Peter Biddle (Twitter feed is here) shares another video of Boomershoot 2011. This one is of the opening fireball.
I think it is Barron whom you hear say, “Ry, you are a magnificent god!”
Quote of the day—Chief Justice Paul De Muniz
We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not preempt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses.
Paul De Muniz
Oregon State Supreme Court Chief Justice
May 19, 2011
Ore. court rules medical pot users can have guns
[What the article doesn’t say is that, as pointed out by Dave Workman, “A permit to carry is merely a document. Nobody ever got shot with a document. And the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling takes great pains to explain that issuing a permit does not constitute allowing the recipient of that permit to actually possess a firearm in defiance of federal law.”
One step at a time.—Joe]
Logical Contradiction
NRCC Chairman, Pete Sessions, just sent out a letter. First sentence;
While House Republicans are working hard to return our country to economic prosperity and strengthen and secure Medicare…
Let me see if can put this into perspective. While House Republicans are working hard to run our economy for us (because we’re too stupid and/or evil to do it ourselves) and to try, once again, to make socialism viable. ETS; Or are they working hard to free the economy so it can work, AND trying to make socialism viable? They don’t say. That’s about how I read it.
Quote of the day—Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley
There is nothing in the record that supports the conclusion that defendants knew or should have known that sales of guns in their home states were having consequences in New York.
…
A particularly troubling aspect of the jurisdictional analysis conducted below is the reliance on what the district judge termed the defendants’ “cumulative parallel conduct” as a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction. According to the district court’s theory, although the “out-of-state activities of a single defendant alone may not suffice to establish jurisdiction,” because of “knowing parallel conduct, the extent of the combined harm may provide a basis for jurisdiction over each one.” 501 F. Supp. 2d at 422. The New York Court of Appeals has never adopted a theory pursuant to which combined or parallel conduct may be relied upon to establish a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant when jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.
…
The district court determined that an “inflexible application of a traditional jurisdictional analysis that fails to take account of unique practical commercial factors does not effectively insure the fair and orderly administration of the law.” Id. at 419. The court preferred to adopt what it termed a “reality-based pragmatic jurisdictional analysis.” Id. However, the district court was not free to depart from “traditional jurisdictional analysis” in order to hold defendants subject to suit in New York. The “fair and orderly administration of the law” is best achieved by applying the same standards to all litigants and by adherence to well-defined legal principles.
The district court’s jurisdictional analysis undermines the protection afforded to out-of-state defendants by section 302(a)(3)(ii). As both this Court and the New York Court of Appeals have previously explained, this provision “is intended to ensure some link between a defendant and New York State to make it reasonable to require a defendant to come to New York to answer for tortious conduct committed elsewhere.” LaMarca, 95 N.Y.2d at 215 (quoting Ingraham, 90 15 N.Y.2d at 598). The relevant long-arm provision is specifically “designed to . . . preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but ‘whose business operations are of a local character.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham, 90 N.Y.2d at 599). Here, it is indisputable that defendants’ businesses are of a local character.
The district court also asserted that “[t]here is no specific dollar threshold at which revenue becomes substantial for purposes of [section] 302(a)(3)(ii).”7 501 F. Supp. 2d at 417. Even if this is so, it was error to excuse the City from making any showing that defendants derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.
Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The City of New York, Plaintiff-Appellee, – v – Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC,
May 4, 2011
[What isn’t, but should be, said is that “the district court” is Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein. Weinstein has long used tortuous chains of logic that blatantly violate due process, existing law, and previous decisions to arrive at anti-gun conclusions. This is not the first time Weinstein has been overturned on decisions he has made regarding firearms. His rulings have been so biased and clearly wrong they have frequently been overturned.
Mayor Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun bigots have never had anything but praise for him and take advantage of his bias against gun ownership.
