It’s the thought that counts

Drivers licenses (some exception apply, see comments), marriages, and divorces are recognized in all fifty states. Concealed carry licenses should be recognized as well. Full Faith and Credit, right? It isn’t that way in practice and it just one more example of the extensive bigotry (and here) against gun owners.

 

This isn’t the first time someone has tried to do something about it but it is nice to see another effort made:

 

Saying Americans need a “fighting chance” to confront outlaws in a violent society, U.S. Rep Cliff Stearns has gone on the offensive to promote his bill to allow concealed-weapons permit-holders to cross state lines without fear of having their constitutional rights curtailed by another state’s laws.

 

With President Obama being opposed to gun ownership even in the home, let alone in public, and all the anti-gun people in positions of leadership in the house the chances of this even making it out of committee let alone being passed are zero. But it might be useful to get the congress critters to show their colors in time for the next election.

“Yes” to Just One Question

I believe I have an answer to Joe’s “Just one Question”.

 

As Joe states;

 

There are three possible answers to this question.

  1. “I don’t know.” In which case my response is, “Come back to the debate when you can answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”
  2. “No.” In which case my response is, “Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don’t want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again.”
  3. “Yes and here is my demonstration.”

 

My answer is; “Yes and here is my demonstration.”

 

In response to Clinton era attacks on gun rights, I and many other Americans decided to buy our first guns, or to get back into shooting after a long hiatus.  Gun dealers often credited Clinton (and his administration) for being “salesman of the year” for several years running.  The atmosphere at gun shows was very energetic, and the NRA’s membership got a large bump as people got guns and got involved in pro second amendment activism.  The NRA and other groups also started pushing harder for gun handling safety as it became clear that our right to keep and bear arms was seriously threatened.  This all falls under what we’ll call “backlash”.

 

The backlash against actual gun restriction resulted in more gun owners, more participation in shooting activities, more participation in pro 2A activism, more emphasis on safety and self defense, and many more states passing “shall issue” concealed carry laws.

 

More armed citizens, more of them carrying concealed, and more emphasis on safety and home security, and presto– violent crime has been going down in the areas where gun ownership has increased, and gun accidents have been on the decline for years, even with the increased gun ownership.

 

Hence, I submit that, due to public backlash, the average person has indeed been made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons.

 

The twist lies in the fact that guns weren’t simply banned except in a few small pockets in the U.S..  The question pertains to “restrictions” and not to full prohibition.  In those places where all guns were effectively outlawed, crime continued to rampage, but in places where we could still legally get and keep guns we became safer.  Semi-auto rifles and carbines (the so-called “assault weapons”) were purchased in the largest numbers too, because those were the ones most threatened (my first gun purchase ever was a Glock 20 with a 15 round magazine, because I knew the magazine restriction was coming.  I then bought several more 15 round magazines “while I still could”).  I maintain that the very large increase in interest in AR-15s and AKs, et al (“Evil Black Rifles” or EBRs) is in part due to the Clinton era restrictions.

 

Today, the Clinton era concerns are back.  The Obama groupies are wanting to pass more gun restrictions, and as a result, people are buying up guns, “while we still can”.  Most pointedly, they’re buying up semi-auto rifles and carbines, semi-auto pistols, full capacity magazines and folding or collapsible stocks, as those are all in the most threatened category.  We can only hope for more change in the form of backlash.  Do your part to make America even safer; encourage your friends and neighbors to get their first guns, join the NRA, and become active “while they still can”.

New gun bloggers

Mexican Carry and David Young’s On Second Opinion have both been added to my RSS feed reader.


Welcome to the gun blogger community!

I didn’t know I was in condor country

Sebastian points out the deception in regards to the lead shot ban proposal in Washington state. Mexican Carry gives us details, sarcasm, and what is probably the real reason.

Quote of the day–David E. Young

At least five of the eight state declarations of rights were specifically, in the words of the state constitutions themselves, part of their state constitutions. An obvious error of this type from such a large assemblage of professional academic historians is unacceptable in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The nature of this error is not just an embarrassment for the historians. It brings into serious question the factual basis of the historians’ Heller amicus brief supporting Washington DC’s gun control laws because it indicates that these historians are not overly familiar with the relevant period sources their assertions relate to.


