Mugme Street news

From the Seattle Police blog:

Officers arrested three women for robbery, among other things. On 1/1/14, throughout the evening there were several reports of multiple females walking through the crowds stealing cell phones and jumping people and stealing their cell phones.

One robbery occurred in the 500 block of Broad St just shortly after midnight and another was reported just shortly before 2:00 a.m., at 2nd Ave and Pike St.

A victim from the 2nd and Pike robbery flagged down an officer and advised him that the suspects who had stolen their cell phones were at a nearby bus stop.  Officers contacted and detained the suspects.  Two adult female suspects were later identified as having robbed the victim of her cell phone.

Technically, this is a block away from “Mugme Street” as Barb likes to call it. But still it is turf where I frequent. I can’t help thinking that  discharging few canisters of pepper spray and maybe an occasional drawn handgun at the appropriate times would make a big improvement in the environment.

California carry prediction follow up

About 10 months ago it was predicted that California will be shall issue in 2014. But it appears that prediction was contingent upon the Supreme Court resolving the split between the circuits on the issue of whether carry outside the home is a protected right or not. The court did not accept the cases presented to them.

But the case in Idaho, which is in the Ninth Circuit and includes California, from the other day which just ruled regulation of carry outside the home is subject to at least intermediate scrutiny and perhaps strict scrutiny. That case could help California residents.

Regardless of how things are going at the Federal level that prediction is getting a little closer to realization:

In a decision released today that forces the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to begin accepting and processing handgun carry license applications, Judge Deirdre Hill said that LASD must “consider the applications of all persons seeking a CCW permit in the first instance without requiring any applicant to first seek a CCW permit with his/her local police chief or city.”

The case, titled Lu v. Baca, was filed in 2012 by California-based gun rights organization The Calguns Foundation and a number of individual plaintiffs seeking to overturn an unlawful LASD policy that functioned as a de facto ban on handgun carry licenses for Los Angeles County residents.

Quote of the day—Rep. Kim Fawcett

When you use colors or visuals in your marketing materials that are almost identical to the same visuals used to market highly violent video games … you’re indicating that you intend to market to our kids.

Rep. Kim Fawcett
Democrat from Fairfield Connecticut
Newtown Activists Call For Change As Gun Trade Show Opens
January 13, 2014
[I don’t know exactly what “marketing materials” she is talking about but from what I can determine the video games use “visuals” that look like real firearms that were sold many years before the video games were created. Not that firearm manufacturers duplicated video game “visuals”.

I have to conclude Rep. Fawcett is either incredibly ignorant or malicious. And since she voted for the repressive gun laws in Connecticut I’m going with malicious. I look forward to this information being used at her trial.—Joe]

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.

Flinging time

Yup, looks like it’s done enough to toss out into the wild. The Stars Came Back is now a genuine product you can buy at Amazon. It should be pretty clean, and the story’s all there, and there are some graphics included, and more at the supporting website, www.TheStarsCameBack.com. It is also a good place to ask questions, find out more, etc. If you DO notice any typos, problems, or whatever, let me know, I can update it. If you like it, positive reviews are always appreciated.

Sorry it’s taken so long, after planning on getting it out last June (or maybe July), but it’s been a very educational process for me. Now I get to learn about taxes, exchanged rates, defending copyrights, all sorts of exciting stuff like that.

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.

Gun Fun – Gringo Pistolero sung by Andy Stanford

A shooting instructor, at the range, with an accordion. Yeah, this should be a hoot.

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]

More from Churchill

Though he wasn’t born here, he obviously was an American;

“Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.”

==============

“If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

==============

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

==============

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

==============

“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly”

==============

“A joke is a very serious thing.”

==============

From brainyquote.com

The British Parliament of course hated him, or so it is said.

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.

Full faith and credit…

…in a gang of thieves.

You know all those crazy, wild-eyed loons living in trailer parks who’ve been warning us about the Federal Reserve? Yeah; what a bunch of maroons (cough cough).

And no; your safe deposit box isn’t really all that secure either. Not anymore. There’s already talk of reaching into people’s bank accounts on a large scale and taking some of it, they’ve already set up the “infrastructure” to do that, and it’s already been done at least once as a trial balloon.

The Progressives (Democrats and Republicans) have already spent your money, you understand (and your children’s money and their children’s money). Now it’s CYA time for the perpetrators.

If you never understood why government types are so terrified of the concept of an armed populace that they’re willing to make complete asses of themselves and risk prosecution for depriving citizens of a constitutionally protected right, maybe you begin to understand a little bit better. It’s not that they’re all that stupid, necessarily– They’re fucking terrified at the prospect of their chickens coming home to roost. Criminals fear armed victims more than anything else. They’re already starting to act like the cornered predators they are, and a cornered predator is a very dangerous thing indeed.

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]

Interesting graphic

I came across this graphic. I thought it interesting. I think their intent was to say gun control causes crime, but my first blush read isn’t that it’s saying gun control causes crime, but that other social changes that cause crime tend to lead to gun control, and then repeal of those stupid laws are usually caused by other social changes that, in concert with liberalized gun laws, tend to push crime back down.Ayj53JB[1]

Got the pic at http://i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg , just FYI.