- GUN MAKERS UNDER ATTACK IN COURTROOMS (1999)
- Statement of Dennis Henigan, Brady Center on Judge’s Ruling in Gun Violence Case (2003)
- Federal Judge Dismisses NAACP Lawsuit Against Gun Industry, But in 176-Page Decision Finds That Industry Practices Contribute to Gun Violence in New York (2003)
- BROOKLYN JURY DECISION PROPER, NOW JUDGE NEEDS TO CONCUR, SAYS SAF (2003)
- NEW YORK CITY’S GUN LAWSUIT GETS GREEN LIGHT FOR TRIAL, Judge Rejects Gun Industry’s Motion to Dismiss (2004)
- Federal Judge Finds New Law No Bar To New York City’s Lawsuit Against The Gun Industry (2005)
- SAF CALLS ON JUDGE WEINSTEIN TO STEP DOWN (2007)
- Mayor Bloomberg Notches Another Victory Against Illegal Guns (2008)
- BLOOMBERG OUTRAGE: ASKS JUDGE TO BAN 2ND AMENDMENT REFERENCES! (2008)
- SAF CHEERS FEDERAL COURT REJECTION OF BLOOMBERG LAWSUIT (2008)
- GA GUN DEALER MADE RIGHT MOVE IN QUEST FOR FAIR TRIAL, SAYS SAF (2008)
As Sebastian said, Judge Weinstein’s Game is Hopefully Over. He is now 90 years old and it is time for him to retire into the dustbin of history.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Bob Walker
FreedomChannel.com will be a valuable tool to reach Americans from all political persuasions. The fight against gun violence should not be a partisan issue and we look forward to getting our message out to the public through FreedomChannel.com.
Bob Walker
President of Handgun Control, Inc.
November 4, 1999
HANDGUN CONTROL PARTICIPATES IN LAUNCH OF NEW POLITICAL INTERNET SITE, FREEDOMCHANNEL.COM
[One would think it has to be satire when an organization with a name like “Handgun Control” gives praise to an organization with “freedom” in its name. But FreedomChannel.com was an Orwellian construct. Apparently they really believed that if their slogans are repeated enough people will believe them. It was a slogan taken directly out of the book, WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and, obviously, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
Apparently they thought people would fail to recognize Nineteen Eighty-Four was dystopian novel rather than play book to achieve their goals.—Joe]
Critical Pedagogy Hits Home
There’s been some talk about it lately and it’s been in the news, but it’s also been in your home town school for some time. Here is a history paper, handed out in my son’s history class, complete with syntax errors, inexplicable asterisks, bad grammar, omitted words, and miss-numbering. The kids were told to memorize it. Keep in mind the title of the piece – “U.S. History” This is all American. Everything below is what made/makes us tick;
U.S. History
Philosophies — Foreign and Domestic
“What Made/Makes Us Tick”
1. Capitalism – Pure*** vs. Regulated
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
OK, right there; no mention of property rights, the acknowledgement and protection of which result in capitalism. “Corporately owned” IS privately owned, but they must make a distinction.
Pure capitalism over time results in poverty, worker abuse, environmental destruction, a two class social structure, and governmental control by the wealthy. All economic, political and social norms were control directly ad indirectly by the wealthy. Even the presentation of religious views were seen through the eyes of the capitalistic values.(2-
Karl Marx would be giddy with pride seeing what our public schools are teaching my kids today. There’s so much wrong with that one paragraph I don’t know where to begin. For one thing, “governmental control by the wealthy” defines a corrupt government. The acknowledgement and protection of property rights, which defines capitalism, does not lead to governmental control by the wealthy. That’s a contradiction in terms, but you’re not supposed to notice. Corrupt politicians lead to governmental control by the wealthy, and for that they should be arrested.
Regulated Capitalism – has produced our nation. Government regulates what industry can do within limits. Environmental impact (air quality), worker safety, fair pay, fair trade, and business dealings are regulated by law.
The Fascisti would certainly approve of that statement, and they were committed Marxists. Notice throughout this whole piece that there is no mention of human rights, or of America’s founding principles. That would blow the whole thing though, wouldn’t it?