David E. Young
January 25, 2009
The Root Cause of Never-ending Second Amendment Dispute
[The errors the anti-gun people bring to the debate are so numerous and so persistent despite being corrected numerous times I find it difficult to believe they are innocent mistakes or even willful ignorance. In many cases I’m certain it’s deliberate deception. And in some cases it’s an admitted deception on their part.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jeffrey A. Lamken

Properly read, the Second Amendment prevents unreasonable federal encroachment on the ability of the States to maintain, arm, and call forth their militias. It does not handicap the States’ exercise of their police powers to regulate dangerous instrumentalities, including firearms, to fulfill their equally central role of protecting the lives, liberty, and property of their citizens.


Jeffrey A. Lamken
January 2008
Brief supporting petitioners of amici curiae American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Ceasefire NJ, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Clifton Kirkpatrick in his capacity as the stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Educational Fund to stop Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, American Jewish Congress, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Gray Panthers, Gunfreekids.org, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Illinoisvictims.org, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Jenna Foundation for Nonviolence, inc., Karla Zimmerman Memorial Foundation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of Jewish Women, New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, DC Statehood Green Party, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Renée Olumbuni Rondeau Peace Foundation, Root (Reaching Out to Others Together) Inc., Union for Reform Judaism, Virginia Center for Public Safety, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, and certain individual victims and families of victims of gun violence.
[Wrong. You lose. First clue–people have rights. States have powers. The words say, “…the right of the people…” Words have meanings and in a document as important the constitution of a nation each of those words were debated and very carefully chosen by very smart people who said exactly what they wanted to say. The first clue for people reading Lamken that he was full of it should be that you don’t protect the liberty of a citizen by taking a liberty away.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Leave it up to New Yorkers to defeat those who support the constitution and elect those who seek to destroy it.


Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[As pointed out by Clayton, Jeff, SayUncle, and Sebastian, this is not always true so -1 point for Gaddy. He still gets a 99% on his essay.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Paul Helmke

While we opposed the Court’s decision to overrule 70 years of precedent and over 200 years of Second Amendment history, gun violence prevention advocates praised Section III of Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to find a wide variety of gun control regulations “presumptively lawful” under the Constitution. Such laws include restrictions against carrying concealed weapons, laws against gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, laws against taking guns into “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, and laws that restrict “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Indeed, Justice Scalia stated that his list of “presumptively lawful” regulations comprised only examples, and was “not exhaustive.”


Paul Helmke
Brady Campaign president
January 21, 2009
OPINION: New Day Dawning for Gun Violence Prevention
[From reading his gloating the only thing the 2A protects in the right to keep a firearm in your home for self-defense. Concealed carry elimination is clearly one of his goals. Registration is almost for certain is one of his goals. And if I squint just a little as I read his article I can even see the desire to limit people to owning just one gun.


Molôn Labé, Paul, Molôn Labé.–Joe]

Comment on hunting regs in Washington state

Via reader Roger I became aware we have this proposal to make a change in the archery hunting regulations:

WAC 232-12-054  Archery requirements–Archery special use
permits.  (1) Rules pertaining to all archery:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or have in his
possession any firearm while in the field archery hunting, during
an archery season specified for that area,
except for modern handguns
carried for personal protection.  Modern handguns cannot be used to
hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big
game hunting season.

The underlined portion is the proposed change. It sounds like a good idea to me. Why should you give up your right to defend yourself with a handgun just because you are doing some archery hunting?

Email your comments to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife here before February 20th, 2009. More details on the commenting process can be found here.

I don’t even recognize his name

Some might ask if I know this guy who is sort of a neighbor of mine:



A 65-year-old Spokane man has been ordered held in custody on federal charges of illegally possessing automatic weapons and illegally storing explosives in a Bellevue commercial storage shed while agents investigate how he came to possess a huge military-grade arsenal that included grenade launchers, machine guns and plastic explosives.


Ronald Struve, heavyset and bearded, appeared in Seattle before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler on Tuesday after being extradited from Spokane, where he was arrested Jan. 7 during a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).


In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.


…


One box contained 54 M406 high-explosive grenade rounds — 40-millimeter shells that can be launched from a shoulder-fired weapon to distances of 300 yards or more, according to military specification.


Its explosion creates a “kill radius” of up to 16 feet from the point of impact and injuries dozens of yards beyond that.


Agents also found several other anti-personnel grenades, including a Korean War-era “Chicom” stick grenade.


In another box, agents found six blocks of C-4 plastic explosives.


