I expect the legislature will be amending the law to carve out exceptions or a process by which some felons can have their gun rights restored.

Pistol recoil pictures

As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday I had a request for permission to use some of my pictures in an Italian magazine and blog. He told me:

Both on my site and on my articles, I write about reloading, especially for pistols.

One of my elaboration led me to examine the correlation between recoil intensity and bullets weight. I will public this article both on my site and on “Armi Magazine” journal. Now I am searching some pictures about recoil.

This email to ask you if I could use some of beautiful photos from your blog, in particular that in attached (have you the HD format ?), for sure I will mention your name on the pictures.

Here are the pictures (cropped down to the interesting parts) I sent him:

Some of you will recognize the guns and others will recognize their own hands.

Update: I have a .pdf file of the completed article now. Only the first picture above was used (Robb, your hands may soon be famous in Italy). Once the article is actually published I should be getting a link to it and I will post it. Here is the title of the article:

“Tiro dinamico: palla leggera o pesante ?” – “Dynamic shooting (IPSC): light or heavy bullet?”

Sub title: “Rilevamento e tempo di riarmo di una pistola in funzione del peso palla” – “Recoil and slide time as a function of bullet weight”

As I have been shooting IPSC (now USPSA) for nearly 15 years this is a topic of great interest to me. From what I can tell looking at the graphs and picking up a few words and numbers in the article this is a very interesting article. I’ll probably spend the time to run it through an automated translator to get a better idea of what it says.

Nice wall paper

David has some new wall paper up on his office wall (and here). He calls it “Wall o’ Freedom”.

Very nice.

But I’m biased.

Quote of the day–‘Doc’ Russia

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy’s name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

‘Doc’ Russia
August 26, 2009
More gallows humor
[Via an email from Scott K.

I cannot think of a single thing to add to this.–Joe]