2. Expansionism
The belief that the nation must grow to acquire natural resources, new areas of trade, and living space. (Safety Value Theory – Turner Thesis)
3. Manifest Destiny (New Manifest Destiny)***
— Similar to Expansionism. This was the belief that God had pre-determined (destined) the United States to expand. It was an outgrowth of the Puritan ethic [God rewards those who work hard and live an exemplary life.] The term eventually meant that the U.S. would eventually control the land from coast to coast. This belief system motivated the “Western Movement.” The acquisition of land and the displacement of Native Americans became justified in part by this belief system. The Mexican War, the Southwest land, Northwest Territory, and Alaska are also acquired with belief system as the driving force for America to expand.
Nearly every country that ever existed has practiced some version of Manifest Destiny or Expansionism. The American government did some terrible things to the Indians. The innuendo I get from this is that there are wrongs remaining to be righted, which is actually being said elsewhere, complete with the “R” word (revolution) in the above linked video, as part of a school curriculum.
4. Whiteman’s Burden – Anglo Saxonism*** The term is taken from a poem by Rudyard Kipling in which he states is was “the white man’s burden” to colonize the other nations for their benefit. In practice it was the belief that:
God had chosen the Anglo-Saxon race to colonize the “less fortunate” peoples of the world. In so doing they were to bring them education, the Christian faith, a Puritan work ethic, capitalism, health care, and the other “benefits” of our culture.
Ah, so America really IS racist! Crap!
5. Imperialism***
–,The control of one nation over another nation or territory for the purposes of acquiring natural resources, trade, and/or military advantage. This is the core of U.S. expansion. The acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba, and the Philippines are examples of imperialism.
Notice how they slipped trade in there, like trading with people in another nation amounts to Imperialism. We bastards! Those poor victims!
6. Rugged Individualism
— The belief that individuals are to provide for their own needs without the help of others. “I can do it myself.” This was the pioneer spirit and the belief of the nation in the 1800s. It worked against the average person during the latter part of the Industrial Revolution as corporations controlled the variables of life. Working harder did not mean greater rewards for the worker. It meant greater profits for the corporation.
The ideal of self sufficiency worked against the average person, eh? So you’d be better off relying on others. Notice too the repeated use of the word “worker”. “Workers of the World Unite” then, I guess. There are those evil corporations again, and the use of “profits” as an epithet.
7. Social Darwinism
— Applying the theory of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, to political and social life. The strong must survive to benefit the entire nation. No sympathy for the weak, (poor, workers). Laws and social customs were for the benefit of the fittest (rich, industrialist, upper crust of society). When you combine the philosophies of Social Darwinism with imperialism, and Manifest Destiny., the world created was a tough one for the average person.
The Nazis were Social Darwinists, or I would say “Socialist Darwinists”. Let’s be clear.
8. Humanitarianism
— the belief that mankind should help others just because they can. “Social Gospel” of the latter 1800s.
“Just because they can”, mind you. Not because it’s the right thing to do. Not because there are rich people who are, you know, actually human.
9. Liberty/Freedom/Self-determination*
These fundamental beliefs began to take on a new meaning for many of society as the end of the century approached. The empathy to “occupied countries” overseas and to the oppressed at home gains attention of a wider spectrum of society in the late 1800s.
Again no mention of rights, rights protection, or founding principles. Instead it’s all up for grabs, depending on prevailing theories.
9. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
It is easier to define American Imperialism by contrasting it with Imperialism.
Imperialism is centered on Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, and White Man’s Burden.
There were never, ever, anywhere, any non-white Imperialists then. You racist, you.
American Imperialism tempers those beliefs with humanitarianism and the beliefs of self-determination, freedom and liberty. Our present foreign and domestic policies are motivated by this belief.
There you have it. We’re an Imperialist nation. Damn us all to hell.
This history lesson is a self-contradictory and confused jumble of omissions, lies, half truths and truths. Would Karl Marx strongly disagree with any of it?
Quote of the day—Jim Maas
The constitutional … right to keep and bear arms, Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, passed in 1998. It makes bearing arms a right, rather than a privilege, just like the right to free speech.