Agents counted 32 apparent machine guns, including M-14s, M-16s, and several “Sten guns,” a mass-produced submachine gun known for its high rate of fire — upward of 500 rounds per minute.


They also found nine silencers and the parts for several others, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition and various other military hardware.


“All of the military explosive items seized are considered contraband and cannot be possessed by anyone other than the military,” Wallace wrote in a search warrant. “The majority of the items seized appeared to be stolen military explosive materials.”


Spokane isn’t that far away from my home in Moscow and I think I could literally throw a rock from the front door of my office in Redmond and have it land in Bellevue. But this guy has never appeared on my radar of “people of the gun” in the circles I run in.


He shouldn’t have been storing the stuff in an ordinary storage unit or be in possession of stolen property. That’s just wrong and he should “pay the price” for that. But other than that he’s being charged with a victimless crime. Had he purchased those items on the open market (as they should be) and had he stored them in a proper manner all would have been fine.


So, for the most part, all this effort and money being spent on investigation and prosecution is because the government has repressive laws on the books. Sort of like laws against sex toys. Except sex toys aren’t constitutionally protected like “arms” are. [Updated with the following sentence.] Except while protected in general by the constitution, sex toys aren’t a specifically enumerated constitution right like “arms” are.

More Brady Campaign Score correlations


I updated my Brady Campaign Score for state gun laws correlations. Previously I used FBI UCR data from 2005 with Brady Scores from 2007. My present results use only 2007 data and added correlations for the total violent crime rate, murder, and rape. The spreadsheet is here but the interesting part is as follows:





























FBI Data Type


Correlation Coefficient


Violent crime rate per 100K


0.016


Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate per 100K


-0.072


Forcible rape rate per 100K


-0.491


Percent murdered with firearm


0.056


Percent murdered with knife


0.287


Percent murdered with weapon other than firearm


0.028


Percent murdered with hands, fists, feet, etc.


-0.114


Remember:



The correlation coefficient always takes a value between -1 and 1, with 1 or -1 indicating perfect correlation (all points would lie along a straight line in this case). A positive correlation indicates a positive association between the variables (increasing values in one variable correspond to increasing values in the other variable), while a negative correlation indicates a negative association between the variables (increasing values is one variable correspond to decreasing values in the other variable). A correlation value close to 0 indicates no association between the variables.


For the most part there is no correlation between Brady Scores and the crime data. The exceptions are there does appear to be a moderate association between good Brady Scores and a decrease in rape and slight increase in the chances that if someone is murdered they will be murdered with a knife in Brady approved states.


The rape data point is a mystery to me. Most men have enough of a physical advantage on the average woman that having “easy access” to a gun would not seem to be an important part of forcing a female victim to comply. If “easy access” to guns were to enable any crime I would think it would be murder or even violent crime in general. But that does not seem to be the case.


Also of interest is that the FBI has footnotes explaining that Illinois didn’t supply much data and that for some unexplained reason Florida was not included in Table 20.


Any speculation, other than random coincidence, on why there is a negative correlation between good Brady Scores and rape rates?

More data points on gun sales

Yesterday Barb and I went on drive. This Thursday Barb has a class in Bellingham so we drove up there ahead of time to make sure she can find it without difficulty during morning traffic. It was a nice day and it was a pleasant drive and we got a chance to talk about a bunch of stuff rather than sitting at our respective desks with our hobbies.


Just prior to leaving we stopped at Joe’s Sports, Outdoor, and More (no relation). I was looking for some .45 ACP brass so I can reload for my Gun Blog 45. Midway is out of stock. The shelf with the brass was nearly empty with only a couple bags with some 7mm brass hanging from a hook. The powder and primer shelves were nearly empty as well. Hmmm…


On the way back from Bellingham we stopped at Kesselring Gun Shop in Burlington. The parking lot was FULL. And this is on the same weekend that WAC had their big show in Puyallup! I found a narrow spot to park between a building and a pickup that was parked such that it was blocking a private road. We went inside to find the store was packed. Every aisle was crowded. There was just barely enough room to move between all the people. I found the brass I was looking for at a reasonable price (considering), paid for it and we left.


One has to wonder if we had put that much money and effort into defeating Obama in November would we have succeeded? Being reactive seldom is better than proactive but that just isn’t the way human nature works. And the money gun owners are spending on firearms, ammo, and accessories could have gone into the election process and ended up in the hands of mainstream media who are one of our worst enemies and instead of into tools of freedom in our own hands.

Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

The Brady Law is still working to block handgun sales to convicted felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. In 1997 alone, 69,000 people who were prohibited by law from buying handguns were denied access to these lethal weapons due to background checks. In the four years since the Brady Law was implemented, an estimated 242,000 ineligible purchasers have been stopped from buying handguns.

 

Sarah Brady
June 21, 1998
Sarah Brady Statement on Justice Dept. Report on Brady Law Success
[I find it exceedingly telling that the Brady’s measure their success in terms of the number of people denied the purchase of a firearm. I contend the only valid measurement of the success of a restriction on firearms is whether the average person is made safer by that restriction. In other words the Brady measure ignores safety and celebrates the blocking of people from exercising a specific enumerated civil right.–Joe]

Quote of the day–2009 Montana Legislature

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.


2009 Montana Legislature
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
[I also like the part where it directs the Montana attorney general to “defend in full” any “Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute” for violation of federal law concerning a firearm manufactured and retained within Montana. It also provides this protection for firearms with bores up to 1.5 inches (38.1mm) in diameter.–Joe]

Brady Score versus murders committed with a firearm

Recently there has been some crowing about North Dakota having only two murders in 2008 (and neither were committed with a gun):



And of course North Dakota has a very poor score as far as the Brady Campaign is concerned.


While the claims made above are true this isn’t the whole story. It’s an example of cherry picking the data and is very risky if you are a scientist.


Using the FBI Uniform Crime Report (2005) and the Brady Campaign Scores on the states (2007) I came up with some interesting information. Starting with the FBI data I added the Brady Scores and added some additional rows and columns. The result is here*.


The bottom line is that the assuming someone is murdered then correlation between the Brady Score and a particular method of murder are as follows:



  • Weapon:Correlation
  • Firearm:0.009
  • Knife:0.215
  • Weapon other than firearm (including knives):-0.014
  • Hands, fists, feet, etc. (including being pushed):-0.180 0.007

Correlation is a number between -1.0 and 1.0, inclusive. What the above numbers mean is that a good Brady score does not mean there is a reduction in the the percentage of murders committed with firearms. It may mean there is a slight increase in the percentage of murders committed with knives and a decrease in the percentage of unarmed murders in Brady favored states. Another interesting set of data would be to compare the total violent crime rate to Brady Scores. I have done that in the past with the result of discovering there was essentially no correlation. Perhaps I’ll have time to look at that this weekend sometime.


Update: As noted in the comments I made a mistake on one of the formulas in the spreadsheet. This only affected the correlation of the “Hands, fists, feet, etc.” murders with the Brady Score. Instead of there being a slight negative correlation there is instead essentially zero correlation with Brady Scores. I have updated the spreadsheet accordingly.





* Please check my numbers and formulas. The Brady Scores were hand entered and hence are error prone. Also note that the original FBI table does not list Florida. I did not remove it intentionally.

Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

This dramatic decrease in gun violence debunks the gun lobby’s myth that gun control doesn’t work.  Common sense laws can and have worked. The gun lobby claims that ‘an armed society is a polite society’, when, in fact, the opposite is true. These reports show that fewer guns on our streets means less crime and less violence.


While we are grateful for this news, we know that more can and must be done. We have eliminated a number of sources for crime guns but loopholes still exist which allow criminals to ‘lie and buy.’ We need to institute a national one-gun-a-month law to reduce gun trafficking to criminals even further. We need to close the gun show loophole which allows so-called ‘private collectors’ at gun shows to sell their wares to anyone without doing a criminal background check.


Sarah Brady
Chair of Handgun Control, Inc
January 4, 1999
YEAR-END CRIME STATISTICS SHOW GUN LAWS WORK, SAYS SARAH BRADY
[Note the year–1999. Also my next post will be of interest to supporters of this claim of hers.–Joe]

Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, the American Bar Association (“ABA”), as amicus curiae, respectfully submits that the decision of the divided panel of the D.C. Circuit should be reversed, because the decision improperly rejected the long and consistent line of precedent on which this Nation has built its entire matrix of gun regulation.


William H. Neukom
January 11, 2008
President American Bar Association
Brief of the American Bar Association as amicus curiae supporting petitioners.
[Similar things could have been said about passage of the 13th Amendment or any number of things such as allowing women to vote and laws against using birth control. Hence his justification for rejecting the individual rights viewpoint of the D.C. Circuit carries no weight.