Just like free speech, we should not expect to have to purchase a permit or jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise our freedoms. Some who oppose law-abiding fellow citizens from bearing arms would like to pretend that the Constitutional amendment was never passed. They are bringing up the same old arguments they offered back in the ’90s. Those arguments are now irrelevant. Our statutes must now conform to the constitution. That is how the system is supposed to work.
Jim Maas
April 17, 2011
Jim Maas column: Concealed carry is a right
[That is the way it is supposed to work but just like with the Jim Crow laws the bigots make it as difficult as they possibly can for minorities to exercise their rights. We have a lot of work to do to reach true equality.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Josh Moon
There are too many guns floating around here these days.
…
They’re doing all they can on the back end to get guns off the street, but they’re fighting a losing battle.
It sure would be nice if we did something to help on the front end, when we’re handing these guns out like candy to anyone with a pulse.
I’ve made no secret of my position on guns: The ease with which we distribute them drives me crazy.
I’m sorry, but it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver’s license. And it certainly shouldn’t be easier to get unlimited amounts of ammunition than it is to vote.
Josh Moon
May 14, 2011
Just Saying: Proactive measures needed to help curb gun violence
[I could spend a paragraph or three fisking each of those sentences but I think it boils down to a single problem with this guys mindset. There is no “we”. If he could ever understand that then the rest of his errors would fall away like hot ejected brass shell casing.—Joe]
Mother and child of Satan
Last year there was this guy that blew himself up and was in the hospital for some time but ultimately recovered. The speculation at the time was that he used Tannerite and he was extremely stupid in the application.
Even if the stupid part was correct it turns out that it wasn’t Tannerite. Darwin was unable to cure his stupidity and now the Federal Government is attempting to address the symptoms. He was arrested Monday and the affidavit for his arrest was unsealed yesterday with interesting details. His explosives included Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP) which is sometimes known as Mother of Satan because of its high susceptibility to accidental detonation.
Other interesting stuff in the affidavit indicates the world would have been much better off if Darwin had been successful. This guy appears to be someone many would characterize as a child of Satan.
Update: I found the following interesting as well. This is from the list of items to be searched for and seized in the affidavit. Notice that nearly every home has the precursor chemicals to make explosives. This is one of the reasons I say the TSA explosives tests cannot be effective and are a waste of time. Explosives can be easily made from common household materials. If the TSA were to screen for these they would generate so many false positives that the “pat downs” and extensive searches would raise the cost of TSA to even higher levels and create even more public outrage. Since they don’t test for these chemicals explosive devices can be easily made and detonated on board commercial flights at will.
Archive photo
Barb and I have been digitizing and storing old photos with redundant storage on two computers hundreds of miles away from each other. This picture of Barbara from 1982 really struck me:
Very nice. Pleasant memories.
Quote of the day—Tom Diaz
We are singular in the world culture in our tolerance of guns.
The United States has become a kind of underdeveloped moral Third World, a place where the rest of the world can indulge its gun lust.
Tom Diaz
Senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center.
May 23, 1999
Florida — Gun Culture Makes The U.S. A Trigger Point For Foreign Tourists With Firearms Fantasies
[This is from the dark days of the late 1990s. There are still troglodytes who think this way and want us to return to the age of clubs, rocks, and primitive knives even though most of the rest of the country is far more enlightened these days. Just don’t forget this is what they think of us and what they will do to our culture if they get the chance.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb
When it comes to filing pro-gun lawsuits, SAF has an itchy trigger finger.
Alan Gottlieb
May 13, 2011
SAF sues Illinois over prohibition on self-defense carry
[While the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) doesn’t have a perfect record on lawsuits they have a record that is much better than the opposition and their competitors in the gun owner rights activist space. Donations to them are tax deductible and some companies will match your donations. I have a monthly donation deducted from my paycheck for them. Lets keep the momentum going. The only restriction on the speed of our advance should be the speed of the courts and sleep required by “The Two Alans.” Don’t let it be money.—Joe]
Random thought of the day
I just realized the CSGV disclosure of peoples real names makes sense if you have the correct world view. Perhaps they think of gun bloggers as superheroes and themselves as the bad guys.