But, assuming his characterization of the nations gun laws is true, then one should reasonable expect the “entire matrix of gun regulation” to collapse under the Heller decision. I wish that were true. I think it’s possible but unlikely. We will have to play our game very, very, well in order to even approximate this.


Based on these two items which Neukum apparently got wrong I must conclude that Neukom doesn’t know what he is talking about and his opinion, in general, should be severely discounted.–Joe]

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

[T]he NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] and researchers have concluded that women who offer no resistance are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who resist their attackers with a gun. While the overall injury rate for both men and women was 30.2%, only 12.8% of those using a firearm for self-protection were injured. Subjective data from the 1994 NCVS reveals that 65 percent of victims felt that self-defense improved their situation, while only 9 percent thought that fighting back caused them greater harm.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[John Fogh said it a little more succinctly with, ‘Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.’ But some people prefer to see the details.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Henry David Thoreau

We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected.


Henry David Thoreau
Walden Chapter 11. Higher Laws
[Thanks to Shyam who suggested I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan who used this quote in his book. I just finished the book about 90 minutes ago. It’s a good book. Perhaps a bit slow and wordy but opinion that might be because I grew up on a farm and have hunted and gathered food as well. A lot of the material covered was already fairly well known to me.


If we could but get the teaching of gun safety and shooting in our schools for all children to learn as they learn to drive automobiles we would be able to win the battle for gun rights. But then if it were taught in the schools that would mean we had already won. So we much teach the children ourselves outside the schools. Still it’s not an impossible task. The improved communication channel of the Internet favor the educated rather than the ignorant and no matter how repressive the anti-gun bigots it’s hard for them to repress our speech, or accomplishments, or recreation, and our way of life without revealing themselves for who they are. They are timid creatures afraid of confronting reality and willing to use the iron hand of government to crush the imaginary demons they manufacture in their narrow little minds from ordinary people who happen to own a gun.–Joe]

Arrested for legally owning guns so guns must be confiscated

This is bizarre, but it’s New Jersey so what do you expect? The guns were legally owned but in a plea bargain the owner paid a small fine and the guns were confiscated:



Goldstein was arrested in March after Northfield police searched his Mount Vernon Avenue home after receiving a report of suspicious objects in his basement. The objects turned out to be old hand grenades and some fuses, but the discovery of a 9mm Uzi submachine gun and what police believed to be the sawed-off shotgun led to Goldstein’s arrest and extradition from Pennsylvania.

Possession of an assault weapon is a third-degree crime in New Jersey, carrying a sentence of as much as five years in prison.

Attorney Amy Weintrob said Goldstein’s Uzi was purchased and registered with the state in 1989 – one year before state law changed to criminalize Uzis as assault weapons.


“The registration was on file with the state of New Jersey,” Weintrob said, “and the Prosecutor’s Office verified the information, and therefore possession of the Uzi was not illegal.”


Housel said Goldstein did voluntarily register the Uzi under its old classification as a rifle in 1989, but after the law changed in 1990 there was a “grace period for (some) individuals who met certain criteria” to register their Uzis under the new classification as an assault weapon. Goldstein’s Uzi was never registered as an assault weapon, Housel said.

“Relying on less-than-complete information from the NRA,” Housel said, “(Goldstein) thought the prior registration was legitimate. Looking at whether there was criminal intent, it’s reasonable that he could have believed the Uzi was registered. The decision by (Assistant Prosecutor David) Ruffenach to do the plea agreement the way he did was a reasonable one.”

Regarding the shotgun, Weintrob said that she and an investigator went to the Northfield Police Department to measure the gun in front of officers. The result, she said, was that the gun was measured at 26.5 inches long, while to be legally considered “sawed-off” it had to be less than 26 inches long overall and less than 18 inches from breech to muzzle.

“That’s when they realized it was legal,” Weintrob said of the Northfield police, who she said were the lead investigators on the case. “The prosecutors realized they couldn’t proceed on that charge.”


…


Goldstein ended up pleading guilty to two amended charges of disorderly conduct resulting in a combined fine of $127. The weapons are in the custody of the Northfield police and could be either destroyed or sold, James said.

“It’s a good resolution for everybody,” Weintrob said. “Mr. Goldstein will never have those weapons again.”


Emphasis on that last line is mine. It’s good for everybody that Goldstein will never have those (legal) weapons again? Goldstein’s attorney, Amy Weintrob, as well as all the people representing the government in this case are bigots.