Wrong answer
The answer given is close but I think whatever college major people who end up as gun control activists would be far better.
Quote of the day—Barbara Scott
Maybe they will try to out you next. But do you think they are smart enough?
Barbara Scott
May 11, 2011
To me. After reading about CSGV outing bloggers they don’t like.
[My response was, “Quote of the day!”—Joe]
CSGV who?
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is so “low on my radar” that I almost always ignore them. How many people do they have on staff? More than three? They claim they have 48 member organizations. I have not heard of about two thirds of them. And what political influence do they have? Can they send out a mailing and get more than 10 people to contact any politician or sway an election? I don’t think so.
They have a “sister organization” called “Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence” which is a 501(C)(3) corp. I looked them up on Charity Navigator and found this:
We don’t evaluate Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.
Why not? We had previously evaluated this organization, but they are now filing the IRS Form 990 EZ as allowed under the Internal Revenue Code. Charity Navigator can not complete an evaluation for charities that file the 990 EZ because that form does not contain all the information we require.
The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence is listed ( Primary Revenue Growth -11.5%). And so is the Violence Policy Center.
But I did find their IRS filing for 2009. They had total revenue of $372,600 with net assets or fund balances of $86,407. This is down from 2001 when they had a total revenue of $1,579,241 and net assets or fund balances of $316,274.
$372.6K in net revenue? Really? Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign has a yearly salary of nearly 70% ($258,828) of that.
I suppose that should explain some of their efforts recently. They just don’t have the resources to do anything of substance. [sarcasm]But they are really on their path to the big league by threatening a few bloggers.[/sarcasm]
But how do you explain this email from a week ago?
What are Gun Rights Groups so Afraid of?
If you ever needed evidence that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is having a powerful impact on the national conversation about gun violence, look no further. Just in the past week, gun rights groups have made several panicked attempts to counteract our work.
First, the NRA lashed out at CSGV in an editorial in the most recent issue of its flagship publication, America’s First Freedom. The editorial referred to a recent blog I published at the Huffington Post and was a desperate attempt to defend their view that the Constitution sanctions private political violence. Mocking my philosophy and “life’s work,” editor Blaine Smith compares American citizens in a constitutional republic to starving grizzly bears in the untamed wilderness of Alaska. You can read the NRA’s bizarre piece here.
Second, the National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF) responded to a recent “countermarketing” strategy guide by our affiliate, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (Ed Fund), with panicked threats of litigation. Our report educates activists about using the “buyer power” of cities to require gun manufacturers to implement marketing safeguards on firearms sales. In the face of this powerful new advocacy tool, the NSSF has resorted to blanket threats to sue any municipal government who tries to leverage their purchasing power to curb illegal gun trafficking.
Third, the Ed Fund placed prominent newspaper ads signed by 105 gun violence survivors during last weekend’s NRA convention in Pittsburgh. The survivors asked NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre to sit down and have a constructive dialogue about how to prevent gun violence in our country. When confronted face-to-face about the invitation to talk, however, LaPierre ran away!
Gun rights groups are clearly feeling the heat, and your gift today will help keep up the pressure. If you want to keep gun rights groups on the defensive, please support CSGV’s hard-hitting work.
Thank you for joining with us to take on the gun lobby,
Josh Horwitz
Executive Director
CSGV is having a powerful impact? It’s more like they are being made fun of as the village idiot.
Hard hitting work? I guess that would be finding out and reporting the real names of a couple of bloggers.
I say just ignore them. I’m sure all the politicians and courts do.
First banning of a Boomershoot participant
I suppose there is a first time for everything. I hope this is the last time this happens. I took no pleasure in doing this. But after hearing the reports and then getting the emails it was very clear what had to be done. The situation was very bad. Every year I think I will do some training with my range officers and make sure they know they have the authority to kick someone out on the spot and I will back them up. Had they been kicked out on the second offense I might not have had to permanently ban them. As it is I didn’t see that I had a choice. I had numerous people report the same incidents and all strongly recommend the ban.
I sent the following email today and will be making modifications to the online entry software to help enforce this:
From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Subject: We have a problem.
After Boomershoot this year I had two of my range officers tell me of some persistent and severe rule violations by one of our participants. I then received email from several participants describing the events reported by my range officers and naming you as the offender.
I cannot in good conscious allow you to participate at Boomershoot again. If an injury were to occur as a result of your actions I would be bear some of the responsibility since it was known to me that you repeatedly violated the safety rules even after being told many times.
I am sorry to do this but while you are welcome as a spectator you are permanently banned from participating in Boomershoot.
There is no appeal.
Joe Huffman
Boomershoot Event Director
Quote of the day—Maksim Khrapov
In the country where I grew up only the KGB had the guns.
Maksim Khrapov
[If you think you want to live in a place where only the police and military possess firearms you should first talk to various people who have lived under such conditions before attempting to force your beliefs upon an entire nation. Those that have lived in those countries and talked to such people may be less accepting of and more vigorous in their opposition to your plan than you anticipate.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Senator Al Franken
Steve Jobs said to the press that ‘we build a database of cell tower hotspots that could be 100 miles away from where you are, those are not telling you anything about your location.’ Yet in a written statement, Apple explained that the very same data would help your iPhone calculate its location. How can those two statements be true at the same time? Does this data indicate anything about your location or doesn’t it?
Senator Al Franken
May 10, 2011
Senators press Apple, Google for answers about location tracking
[I know! I know!
While Apple is a direct competitor to my employer (Microsoft) with this product and it’s not in my best interest to defend them I feel compelled to say that in this particular instance Apple is getting a bum rap. I worked on this same feature in Windows Phone 7 and understand the problem very, very well.
The answer given wasn’t the best and that probably made it difficult for Franken to grasp the concepts. So I’ll try again. Almost for certain this is how it works. The phone obtains a collection of cell tower locations and unique cell tower IDs in a particular geographical area. This area could be a rectangle that is 100 miles by 100 miles on a side. When the user requests their location the phone obtains the unique ID of the cell tower the phone is connected to. The ID is looked up in the collection of cell towers, just as someone’s name might be looked up in an address book. The location/address of the cell tower is then returned to the user as the best estimate of the user’s location.
As long as the cell tower IDs used for location lookup are not stored then the best that can be done by examination of the files on the phone is to see the different cell towers (and Wi-Fi) collections that were stored. As long as those collections were large (100 miles by 100 miles per collection) then the best that can be deduced is the user was someplace within that collection area. If the collection area is much smaller, say 100 feet by 100 feet (this could happen because Wi-Fi access points have much greater density that cell towers) then it becomes very important to make sure those collections are secure from snooping. If those collections are sometimes for a small geographical area and the files are not made secure then shame on Apple. They were being careless with the users privacy and should be chastised for that carelessness. But at this time I cannot conclude Apple screwed up.
So to answer Franken’s questions, those two statement can be true at the same time. The data does indicate your position within the geographical area of the hotspot locations. But that does not necessarily mean the location is know with the type of accuracy that a stalker would find particular useful–unless just knowing the city or zip code is sufficiently damaging.—Joe]
Rational thought isn’t their strong point
As Dave Hardy points out the Brady Campaign cannot be truthful and yet simultaneously claim they do not wish to make firearm ownership difficult just for the sake of making it difficult and claim it is good news there are reports that firearms ownership is declining. Their pleasure at the claims of lower firearms ownership must be interpreted as reduced ownership rates as a desirable goal. If they desire that goal then all their actions must be viewed as something they consider might further that goal.
I find their views on reports of reduced gun ownership rates like someone cheering a reduction in the number of people who vote, write letters to the editor, or people voluntarily becoming slaves.